From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 00:16:34 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] again with the gun stats
In-Reply-To: <01b101c3b791$595fd720$c5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031201001634.25724.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Note that these are not [all] deaths. How does this compare with
> some other places
> > of comparable size? Inner London in 2001: 2,765,975, so maybe
> roughly
> > equivalent of US population would be 94,000 armed crimes
> 
> A tad more tells me:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/about/index.htm
> 
> < Today, the Metropolitan Police Service employs 29,278 officers,
> 11,368
> police staff, 609 traffic wardens and 865 Police Community Support
> Officers
> (PCSOs), and, since the realignment of police boundaries in April
> 2000, it
> covers an area of 620 square miles and a population of 7.2million.
> (figures updated: August 2003) >

Lets see, London has 1 cop per 133 members of the general population,
and 68 cops per square mile.

In contrast, for example, the city of Concord, NH, has an entire police
department staff of 94, covering a population of 40,000+ and 64 square
miles, or just under 1 per 400 members of the general population, and
1.5 per square mile. Why is Concord's crime rate so much lower than
London's, despite London having three times as many police per 1000
population, and more than 40 times more cops per square mile??????

Note that New Hampshire has the lowest crime rate in the entire US, 2.2
per 100 population. We also have the 3rd most free gun laws in the US,
and one of the highest degrees of gun ownership in the US.

Look up NH crime rates:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 00:24:30 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <022601c3b799$17ddd880$c5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031201002430.26834.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> As I pointed out last time this comical factoid came around, the
> figures in question were as follows:
> 
> http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html
> 
> Victoria (population circa 5 million) recorded 7 firearm-related
> homicides in 1996, and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997. That
> number has now fallen.
> 
> 1996 - 7
> 1997 - 19 (171.4% increase from 1996 to 1997)
> 1998 - 17 (10.5% decrease from 1997 to 1998).
> 1999 - 14 (17.6% decrease from 1998 to 1999).
> 
> =============
> 
> Why keep citing this preposterous silliness, Mike?

Lets see, you say a doubling of murders in a three year time span is a
decrease???? Did you write copy for the Clinton White House? This is
the ultimate in Orwellian spin doctoring...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 00:29:29 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] life expectancy
In-Reply-To: <3FCA7DC4.8010605@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20031201002929.4005.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun Nov 30, 2003 03:38 pm Damien Broderick queried:
> >
> > Bill, I'm still trying to make sense of this. After you exclude the
> > wild and dangerous life style of Canadian women, their life 
> > expectancy *drops* from 81.4 years to 73.5? I guess that the latter
> > figure is for the entire living female population, or more exactly
> > that the former figure is for girl babies born between 1997 and
> 1999, does 
> > that sound right?
> >
> 
> Yeh, confusing isn't it? :)
> Even when you read it in the full report it still seems likely to
> confuse.

Depends. For example, while pregnancy is itself a mortality risk
factor, NOT having a child prior to age 25 raises a womans risk of
breast and cirvical cancer considerably. While not having kids might be
considered "reducing risk", in the end you are increasing your risk.
It's one of those counter-intuitive things that goes against
conventional wisdom, like moderate drinking is life extending and being
slightly overweight is better than being obese OR underweight for life expectancy.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From gregburch at gregburch.net  Mon Dec  1 00:45:08 2003
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:45:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <20031201002430.26834.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDGEDMCBAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Lorrey
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:25 PM
> 
> --- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > As I pointed out last time this comical factoid came around, the
> > figures in question were as follows:
> > 
> > http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html
> > 
> > Victoria (population circa 5 million) recorded 7 firearm-related
> > homicides in 1996, and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997. That
> > number has now fallen.
> > 
> > 1996 - 7
> > 1997 - 19 (171.4% increase from 1996 to 1997)
> > 1998 - 17 (10.5% decrease from 1997 to 1998).
> > 1999 - 14 (17.6% decrease from 1998 to 1999).
> > 
> > =============
> > 
> > Why keep citing this preposterous silliness, Mike?
> 
> Lets see, you say a doubling of murders in a three year time span is a
> decrease???? Did you write copy for the Clinton White House? This is
> the ultimate in Orwellian spin doctoring...

For crying out loud, Mike, that's *NOT* what Damien is saying.  He's saying the numbers are so small in absolute terms that expressing increases in terms of percentages from one year to the next is meaningless.  If you must apply a percentage to these statistics, it would seem to be more meaningful to express them in terms of the percentage of the population killed by firearms:

1996: 0.00014%
1997: 0.00038%
1998: 0.00034%
1999: 0.00028%

All of which is statistically almost meaningless -- the numbers are just too small.

GB
http://www.gregburch.net/burchismo.html


From max at maxmore.com  Mon Dec  1 00:59:51 2003
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:59:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun and crime stats for the USA
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031130185856.05ba78d8@mail.earthlink.net>

More numbers to argue over:

The nation`s violent crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 
population) has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 22-year low. 
And murder is at a 35-year low. (FBI, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) The trends 
include the following highlights:
?       Since 1991, the nation`s violent crime rates have all decreased 
substantially. Total violent crime (the aggregate of murder and 
non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), has 
decreased 33.2%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter has decreased 43.7%; 
rape has decreased 24.2%; robbery has decreased 46.9%; and aggravated 
assault has decreased 25.3%.
?       National violent crime rates in 2000 were the lowest in years. 
Total violent crime, the lowest since 1978; murder, the lowest since 1965; 
rape, the lowest since 1978; robbery, the lowest since 1968; and aggravated 
assault, the lowest since 1985.
?       Further demonstrating the irrelevance of "gun control" to crime 
rates, between 1991 (when violent crime started declining nationally) and 
2000, states that had the greatest decreases in violent crime generally, 
and in murder in particular, included both those that have some of the 
nation`s least restrictive gun laws (such as Texas, Alabama, South 
Carolina, and West Virginia) and those that have some of the most 
restrictive (such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut).
?       In 2000, as in previous years, firearms were used in less than 
one-fourth of violent crimes. Most violent crimes were committed with hands 
and feet (32%), blunt objects and other weapons (28%), and knives (15%).
?       In 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent 
crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total 
violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was 
37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (Rape, the violent 
crime least likely to involve firearms, was 0.8% higher.)
?       The only states that experienced increases in their murder rates 
between 1991 (when violent crime began declining) and 2000 were Rhode 
Island (16%), Nebraska (12%), Kansas (3%), and Minnesota (3%), all of which 
still do not have Right-to-Carry laws.







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Dec  1 02:06:08 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal effectiveness
In-Reply-To: <16330.23389.637199.899914@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20031201020608.94250.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>

--- JDP <jacques at dtext.com> wrote:
> (You're really master of the art when you
> can add to all
> this a tricky conversation with a potential sexual
> partner that you
> have just met, or with an intellectually
> sophisticated person arguing
> about some novel philosophical point -- and if the
> same person is
> both, then that's really spectacular.)

My family does the second out of habit: cooking is a
survival skill (I'm actually the least talented out
of my immediate family), plus we discuss various
brainstorms in idle moments.  "Potential sexual
partner" does not apply, of course, except between the
family members married to each other - but bringing
the children up to be comfortable doing this has lead
to, well, us being able to do it.

> Which brings us back to time-management,
> prioritizing, and
> synchronization, all integral to personal
> effectiveness.

<nods>  Recently, I've been experimenting with
cramming more things into my schedule.  For the first
time in a long while, I've found the limits of how
much I can do at once.  (I'm *trying* to back away
from said limits now, to add emergency capacity - but,
of course, the holiday season adds in its own extra
tasks.)


From dsunley at shaw.ca  Mon Dec  1 02:23:35 2003
From: dsunley at shaw.ca (Darin Sunley)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:23:35 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDGEDMCBAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <004701c3b7b2$1f9ab480$0201a8c0@BOB>

Any of us who've been around here long enough to remember the last big gun
flamefest have seen all of this rhetoric, on both sides, before. But there
is a new and intriguing element this time around.

The previous flamewar emerged from the standard, familiar dynamics of
text-based communications. Lack of face-to-face communication erodes the
standard social cognitive feedback loops that generate civil behavior in
most well-socialized adults. As is common in these situations, neither party
had any particular formal training in the subject area, just the informed
interest of a passionate layman. Neither party claimed to represent any
organization larger than themselves, and therefore all flames were strictly
personal. The participants could damage their own credibility, and sometimes
even that of their opponents, but no one else's.

This time however, the scale of the conflict is slightly larger. Dirk claims
to be representing a new political party and, one assumes, has aspirations
to eventually run as a candidate himself, or to speak for candidates running
in local elections in the UK.

Dirk, as fun as this petulant sniping and blatant stereotyping must be for
you, and as much as it must seem that Mr. Lorrey started it and that honour
must be satisfied, you MUST hold yourself to a higher standard of public
behavior. This list is archived publically. As a citizen of the UK you must
surely be famliar with the less savoury elements of your local media. The
publishing of this, frankly petty, flamefest  would, if spun appropriately,
do serious damage to your long term credibility as a member of the British
political community.

Do yourself a huge favour and rise above the petty flamefests that
characterize these kind of online debates. Tossing statistics of
indeterminate credibility, tidbits of sarcasm and mediocre wit, and
stereotypes constituting viscious insults won't win you the support of the
average cocktail party, let alone a parliamentary riding where your clear
passion for the issues might have some actual influence on public debate.

To summarize, Dirk, this is not the time, not the place, and it is certainly
not the manner in which to have this debate.

Darin Sunley,
dsunley at shaw.ca


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burch" <gregburch at gregburch.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; "Damien Broderick"
<thespike at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Guns


>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Lorrey
> > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:25 PM
> >
> > --- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > As I pointed out last time this comical factoid came around, the
> > > figures in question were as follows:
> > >
> > > http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html
> > >
> > > Victoria (population circa 5 million) recorded 7 firearm-related
> > > homicides in 1996, and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997. That
> > > number has now fallen.
> > >
> > > 1996 - 7
> > > 1997 - 19 (171.4% increase from 1996 to 1997)
> > > 1998 - 17 (10.5% decrease from 1997 to 1998).
> > > 1999 - 14 (17.6% decrease from 1998 to 1999).
> > >
> > > =============
> > >
> > > Why keep citing this preposterous silliness, Mike?
> >
> > Lets see, you say a doubling of murders in a three year time span is a
> > decrease???? Did you write copy for the Clinton White House? This is
> > the ultimate in Orwellian spin doctoring...
>
> For crying out loud, Mike, that's *NOT* what Damien is saying.  He's
saying the numbers are so small in absolute terms that expressing increases
in terms of percentages from one year to the next is meaningless.  If you
must apply a percentage to these statistics, it would seem to be more
meaningful to express them in terms of the percentage of the population
killed by firearms:
>
> 1996: 0.00014%
> 1997: 0.00038%
> 1998: 0.00034%
> 1999: 0.00028%
>
> All of which is statistically almost meaningless -- the numbers are just
too small.
>
> GB
> http://www.gregburch.net/burchismo.html
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 03:06:13 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:06:13 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDGEDMCBAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
	<004701c3b7b2$1f9ab480$0201a8c0@BOB>
Message-ID: <041e01c3b7b8$145e0f80$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darin Sunley" <dsunley at shaw.ca>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Guns


> Any of us who've been around here long enough to remember the last big gun
> flamefest have seen all of this rhetoric, on both sides, before. But there
> is a new and intriguing element this time around.
>
> The previous flamewar emerged from the standard, familiar dynamics of
> text-based communications. Lack of face-to-face communication erodes the
> standard social cognitive feedback loops that generate civil behavior in
> most well-socialized adults. As is common in these situations, neither
party
> had any particular formal training in the subject area, just the informed
> interest of a passionate layman. Neither party claimed to represent any
> organization larger than themselves, and therefore all flames were
strictly
> personal. The participants could damage their own credibility, and
sometimes
> even that of their opponents, but no one else's.
>
> This time however, the scale of the conflict is slightly larger. Dirk
claims
> to be representing a new political party and, one assumes, has aspirations
> to eventually run as a candidate himself, or to speak for candidates
running
> in local elections in the UK.
>
> Dirk, as fun as this petulant sniping and blatant stereotyping must be for
> you, and as much as it must seem that Mr. Lorrey started it and that
honour
> must be satisfied, you MUST hold yourself to a higher standard of public
> behavior. This list is archived publically. As a citizen of the UK you
must
> surely be famliar with the less savoury elements of your local media. The
> publishing of this, frankly petty, flamefest  would, if spun
appropriately,
> do serious damage to your long term credibility as a member of the British
> political community.

I'm afraid I'm a long way from being a serious member of the British
political community, and I have another 40,000 odd posts to answer for
before the media gets to this. I use Usenet (and this to some extent) as a
'warts and all' record of my beliefs and opinions and how they change and
evolve over time.
Hence I always post under my own name.

> Do yourself a huge favour and rise above the petty flamefests that
> characterize these kind of online debates. Tossing statistics of
> indeterminate credibility, tidbits of sarcasm and mediocre wit, and
> stereotypes constituting viscious insults won't win you the support of the
> average cocktail party, let alone a parliamentary riding where your clear
> passion for the issues might have some actual influence on public debate.

I'm afraid nobody of consequence reads any of this crap, and the only reason
they might is because one (or more) of us becomes famous enough to put it on
the map in the real world.

> To summarize, Dirk, this is not the time, not the place, and it is
certainly
> not the manner in which to have this debate.

So what is the time and place to wind up self righteous Americans in love
with their guns?
Thing is, the party as such has no opinion on gun ownership so I feel free
to piss about as the mood takes me on this issue. Sometimes I'm for,
sometimes against.

For myself, I've always loved personal weapons from knives, through swords
and bows to automatic firearms. I've been a martial arts teacher for more
than two decades and am reasonably proficient with quite a selection,
including military rifles and pistols. If I lived in the US I would no doubt
have a decent collection eg Walther P99, Desert Eagle in 44cal for fun, a
full calbre bolt action and an AR15. Maybe even a 50cal long range rifle
like the Barrett depending on the law.

The point is, though, that I don't consider gun ownership sacred and am
quite prepared to go along with the majority decision of whatever society I
live in.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From aiguy at comcast.net  Mon Dec  1 03:48:25 2003
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:48:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun and crime stats for the USA
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031130185856.05ba78d8@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <003501c3b7bd$f96bf650$9ef9a343@GaryMiller01>

Don't we have to add the number of deaths from accidental gun deaths to the
number murdered to get a true picture of loss of life?

Quoting http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental
or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal
shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1 earlier reported
in a flawed  earlier analysis, but we still have more unjustifiable gun
deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

Worse yet many of those killed are the very children the parents seek to
protect.

Hand gun locks and smart guns could eliminate this disparity once the public
was legally required to meet this requirement.  But the cost of smart guns
could be cost prohibitive and hand gun locks laws could only be enforced
after the fact or on an inspection basis the way we do with automobiles.

Juries would be extremely reluctant to prosecute parents for manslaughter
who left an unlocked gun where a child could gain access but the publicity
from such trials could further server to educate other gun owners.

I have read that the decrease in murder rates is in a large part due to the
decreased fatalities caused by improvement of medical trauma.  Additional
factors include improved police work in getting repeat violent offenders off
the street sooner and laws like three strikes and your out which put repeat
violent offenders away for good.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Max More" <max at maxmore.com>
To: "Extropy Chat" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun and crime stats for the USA


> More numbers to argue over:
>
> The nation`s violent crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000
> population) has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 22-year
low.
> And murder is at a 35-year low. (FBI, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) The trends
> include the following highlights:
> ?       Since 1991, the nation`s violent crime rates have all decreased
> substantially. Total violent crime (the aggregate of murder and
> non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), has
> decreased 33.2%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter has decreased
43.7%;
> rape has decreased 24.2%; robbery has decreased 46.9%; and aggravated
> assault has decreased 25.3%.
> ?       National violent crime rates in 2000 were the lowest in years.
> Total violent crime, the lowest since 1978; murder, the lowest since 1965;
> rape, the lowest since 1978; robbery, the lowest since 1968; and
aggravated
> assault, the lowest since 1985.
> ?       Further demonstrating the irrelevance of "gun control" to crime
> rates, between 1991 (when violent crime started declining nationally) and
> 2000, states that had the greatest decreases in violent crime generally,
> and in murder in particular, included both those that have some of the
> nation`s least restrictive gun laws (such as Texas, Alabama, South
> Carolina, and West Virginia) and those that have some of the most
> restrictive (such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut).
> ?       In 2000, as in previous years, firearms were used in less than
> one-fourth of violent crimes. Most violent crimes were committed with
hands
> and feet (32%), blunt objects and other weapons (28%), and knives (15%).
> ?       In 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent
> crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total
> violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was
> 37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (Rape, the violent
> crime least likely to involve firearms, was 0.8% higher.)
> ?       The only states that experienced increases in their murder rates
> between 1991 (when violent crime began declining) and 2000 were Rhode
> Island (16%), Nebraska (12%), Kansas (3%), and Minnesota (3%), all of
which
> still do not have Right-to-Carry laws.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Dec  1 03:50:41 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:50:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <004701c3b7b2$1f9ab480$0201a8c0@BOB>
Message-ID: <000601c3b7be$4a49ddd0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Darin Sunley
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Guns
>  
> Any of us who've been around here long enough to remember the 
> last big gun flamefest have seen all of this rhetoric, on both sides, 
> before. But there is a new and intriguing element this time around.
> 
> The previous flamewar emerged from the standard, familiar dynamics of
> text-based communications. Lack of face-to-face communication 
> erodes the standard social cognitive feedback loops that generate
civil 
> behavior in most well-socialized adults...

The participants have been remarkably civil this time
around.  Perhaps we really can discuss this topic.  {8-]

spike




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 04:23:20 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:23:20 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <000601c3b7be$4a49ddd0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <046601c3b7c2$d9e81570$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Guns


> 
> > Darin Sunley
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Guns
> >  
> > Any of us who've been around here long enough to remember the 
> > last big gun flamefest have seen all of this rhetoric, on both sides, 
> > before. But there is a new and intriguing element this time around.
> > 
> > The previous flamewar emerged from the standard, familiar dynamics of
> > text-based communications. Lack of face-to-face communication 
> > erodes the standard social cognitive feedback loops that generate
> civil 
> > behavior in most well-socialized adults...
> 
> The participants have been remarkably civil this time
> around.  Perhaps we really can discuss this topic.  {8-]
 

I doubt it.
It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From ABlainey at aol.com  Mon Dec  1 04:30:21 2003
From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:30:21 EST
Subject: [extropy-chat] test
Message-ID: <b8.4c75f745.2cfc1ddd@aol.com>

test. what no mail for 2 days? hmmmmmmmmmm


From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Dec  1 05:18:45 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:18:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists harness rice gene in battle against
	poverty
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGEEIECAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

BusinessWorld, the Philippines' leading business newspaper, has an article
on designer rice that scientists say could save the human race, but which
some fear is a potential monster. The idea that nutrient-rich, yellow-tinged
golden rice seeds are the culinary equivalent of the Frankenstein monster
doesn't make any sense. So far, no GMO [genetically modified organism]
produced and released to the farmer has caused any risk or any adverse
effect that's known to us. These are the opinions of biotechnologists and
managers at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
A 10-year coordinated effort by IRRI, the private sector and a number of
national scientific institutions has led to "golden rice," where three genes
are manipulated to make them produce beta carotene, niacin, iron and other
essential minerals in the seed. This and other GMOs will be available to
ordinary Asian farmers and consumers in three or four years once governments
adopt national biosafety guidelines. It could have "tremendous impact" on
nutrition for Asians, who eat steamed rice at least twice a day.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/499673dd/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Dec  1 05:20:23 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:20:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Future Of Wireless Sensor Networks
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIEIECAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Slashdot: In the 12/03 Wired, Intel's Tiny Hope for the Future
describes a fundamental transformation as Intel's Research director David
Tennenhouse realized the importance of sensor networks. He saw a Berkeley
project on 'motes,' little sensors that communicate on ad-hoc wireless
networks. 'The company now foresees networks consisting of thousands of
motes, located wherever there's a need for data collection, streaming
real-time data to one another and to central servers. Intel imagines the day
when every assembly line, soybean field, and nursing home on the planet will
be peppered with motes, prodding factory foremen to replace faulty machines,
farmers to water fields, and nurses to check on something unusual in room
E214.' Intel was impressed enough with the technology to fund a whole
'lablet' to develop it. Intel sees a huge potential market in developing
both the sensors and the computation to process the huge amounts of sensor
information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/236f5a6d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Dec  1 05:35:53 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:35:53 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <046601c3b7c2$d9e81570$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <000001c3b7cc$fd6d8390$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


... social cognitive feedback loops that generate civil 
> > > behavior in most well-socialized adults...
> > 
> > The participants have been remarkably civil this time
> > around.  Perhaps we really can discuss this topic.  {8-]
>  
> 
> I doubt it.
> It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.
> 
> Dirk


Dirk, it could be that a lot of gun debate is
pointless.  In this country, gun ownership is our
right, so the fed cannot legally challenge it in any
case.  Were the fed to attempt to do so, we would be 
forced to conclude that our legal constitutional 
government had been overthrown, and would be obligated 
to take up arms against it restore a legal government.  
That's pretty simple, isn't it?  Caustic debate on the
topic is unnecessary, pointless as hell. 

spike




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 05:48:43 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:48:43 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <000001c3b7cc$fd6d8390$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <049401c3b7ce$c780f850$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'Dirk Bruere'" <dirk at neopax.com>; "'ExI chat list'"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:35 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Guns


>
> ... social cognitive feedback loops that generate civil
> > > > behavior in most well-socialized adults...
> > >
> > > The participants have been remarkably civil this time
> > > around.  Perhaps we really can discuss this topic.  {8-]
> >
> >
> > I doubt it.
> > It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.
> >
> > Dirk
>
>
> Dirk, it could be that a lot of gun debate is
> pointless.  In this country, gun ownership is our
> right, so the fed cannot legally challenge it in any
> case.  Were the fed to attempt to do so, we would be
> forced to conclude that our legal constitutional
> government had been overthrown, and would be obligated
> to take up arms against it restore a legal government.
> That's pretty simple, isn't it?  Caustic debate on the
> topic is unnecessary, pointless as hell.


It's far from simple.
Why don't you tell me how you can own fully automatic rifles in California?
It may be your constitutional right to own guns, but the govt gets to decide
what guns you are allowed, and what you aren't.
Your rights would not be in breach of the constitution if they only allowed
you flintlock muskets.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 05:49:17 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:49:17 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] test
References: <b8.4c75f745.2cfc1ddd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <049a01c3b7ce$dbc654e0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ABlainey at aol.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:30 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] test


> test. what no mail for 2 days? hmmmmmmmmmm

You probably have your boredom filter set to 'on'.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  1 05:52:07 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:52:07 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns--generalized
References: <000001c3b7cc$fd6d8390$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <00d901c3b7cf$42e4a5a0$c5994a43@texas.net>

Spike reckons:

> In this country, gun ownership is our
> right, so the fed cannot legally challenge it in any
> case.  Were the fed to attempt to do so, we would be
> forced to conclude that our legal constitutional
> government had been overthrown, and would be obligated
> to take up arms against it

I don't know how this legal constitution caper works (being a benighted
Aussie), but a few questions spring to mind. Suppose slavery had been
enshrined from the outset in the Constitution, or suppose that women had
been forbidden suffrage. Would it not be permitted to change these rights
and exclusions? Suppose enough citizens wanted to forbid the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages, even though that had been implicitly a
right until then? And if the ban were legally inserted into the legal
constitution, would there be a legal constitutional way to get rid of it on
second thoughts? And then to reimpose it on third thoughts?

(I could ask the lawyer downstairs, but she's very busy...)

Damien Broderick



From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Dec  1 05:59:24 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:59:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A question on Consensus policy
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIEIFCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Dirk, I am still trying to interpret your ideas. Could you please answer
this?
Suppose Bigland is an old nation state where most citizens are proudly
worshipping the national flag and talking all the time of the national
culture, language, music, philosophy, battles won, etc. Suppose Smalland is
a region of Bigland where at some point the citizens democratically decide
to become independent from Bigland. Assuming that Bigland has vastly
superior military power, does Bigland have any right to force Smalland to
remain a part of Bigland?



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 06:12:32 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:12:32 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A question on Consensus policy
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIEIFCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <04c801c3b7d2$1b6e3b50$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <gpmap at runbox.com>
To: <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; <extropy-chat at extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:59 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] A question on Consensus policy


> Dirk, I am still trying to interpret your ideas. Could you please answer
> this?
> Suppose Bigland is an old nation state where most citizens are proudly
> worshipping the national flag and talking all the time of the national
> culture, language, music, philosophy, battles won, etc. Suppose Smalland
is
> a region of Bigland where at some point the citizens democratically decide
> to become independent from Bigland. Assuming that Bigland has vastly
> superior military power, does Bigland have any right to force Smalland to
> remain a part of Bigland?

Militarily, no.
However, they do have a right to exert pressure within their own
(Bigland-Smalland) borders. For example, they could simply state that they
will not trade with them, or allow overflights of passenger aircraft etc.
That may hurt Smalland sufficiently to coerce the population, but only if
they value their money over their freedom.

A true nationstate must be a viable proposition and not exist solely due to
the generosity of its neighbours.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 06:12:32 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:12:32 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A question on Consensus policy
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIEIFCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <04c801c3b7d2$1b6e3b50$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <gpmap at runbox.com>
To: <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; <extropy-chat at extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:59 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] A question on Consensus policy


> Dirk, I am still trying to interpret your ideas. Could you please answer
> this?
> Suppose Bigland is an old nation state where most citizens are proudly
> worshipping the national flag and talking all the time of the national
> culture, language, music, philosophy, battles won, etc. Suppose Smalland
is
> a region of Bigland where at some point the citizens democratically decide
> to become independent from Bigland. Assuming that Bigland has vastly
> superior military power, does Bigland have any right to force Smalland to
> remain a part of Bigland?

Militarily, no.
However, they do have a right to exert pressure within their own
(Bigland-Smalland) borders. For example, they could simply state that they
will not trade with them, or allow overflights of passenger aircraft etc.
That may hurt Smalland sufficiently to coerce the population, but only if
they value their money over their freedom.

A true nationstate must be a viable proposition and not exist solely due to
the generosity of its neighbours.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Dec  1 06:24:50 2003
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:24:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler and Smalley news update
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIEIFCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
	<04c801c3b7d2$1b6e3b50$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <025b01c3b7d3$d3582ea0$3f80e40c@NANOGIRL>

This is a direct copy and paste from the Foresight frontpage: "Nobel Winner
Smalley Responds to Drexler's Challenge,
Fails to Defend National Nanotech Policy Rice University Professor Richard
Smalley responds to a longstanding challenge by Foresight Chairman Eric
Drexler to defend the controversial direction of U.S. policy in
nanotechnology. Their four-part exchange is the cover story of the Dec. 1
2003 Chemical & Engineering News. This could mark a turning point in the
development of the field.
Press release
Foresight comments and FAQ
Full text of the exchange "


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."




From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Dec  1 07:30:08 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:30:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] PC eye-control for severely disabled
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGOEIGCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From BBC News: Award-winning Spanish technology that lets severely disabled
people control a computer using eye movement could soon be available in the
UK. The Iriscom, which emulates mouse movement by tracking the iris, is
already on sale in Spanish-speaking countries and Portugal. Iriscom moves
the mouse pointer by tracking a person's eye movement and mouse clicks are
performed by blinking. It also has an on-screen keyboard so users can input
text. It can be used by anyone who has control of one eye, including people
wearing glasses or contact lenses. The main Iriscom website is in spanish,
see also EyeTech Digital Systems.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/f1f67ed9/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Dec  1 10:32:14 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:32:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] (2)ImmInst Update "Girls Night Out" Sun Nov 30
Message-ID: <p05100300bbf0c82a7a95@[150.146.134.133]>

support at imminst.org wrote:
>
>ImmInst Update
>*******************************
>
>Chat Topic: "Girls Night Out" -  Women & the Future
>
>Time: Nov 30 - SUN 8pm Eastern, Length: 1 Hour
>Host: Susan Fonseca-Klein - co-director, ImmInst.org
>Susan's Biography and Discussion Topic:
>http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=99&t=2218&s=
>
>CHAT FOR WOMEN ONLY!
>
>Sponsored by the Immortality Institute (ImmInst.org), a nonprofit
>with the mission to end the blight of involuntary death, and hosted by
>Susan Fonseca-Klein, this chat is for women only.


I hope it was fun!

I was seriously considering to participate in this until I looked
at the time... It's 2am in Europe. That's too difficult for me.

Is there any chance that occasionally, these chats could be held
at a different time?

Amara



-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Dec  1 11:49:12 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:49:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] (2)ImmInst Update "Girls Night Out" Sun Nov 30
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bbf0c82a7a95@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100300bbf0c82a7a95@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20031201114912.GF22650@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:32:14PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:

> 
> I was seriously considering to participate in this until I looked
> at the time... It's 2am in Europe. That's too difficult for me.

Ditto here. There's no way how I could stay up late, and be
at work the next day, rested.
 
> Is there any chance that occasionally, these chats could be held
> at a different time?

Yes, me too.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/17534a07/attachment.bin>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Dec  1 11:59:52 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] again with the gun stats
Message-ID: <3FCB2D38.1030508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sun Nov 30, 2003 03:28 pm Damien Broderick wrote:
> The Brits on the list will surely know in better detail.
>

One big problem in all these stats is that it is very difficult to
compare like with like. What is classified as 'violent crime' varies
greatly from country to country and even from state to state.

In the UK the 'horrifying' rise in violent street crime is mostly kids
nicking mobile phones off each other. And a lot of these are 'fake'
crimes. Mobile phones are a fashion item and they all want the latest
gear. So some thieving goes on, but many just toss them in the river and
claim they were stolen so they can get the latest new phone from the
insurance or gullible parents.

"Crime statistics show that in London:

  * In half of all street robberies, a mobile phone is stolen
  * In two thirds of those robberies, a mobile phone is the only item taken.
  * Fourteen- to 17-year-olds are the age group most likely to be
victims of street crime."


Summary statistics are only a general guide. You have to look behind the
20% increase or decrease to see what is really going on.

BillK








From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Dec  1 15:28:33 2003
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:28:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] (2)ImmInst Update "Girls Night Out" Sun Nov
  30
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bbf0c82a7a95@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201072417.02122990@pop.earthlink.net>

At 12:32 PM 12/1/03 +0200, Amara Graps wrote:

>I hope it was fun!
>
>I was seriously considering to participate in this until I looked
>at the time... It's 2am in Europe. That's too difficult for me.
>
>Is there any chance that occasionally, these chats could be held
>at a different time?

Hi Amara! - Yes it was great fun.  Discussed many topics and had many 
lols.  Why don't you contact Susan about scheduling next months chat at a 
time convenient for you.

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/5e9449ad/attachment.html>

From iph1954 at msn.com  Mon Dec  1 13:47:09 2003
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley-Drexler Debate Analysis
Message-ID: <BAY5-F13mEKYQUgbU76000199c4@hotmail.com>

Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley recently have been exchanging views about 
Drexler?s version of nanotechnology and Smalley?s objections to it. Their 
back and forth written debate is the cover story in today's Chemical and 
Engineering News 
(http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html).

As described in the press release shown below, CRN has prepared an 
independent review of the Smaller-Drexler exchange (see 
http://CRNano.org/Debate.htm).

Mike Treder

Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - 
http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Executive Director, New York Transhumanist Association - http://nyta.net
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html

==================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Published Debate Shows Weakness of MNT Denial

NEW YORK ? Attackers of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) received a setback 
today when a published debate revealed the weakness of their position. The 
four-part exchange between Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, and 
Nobelist Richard Smalley, who contends that many of Drexler's plans are 
impossible, is the cover story in the December 1 Chemical & Engineering 
News.

"We have carefully examined the arguments presented by each side," says 
Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible 
Nanotechnology (CRN). "We conclude that Smalley failed to show why MNT 
cannot work as Drexler asserts." Phoenix has prepared a 6-page review of the 
Smalley-Drexler debate, including historical overview, technical analysis, 
and commentary on policy implications. It is available at 
http://CRNano.org/Debate.htm.

Drexler, who single-handedly launched the field of nanotechnology in the 
late 1980's, believes that mechanical control of chemical reactions can form 
the basis of powerful manufacturing systems. Smalley has tried for years to 
debunk the possibility of such manufacturing, since it could in theory lead 
to scary consequences such as tiny machines building exponential copies of 
themselves at the expense of the biosphere.

In 2001, Smalley published an article in Scientific American claiming that 
mechanical control of reactions would require impossible "magic fingers." 
But in the current debate, Smalley agreed that "something like an enzyme or 
a ribosome ... can do precise chemistry." The question to be answered now 
is: What kind of chemistry can an enzyme-like chemical system do?

Smalley attempts to define limits, and fails. He claims that enzymes can 
only work under water, but this is untrue, as almost two decades of 
published research have shown. With this crucial support missing, his 
remaining case against mechanical chemistry falls apart. At this point, no 
one knows the limits of such a system. As far back as 1959, Nobel-winning 
physicist Richard Feynman said it should be possible "to synthesize any 
chemical substance." Work by Drexler and others over the past decade has 
shown that even a much more limited capability should be sufficient to 
develop manufacturing systems that can duplicate themselves.

"Smalley's factual inaccuracies, his unscientific and vehement attacks on 
MNT, and his continued failure to criticize the actual chemical proposals of 
MNT, demonstrate that it is time to move beyond this debate," says Mike 
Treder, Executive Director of CRN. "It?s time to focus on the technical 
proposals and the serious societal implications that we can no longer afford 
to ignore."

During the past decade, detailed proposals have been developed for the 
architecture and technology of molecular manufacturing systems. Such 
proposals cannot be tested fully in the absence of laboratory work and 
targeted research, but enough is known to initiate action based on existing 
work. The proposals are sufficiently detailed to support a much more 
thoughtful critical study than has yet been done, and such a study would 
result in further refinement of the proposals.

"We can?and we must?begin to quantify the expected capabilities of molecular 
manufacturing systems," says Phoenix. "What substances and devices can they 
build? How rapidly can they work? How easy will it be to design products for 
these manufacturing systems? How much will it cost to create such a system, 
and how quickly will that cost decrease over time?"

Treder adds, "Now that even Richard Smalley is talking about the 
capabilities of enzymes in molecular manufacturing, instead of impossible 
magic fingers, we hope that facile and ungrounded denials of MNT will no 
longer be credible."

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is headquartered in New York. CRN 
is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) 
organization. For more information on CRN, see http://www.crnano.org/.

Press release link -- http://CRNano.org/PR-Debate.htm

_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some 
good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 14:04:56 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun and crime stats for the USA
In-Reply-To: <003501c3b7bd$f96bf650$9ef9a343@GaryMiller01>
Message-ID: <20031201140456.86096.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Gary Miller <aiguy at comcast.net> wrote:
> Don't we have to add the number of deaths from accidental gun deaths
> to the
> number murdered to get a true picture of loss of life?
> 
> Quoting http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
> 
> Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39
> accidental
> or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable
> fatal
> shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1 earlier
> reported
> in a flawed  earlier analysis, but we still have more unjustifiable
> gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

Kellerman's figures have been thoroughly destroyed as anything
meaningful. In fact, his study is taught in statistics classes as an
example of how to lie with fraudulent stats.

The facts are that the Keck surveys established that lawful defensive
gun use occurs over 2 million times a year in the US, with around 9,000
homicides. Most defensive gun uses never result in the firing of a
shot. People like Kellerman refuse to count such uses.

> 
> Worse yet many of those killed are the very children the parents seek
> to protect.

On the contrary, another area Kellerman lies is in counting ALL child
deaths at the hands of parents as being gun related if there is a gun
in the home. Most child deaths at the hands of parents occur with the
hands (choking, beating, kicking, starving, drowning, etc).

Another area is one you are confusing here. When the FBI reports a
murder victim as being 'related or acquainted' with their killer, this
does NOT just include parents, relatives, friends and neighbors. THis
includes the drug dealer on the corner and the cranck addict in the
alley. Being 'acquainted' with the perpetrator means "was the victim
aware of the perpetrators identity and/or presence in the neighborhood
prior to the crime?" and does not just include people you wouldn't mind
having over for tea.

> 
> Hand gun locks and smart guns could eliminate this disparity once the
> public was legally required to meet this requirement.  But the cost
> of smart guns could be cost prohibitive and hand gun locks laws
> could only be enforced after the fact or on an inspection basis
> the way we do with automobiles.

Actually studies have shown no increase in safety with gun locks
outside of an increase in safety for abusive parents, who might
otherwise be killed at the hands of their victim children if they could
get their hands on their parents firearms. Gun locks are very easy to
overcome in several minutes with a small pair of bolt cutters or a
bobby pin or paper clip. I have even seen some that would pop open if
you banged them on your desk at the right angle while pulling on the
hasp. Contrarily, gun locks hamper a homeowners ability to use the gun
in the event of an actual home invasion of any sort, and are recorded
as responsible for a number of deaths as a result.

> 
> Juries would be extremely reluctant to prosecute parents for
> manslaughter
> who left an unlocked gun where a child could gain access but the
> publicity
> from such trials could further server to educate other gun owners.

The OB/GYN who delivered myself and my siblings, who was also my
grandfathers best friend, was killed on holiday evening, along with his
wife and son by a biker gang invading their home in Massachusetts in
the late 1970's. Massachusetts law did not allow even the training of
handgun use to children under 16, and his 14 year old son was the only
one in reach of a hand gun at the time, a boy who had been an avid
shooter since age 9. He tried to use his fathers 1911 pistol, but it
jammed and he was overpowered before he could clear the stack. Do NOT
try to tell me that preventing children from accessing firearms is any
sort of answer to anything.

> 
> I have read that the decrease in murder rates is in a large part due
> to the decreased fatalities caused by improvement of medical trauma. 
> Additional factors include improved police work in getting repeat
> violent offenders off
> the street sooner and laws like three strikes and your out which put
> repeat violent offenders away for good.

It is documented that states that pass right-to-carry laws experience a
minimum of a 12% greater decrease in violent crime than states without
such laws. (Dr John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime"; University of
Chicago Press) Furthermore, Lott shows that spree killings are reduced
by 80% over non-right-to-carry states.

Violent offenders are not being put away for good, either. Violent
criminals are being released early, without warning victims and
witnesses, in order to make room for drug offenders.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 14:09:07 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <046601c3b7c2$d9e81570$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> I doubt it.
> It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.

Sorry, Dirk, but the numbers really do prove my side. Dr. John Lott's
study was of ALL FBI crime data from 1980 to 1995 and proves that
right-to-carry reduces crime. Antyi-gun studies always cherry pick
their data sets from communities that fit their prejudices. NONE have
ever looked at even a large fraction of the data that Lott's study
covered. Furthermore, a more recent study of the same data using more
advanced statistical methods demonstrated that the crime reduction was
greater than the 12% that Lott reported, more in the order of 25%.

Faith does not get proven by statistics, faith only exists in SPITE of
evidence to the contrary, so I am sorry, but it is the anti-gun stance
that lives by faith.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From extropy at audry2.com  Mon Dec  1 15:20:09 2003
From: extropy at audry2.com (Major)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:20:09 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun and crime stats for the USA
In-Reply-To: <003501c3b7bd$f96bf650$9ef9a343@GaryMiller01> (aiguy@comcast.net)
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031130185856.05ba78d8@mail.earthlink.net>
	<003501c3b7bd$f96bf650$9ef9a343@GaryMiller01>
Message-ID: <200312011520.hB1FK9X16392@igor.synonet.com>


> Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental
> or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal
> shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1 earlier reported
> in a flawed  earlier analysis, but we still have more unjustifiable gun
> deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

To get a real ratio you need to factor in the justifiable shootings
which do not occur. Innocent people defending themselves probably
shoot (or shoot to kill) less often than the bad guys.

Major




From charlie at antipope.org  Mon Dec  1 14:24:38 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:24:38 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <184DD522-240A-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 1 Dec 2003, at 14:09, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>> I doubt it.
>> It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.
>
> Sorry, Dirk, but the numbers really do prove my side. Dr. John Lott's
> study was of ALL FBI crime data from 1980 to 1995 and proves that
> right-to-carry reduces crime. Antyi-gun studies always cherry pick
> their data sets from communities that fit their prejudices. NONE have
> ever looked at even a large fraction of the data that Lott's study
> covered.

Are we talking about the same John Lott who invents sock-puppets on  
mailing lists ("Mary Rosh") to defend him against the accusations that  
he cited figures from surveys that funnily enough nobody else can find  
any records of?

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/ 
0,2061,561876,00.html

Or switches statistical model without saying so then blames a computer  
error?

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/09#0913b




-- Charlie



From matus at matus1976.com  Mon Dec  1 15:15:27 2003
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:15:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns a choice for the individual
In-Reply-To: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00b501c3b81d$f6913660$6701a8c0@GREYBOOK>



All this talk in the conversation on gun centers around the effects that
guns have in populations, not on individuals.  Does *my* owning a gun,
and learning its proper operation end up making *me* more or less safe?


I don't care if the average person is made less safe on average if more
people have guns, or if the average person is made safer if more people
have guns.  I thought this list was full of rugged individualists!

Do more guns = less crime, or more crime?  Frankly, I am not concerned
with this, I am inclined to feel the evidence suggests the former, but
this may be dependant on other factors, like average income of an area,
average population density, or education levels. 

The question of primary concern is, for an individual, does owning a gun
make one safer or less safe?  This decision will come down to each one
of us, it seems the majority of the people on this list have chosen to
not own a gun.  What made you make that decision?  I do not yet own a
gun, but I intend on buying one and learning its proper operation.  Does
anyone here feel that my owning a gun would make me less safe?  If so, I
am open to hear the compelling arguments, since my goal is to increase
my safety, not an ideological support of owning a gun.

I see a lot of people on this list making pretty severe changes in their
lives for the chance to live longer, for instance, practicing CR, or
exercising regularly and radically altering diet, or taking medication
that might not be proven effective.  Yet I would wager that most of the
individuals would never own a gun, can I only conclude that they feel
this would make them less safe?

Michael




From extropy at audry2.com  Mon Dec  1 16:31:05 2003
From: extropy at audry2.com (Major)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:31:05 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns--generalized
In-Reply-To: <00d901c3b7cf$42e4a5a0$c5994a43@texas.net>
	(thespike@earthlink.net)
References: <000001c3b7cc$fd6d8390$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<00d901c3b7cf$42e4a5a0$c5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <200312011631.hB1GV5816829@igor.synonet.com>


"Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net> writes:

> I don't know how this legal constitution caper works (being a benighted
> Aussie), but a few questions spring to mind.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, so I will answer the
questions "straight".

> Suppose slavery had been enshrined from the outset in the
> Constitution, Would it not be permitted to change these rights and
> exclusions?

A constitution can only be amended (retained but changed) according
to its own provisions. The basis in international law for completely
replacing a constitution is complicated but may be summarized "if you
have the most guns you will get away with it".

> Suppose enough citizens wanted to forbid the sale and consumption of
> alcoholic beverages, even though that had been implicitly a
> right until then? And if the ban were legally inserted into the legal
> constitution

Exactly what happened in the US (prohibition was a constitutional
amendment)

> would there be a legal constitutional way to get rid of it on
> second thoughts? And then to reimpose it on third thoughts?

If and only if your constitution has an "amendment" clause. Both
the US and Australian constitution do, though it is interesting to note
that the power to change the constitution in the US rests with the
congress (2/3 majority), not the people (referendum) as it does in
Australia.

Major


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 15:39:57 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:39:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <049401c3b7ce$c780f850$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031201153957.96469.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> It's far from simple.
> Why don't you tell me how you can own fully automatic rifles in
> California?

It is simple: California is in violation of the US Constitution, and
cases are proceeding through the courts right now. It will take a few
years, but things will get straightened out eventually. States like
California currently justify their banning of automatic rifles under an
odd interpretation of the decision in the 1939 case of US v Miller,
which involved a rum-runner arrested shortly after the end of
Prohibition with an allegedly short shotgun (a violation of the newly
minted NFA of 1934, a law passed to give the revinuers something to
do). Miller was the beginning of the militia interpretation of the 2nd
amendment. Problems with the Miller decision, though: Miller's lawyers
never showed at the SCOTUS for the trial, they figured that since
they'd won at every level below the SCOTUS that their case was sewn up.
They did not count on the federal prosecutors lying three times in
their arguments before the court.

> It may be your constitutional right to own guns, but the govt gets to
> decide what guns you are allowed, and what you aren't.

Actually, this is not true. The BATF does not restrain your ability to
own any model of gun you want. Its only constitutional authority is to
tax. The NFA of 1934 was not a ban on automatic firearms, it was a tax
bill. There is a $200 tax on transfers of automatic weapons and
silencers. Any non-felon can buy one if they pay the tax and do the
paperwork. I've owned automatic firearms, and silencers, as a matter of
fact. The BATF TRIES to regulate everything, both military style and
non-military style weapons, and when you contest them on one side, they
claim that Miller gives them authority on that side because of the
militia argument, then when you contest them on the other, they claim
an entirely DIFFERENT and opposite interpretation of Miller.


> Your rights would not be in breach of the constitution if they only
> allowed you flintlock muskets.

Uh, no, even in Miller the court recognised that the people, as members
of the unorganized militia
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html), have a justified
reason to have access to military style weapons. The only way that
Miller lost his case to the feds was that the feds lied and claimed
that sawed off shotguns had never been used by any military unit in
history, when they were actually widely used in trench warfare in WWI,
just 21 years prior.

Since the federal law says all of the people are members of the
militia, and anti-gunners claim that the militia clause limits gun
ownership to the militia, then the only legally unrestricted guns
should be so-called 'assault weapons'.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From amara at amara.com  Mon Dec  1 14:42:56 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:42:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>

Ciao,

I ran across this online program that tries to analyze the gender
of the writer of a writing selection. I am writing quite a lot these
days, and I was curious about what the "gender genie" would
calculate for my gender.

http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html

"According to Koppel and Argamon, the algorithm should predict the
gender of the author approximately 80% of the time."

However, in my case, it was wrong, 100% of the time. Some other
people experienced the same errors, apparently, because, when I
input my results into their database, I saw:

----------------
"accuracy results

Am I right?
yes
	107582 (67.93%)
no
	50800 (32.07%)
158382 total responses since September 13, 2003"
-----------------

In order to test whether it was a fluke, I tried six different
essays, and got the following scores:


Eternal City Grapsody #1 - Mythology for Transhumans
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P84_0_4_0_C
Words: 1767
Female Score: 1922
Male Score: 3452

Eternal City Grapsody #2 - Of Snakes and Immortality
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P89_0_4_0_C
Words: 1402
Female Score: 1618
Male Score: 2048

Eternal City Grapsody #3 - The Pause that Refreshes
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P94_0_4_0_C
Words: 1016
Female Score: 1188
Male Score: 1585

Eternal City Grapsody #4 - Scales of Man: Adapting Technology to
Transhumans
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P380_0_4_0_C
Words: 1682
Female Score: 1746
Male Score: 2777

Eternal City Grapsody #5 - Parmigianino's Golden Transformations
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P551_0_4_0_C
Words: 1790
Female Score: 1239
Male Score: 2356

Eternal City Grappsody #6 - Tricksters: Synchronicity, Dirt, and Laughter
http://www.transhumanism.com/articles_more.php?id=P877_0_4_0_C
Words: 1678
Female Score: 2019
Male Score: 2068


The last one was a different style for me, a kind of giggling-out-
loud-style, as if speaking to a group of close friends, but the
algorithm still calculated me to be male.


I am sad about these results and this algorithm, I must say,
for a range of reasons, including:

* Are women 'themselves' when they write, or are they adapting
to the style of the Internet?

* The algorithm seems to have pretty narrow definition of
gender writing style.


How did the algorithm work? The following is a note about that.

Amara



=======================================

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030714/030714-13.html

Computer program detects author gender

Simple algorithm suggests words and syntax bear sex and genre stamp.
18 July 2003

PHILIP BALL

A new computer program can tell whether a book was written by a man
or a woman. The simple scan of key words and syntax is around 80%
accurate on both fiction and non-fiction1,2.

The program's success seems to confirm the stereotypical perception
of differences in male and female language use. Crudely put, men
talk more about objects, and women more about relationships.

Female writers use more pronouns (I, you, she, their, myself), say
the program's developers, Moshe Koppel of Bar-Ilan University in
Ramat Gan, Israel, and colleagues. Males prefer words that identify
or determine nouns (a, the, that) and words that quantify them (one,
two, more).

So this article would already, through sentences such as this, have
probably betrayed its author as male: there is a prevalence of
plural pronouns (they, them), indicating the male tendency to
categorize rather than personalize.

If I were female, the researchers imply, I'd be more likely to write
sentences like this, which assume that you and I share common
knowledge or engage us in a direct relationship. These differing
styles have previously been called 'informational' and 'involved',
respectively.

Koppel and colleagues trained their algorithm on a few test cases to
identify the most prevalent fingerprints of gender and of fiction
and non-fiction. They then set it searching for these fingerprints
in 566 English-language works in a variety of genres, ranging from A
Guide to Prague to A. S. Byatt's novel Possession - which,
intriguingly, the programme misclassified by gender, along with
Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day.

Strikingly, the distinctions between male and female writers are
much the same as those that, even more clearly, differentiate
non-fiction and fiction. The programme can tell these two genres
apart with 98% accuracy. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that
non-fiction is more informational and fiction more involved.

Most of the works studied were published after 1975. The Israeli
team now intends to probe whether the differences extend further
back in time - and so whether George Eliot was wasting her time
disguising herself with a male nom de plume - and also whether they
occur in other languages.

References

1.Koppel, M., Argamon, S. & Shimoni, A. R. Automatically
categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic
Computing, in the press, (2003). |Homepage| 2.Argamon, S., Koppel,
M., Fine, J. & Shimoni, A. R. Gender, genre, and writing style in
formal written texts. Text, in the press, (2003).

========================================
-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage."
       --Anais Nin


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 15:55:30 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns--generalized
In-Reply-To: <00d901c3b7cf$42e4a5a0$c5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031201155530.2326.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Spike reckons:
> 
> > In this country, gun ownership is our
> > right, so the fed cannot legally challenge it in any
> > case.  Were the fed to attempt to do so, we would be
> > forced to conclude that our legal constitutional
> > government had been overthrown, and would be obligated
> > to take up arms against it
> 
> I don't know how this legal constitution caper works (being a
> benighted
> Aussie), but a few questions spring to mind. Suppose slavery had been
> enshrined from the outset in the Constitution, or suppose that women
> had been forbidden suffrage. Would it not be permitted to change
these
> rights and exclusions? 

If you can get a supermajority of both congress and the states to vote
for a constitutional amendment, then you can amend the constitution, as
has been done with slavery and womens suffrage. Given that 75%+ of
Americans believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, it
ain't bloodly likely to happen any time soon. Given also that it took a
civil war in addition to a constitutional amendment to get rid of
slavery, I doubt very much that you'd succeed with a constitutional gun
ban without a similar civil war. 

There are several other hurdles to overcome. Firstly, NH never lost its
constitutional right to revolt and seceed. Secondly, Texas retains the
right to break up into 5 separate states if it so decides to, in order
to gain leverage in the Senate (i.e. 5 states x 2 Senators per state =
10 Senate seats rather than just 2 as it now has), should such an
un-American amendment come to a vote. Thirdly, you'd have to overcome
the fact that most states have a right to bear arms in their own state
constitution. 

Fourthly, you'd have to deal with the fact that the federal government
is not a sovereign entity. Its authority is entirely delegated to it by
the people. No part of the Constitution alienates individuals from
their rights, amendments simply recognise that certain pre-existant
individual rights are not to be violated by the government. Any
amendment that sought to restrain individual rights such as the first
or second amendments would most certainly result in a very violent
reaction from a large portion of the citizenry.

You do not see such a reaction to mere laws like the Patriot Act
because most citizens recognise that this law is applied only to
non-Americans and/or Americans allied with foreign fasco-terrorist
groups. The population isn't ready to oppose it because their own ox is
not being gored, as evidenced by the fact that surveys show that 80%+
of african americans support racial profiling when it is applied to
arabs or other foreign muslims. We were far closer to armed
insurrection here in the US when the Clinton WHite House and its
supporters waged an undeclared war on Redneck-Americans.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From bjk at imminst.org  Mon Dec  1 16:00:25 2003
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:00:25 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat]  "Girls Night Out" - Chat Log
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201072417.02122990@pop.earthlink.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201072417.02122990@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3FCB6599.9040709@imminst.org>

Here's a link to the 'Girls Night Out' chat log (Nov 30)*
*http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=99&t=2218&st=0&#entry19111

By the way, Susan had a great time!

At first she worried no one would attend.  Happily,  Natasha, Nanogirl, 
sheliatx, Mermaid, Saille, Sabina, and others graciously took time out 
to join the chat.  Because this chat was such as success, Susan will 
schedule a time for next months chat soon.  Hopefully, at a time when 
more women can participate. 

Feel free to contact her: susan at imminst.org

Thanks!

Bruce Klein
Chair - ImmInst.org








From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Dec  1 16:13:46 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:13:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing
	styles
In-Reply-To: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B4032E347B@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>
References: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B4032E347B@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>
Message-ID: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:57:34AM -0500, Hughes, James wrote:
> Very cool Samantha - thanks for sharing this. I think it relates to a

Amara, iirc.

I find that apparent mis-classification (which is remarkably 
consistent) another data point confirming that we're weird.

Transhumanism *is* a distinct put-off to the majority of
women. I do not see how to package the meme complex in a more
palatable way. Perhaps out transhumanist women can produce
a diagnosis, and a suggestion.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031201/d17faa6d/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  1 16:50:55 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:50:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <157240-220031211165055760@M2W083.mail2web.com>

Amara, bella, perhaps the test is outdated.  

We cannot expect either gender to write in tithe style prescribed to it by
any one generational testing regulation.  Also, I don't think it is
necessarily pejorative that a test senses a "male" writing style. Androgyny
is beautiful and an ability to write both across both gender-styles is a
lovely thing to do. This is expressly, I put on a tie many times when I
give a talk.  There is a time and place for all aspect of our "selves" and
you seem to have chosen an educated style in your articles.  However, I
wonder what the article you wrote on Fiorella Terenzi comes out as.  Did
you run that one through the test?

As an educated scientist, your training will come out in your writing no
matter how you fancify it. Also, try running some of your email stories
(that you send to your friends) through the test.  For example, Fiorella
writes in a "female" mode in her books, but in a professorial mode when
teaching.  Likewise, Sometimes I write as an artist/poet in metaphors and
off-the-cuff anecdotes.  Sometimes I write in a professorial mode when it
is required, and at other times, legal language creeps in.

Brings me back to the beginning. Who's judging and is the criteria
objective.

Ciao-
Natasha




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  1 16:56:23 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:56:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FAQ: TRANSHUMANIST FUTURES: CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
Message-ID: <184670-2200312111656235@M2W065.mail2web.com>

ExI has been updating the FAQ. With so many changes, this has been on our
to do list, but hasn't been addressed until quite recently.

Do you have comments and/or suggestions for the following:

5. TRANSHUMANIST FUTURES: CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS

5.1 Do transhumanists in general, and friends of Extropy Institute in
particular, share economic and political views?   

5.2 What views do extropes have on the dangers of biotechnology,
nanotechnology, machine intelligence, and neurotechnology?  

5.3 What views do transhumanists have about religion?  

5.4 What political views are held by transhumanists?  

5.5 How does Extropy Institute respond to the neo-Luddites, including the
President?s Council on Bioethics?  




Thanks,
Natasha



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From hemm at br.inter.net  Mon Dec  1 15:57:22 2003
From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:57:22 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
	<184DD522-240A-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <01b801c3b823$ce7276c0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Hello extropians,

I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. The first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems to be stalled. Is it related? Are we concentrating our resourses in evolving our communication means because our transportation means are poor, or does de current pace of developments on comms in fact causes less effort on advancing transportation? Just thinking. Sorry for the bad english, but it's not my native language and I am still learning.


From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Mon Dec  1 15:57:34 2003
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:57:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing
	styles
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B4032E347B@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>

Very cool Samantha - thanks for sharing this. I think it relates to a
sometimes subtle, often overt problem in transhumanist discussion lists
- the dominant masculine style of aggressive tech, politics and
philosophy argumentation, with less reference to personal life and
relationships. Sometimes, as a man, I think women are handicapped by
socialization to be uncomfortable with self-assertion and disputation,
and sometimes I feel like the male communication style in general, and
its extreme versions on our lists, are both a political problem for
transhumanism in our inability to attract more women and an
organizational problem that makes it more difficult to build on-line
community. I see the problem also in the context of the very similar
issues in the socialist movement (my background) which is similarly
disproportionately male and conversationally disputatious. But at least
there is a strong spirit of feminist self-criticism among socialist men
which made us more conscious of the problem, and more open to
counter-vailing efforts, even if they met with little success.

J. Hughes


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 17:04:48 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <184DD522-240A-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <20031201170448.25804.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org> wrote:
> 
> On 1 Dec 2003, at 14:09, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> > --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> >> I doubt it.
> >> It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.
> >
> > Sorry, Dirk, but the numbers really do prove my side. Dr. John
> Lott's
> > study was of ALL FBI crime data from 1980 to 1995 and proves that
> > right-to-carry reduces crime. Antyi-gun studies always cherry pick
> > their data sets from communities that fit their prejudices. NONE
> have
> > ever looked at even a large fraction of the data that Lott's study
> > covered.
> 
> Are we talking about the same John Lott who invents sock-puppets on  
> mailing lists ("Mary Rosh") to defend him against the accusations
> that  
> he cited figures from surveys that funnily enough nobody else can
> find  any records of?

Your refer to this?
"Second, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren reported
that he had investigated Lott's claim of a 1997 survey which found that
"98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely
have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack," and found no
evidence of the survey's existence."

The Kleck study is very widely known and published, though I am sure
that anti-gunners would wish that it did not exist.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

For critiques of Kellerman's flawed study (where the 43 to 1 claim
comes from) see:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Nor did he use the pseudonym to defend himself from such claims, he
used the name to write a fictitious review of his book, which is far
less offensive than the offenses of anti-gunner Michael Bellisiles,
recently drummed out of Emory University for academic dishonesty and
stripped of literary prizes, in that he invented citations and
fabricated data on a broad scale.

> 
> http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/ 
> 0,2061,561876,00.html
> 
> Or switches statistical model without saying so then blames a
> computer  
> error?
> 
> http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/09#0913b

Actually, he blames a computer error (on a Mac, mind you) for errors in
his data tables, essentially errors in labelling dates numerically,
which may more accurately be user errors from inexperience with the
software, which result in data files created in April (04) of one year
being confused with data files created in 2004...

Plassman and Tideman show that if there is any error, it is on the
conservative side. Their results show an even greater effect on crime
than Lott reported, though less consistent across all counties and
states.
"In this paper we use a Poisson-lognormal model to analyze
intertemporal and geographical variations in the effects of
right-to-carry laws on murders, rapes, and robberies. For each of these
crime categories our estimates suggest the existence of statistically
significant deterrent effects of right-to-carry laws for the majority
of the 10 states that have adopted such laws between 1977 and 1992, but
we also find that some of these states experienced statistically
significant increases in the numbers of certain crimes."
http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~fplass/gun.pdf

Furthermore, Plassman and WHitley issued a response to critics of their
study as well as Lott's study:
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol55/4/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

Ayers and Donohue attempt to counter, claiming their study that P&W
critique, was not to show that crime dropped or increased in
jurisdictions that passed right to carry laws, but that such laws
merely imposed a 'jurisdiction selection effect' in which criminals
take their criminal activity elsewhere where right-to-carry did not
exist.
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol55/4/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf

Furthermore, Black and Nagin are rightly criticized by Lott for using a
systematic means of cherry picking, excluding 86% of counties because
such counties have less than 100,000 population, in their study
refuting Lott's work. Since most states with right-to-carry are mostly
made up of counties with less than 100,000 population, Black and Nagin
are simply excluding those areas where right-to-carry is most heavily
practiced and would therefore result in the greatest effect on crime.
Black and Nagin are essentially studying ONLY urban centers in the US,
not the US as a whole, when it is urban centers that have far worse
criminal problems than guns, such as drug war activity, and which
vastly misrepresent the degree of ethnic and racial diversity in the US overall.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  1 17:41:25 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:41:25 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat]  "Girls Night Out" - Chat Log
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201072417.02122990@pop.earthlink.net>
	<3FCB6599.9040709@imminst.org>
Message-ID: <003401c3b832$5a45b820$9e994a43@texas.net>


> Here's a link to the 'Girls Night Out' chat log (Nov 30)*
> *http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=99&t=2218&st=0&#entry19111


For a male observer, this is truly fascinating. It's hard to imagine a group
of men getting into this so quickly, if at all:

===================

18:23:37 Saille Love is a lot more, than just for a lover


18:23:40 Mermaid i have been married for ten years now...i'd like to still
be friends with my husband after many many years..but i hope to become more
'seperate' from him..i dont think of it as a failure of love..rather..i
think its a strengthening of love....
18:23:50 SusanFK Mermaid: my love for my lifepartner has only increased with
years...we are coming up on our 8th year together i i feel more passionate
about him today than the day we met.
18:23:56 Natasha I wonder what the product liability would be for "Primo
Posthuman" future body prototype.
18:24:02 Sabina Same here

18:24:18 Natasha I've been in love many times. I love my husband and I can
understand many levels of love.
18:24:22 sheilatx my husband and i are better friends since the divorce
18:24:37 Mermaid i feel more passion too..it has multiplied several
folds..esp because its now passion for more than one person
18:25:06 sheilatx guess i should say ex husband


18:25:17 Mermaid sheilatx: divorce is unnecessary
18:25:20 Natasha I left the hair color on my hair too long.

===================

Damien Broderick



From jacques at dtext.com  Mon Dec  1 17:54:31 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns--generalized (modifying the constitution)
In-Reply-To: <200312011631.hB1GV5816829@igor.synonet.com>
References: <000001c3b7cc$fd6d8390$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<00d901c3b7cf$42e4a5a0$c5994a43@texas.net>
	<200312011631.hB1GV5816829@igor.synonet.com>
Message-ID: <16331.32855.815446.310102@localhost.localdomain>

Major a ?crit (2.12.2003/00:31) :

> 
> "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net> writes:
> 
> > would there be a legal constitutional way to get rid of it on
> > second thoughts? And then to reimpose it on third thoughts?
> 
> If and only if your constitution has an "amendment" clause. Both
> the US and Australian constitution do, though it is interesting to note
> that the power to change the constitution in the US rests with the
> congress (2/3 majority), not the people (referendum) as it does in
> Australia.


Here's how it works in Switzerland (quite spectacular, I think).

Switzerland has a political right of "popular initiative", in which
anyone can submit a constitutional amendment, to be voted on by the
people, provided they collect the preliminary support of 100,000
voters (pop. is 7,3 millions) within 18 months. To result in an actual
modification of the Constitution, it needs to get the majority of the
people, and the majority of States.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/pore/index3.html

Incredible isn't it? It's not very complicated to get 100,000
signatures, if you create 50 small comittees in the country which each
get 2000 signatures, you're done. And then, all the Swiss people get
to read your proposal and vote yes or no. If it's yes, then you have
changed the constitution of your country.

To give an example. On May 18 we voted (I am Swiss, live in France,
vote by mail) on 7 such popular initiatives regarding potential
constitutional amendments.

One was to enforce rents to be "fair", one was to have a 4 years
experience of no cars running one day per season, one was to make
commitments of not building nuclear plants for some time, one was to
guarantee cheap access to health services, one was an equal-rights
text to force many institutions to provide facilities for disabled
people, one was about nuclear policy again, and finally one was to
guarantee that professional training be offered to such and such
people.

I voted against all 7 initiatives, and they were all rejected. What do
such subjects have to do with the fundamental law that Constitution is
supposed to be? Right, not much. Basic law is made by parliament like
everywhere else, and popular initiative can only result in the
modification of the Constitution. Which gets proposed often, but is
usually rejected. That's our system.

There are two things which contribute to make constitutional change
through popular initiative rare. One is that the German-speaking part
of Switzerland contains an array of very small States which are very
conservative (they are the founding, still quite rural, States), so
that this relatively small population has a strong weight in the
majority of States. The other one is that the government can add to
the popular initiative its own counter-project, which tries to address
some of the aspirations that prompted the initative, while avoiding
its pitfalls or excesses. It often happens that the people who started
the initiative really had a point, but it was captured in the
counter-project, which was accepted by the people instead of the
initiative.

Between 1891 and 2003, only 13 popular initiatives were accepted and
resulted in the modification of the Constitution. The last one was in
March 2002, when Switzerland decided to adhere to UN. Browsing the
list, I see that in 1908, the production and drinking of absynth was
constitutionally forbidden:

http://www.absinthe.ch/new/monhistoire_linterdiction.php?l=en

It would be quite practical to launch transhumanist-oriented popular
initiatives in Switzerland, to the effect, for example, that one of
the goal of the community is to extend healthy lifespans, and that
adequate credits and research must be devoted to it. And it's a good
way to get to talk about some subject, even if the popular initiative
is eventually rejected. (I can imagine this one being accepted.)

Jacques



From charlie at antipope.org  Mon Dec  1 17:53:08 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:53:08 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Trolling (was: Guns)
In-Reply-To: <20031201170448.25804.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031201170448.25804.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <391BEFD4-2427-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 1 Dec 2003, at 17:04, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>> red.
>>
>> Are we talking about the same John Lott who invents sock-puppets on
>> mailing lists ("Mary Rosh") to defend him against the accusations
>> that
>> he cited figures from surveys that funnily enough nobody else can
>> find  any records of?
> Your refer to this?

The URL that you cut. You're not reading for comprehension, Mike, 
you're assuming that I'm attacking your figures on gun use. I'm not. 
I'm questioning the reliability of youur sources. You're assuming that 
because I'm insisting on accuracy I'm an anti-gun campaigner. You're 
also assuming that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, 
in terms of the fabrication of research data: that lies on one side 
justify lies by the other side.

Bluntly: you're so intent on following your own script for how to 
interact with people on the topic of gun ownership that you've 
effectively turned yourself into a troll. Can I request some time out? 
Because this thread *is* a waste of energy, brains, and CPU cycles, for 
all concerned.



-- Charlie



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Dec  1 18:17:32 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:17:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201131526.02581450@mail.comcast.net>

Natasha wrote:

>Amara, bella, perhaps the test is outdated.
>
>We cannot expect either gender to write in tithe style prescribed to it by
>any one generational testing regulation.  Also, I don't think it is
>necessarily pejorative that a test senses a "male" writing style. Androgyny
>is beautiful and an ability to write both across both gender-styles is a
>lovely thing to do. This is expressly, I put on a tie many times when I
>give a talk.  There is a time and place for all aspect of our "selves" and
>you seem to have chosen an educated style in your articles.  However, I
>wonder what the article you wrote on Fiorella Terenzi comes out as.  Did
>you run that one through the test?

When my ex and I were divorcing and went through a child custody 
evaluation, I took the MMPI.  The clinical psychologist pasted boilerplate 
text in his report:

>This profile occasionally reflects an individual who is conflicted over 
>their sexual identity.  They do not identify with the cultural stereotype 
>of the masculine role.  These men have a wide range of interests, and are 
>apt to be idealistic.

At trial, opposing counsel pounced on this, trying to impute that I am 
homosexual and (in the eyes of a conservative judge) perforce an unsuitable 
parent.  The psychologist testified that it's extremely common to find an 
elevated Scale 5 in highly educated men, and that he himself did.

 From _Psychological Experts in Divorce Actions_:

>... originally intended to be a measure of homosexuality.  However they 
>quickly realized that the homosexual population was too heterogeneous to 
>be measured by one scale.  It is also the only scale that has different 
>norms for males and females.
>
>Scale 5 is highly related to education.
>
>Men with low scores ... are individuals who tend to have "macho" 
>self-images and present themselves as being extremely masculine, 
>overemphasizing their masculinity in a somewhat unsophisticated 
>way.  Women with similar scores identify with the stereotypical feminine 
>roles but may doubt their own femininity.
>
>Men with elevated 5's -- have conflicted thoughts about their sexual 
>identity; are insecure in a masculine role; are effeminate and have 
>aesthetic and artistic interests; are intelligently capable; are 
>ambitious, competitive, and persevering; show good judgment and common 
>sense; are curious; are creative as well as imaginative, and 
>individualistic; are social and sensitive to others; are tolerant; are 
>capable of expressing warm feelings to others; are passive and dependent 
>as well as submissive; have good self-control and rarely act out; are 
>inner-directed.
>
>Women with elevated 5's -- tend to be uninterested in being seen as 
>feminine; not interested in appearing or behaving as other women do; 
>reject the traditional female role; have stereotypic masculine interests; 
>are active, vigorous, and assertive; are competitive, aggressive, and 
>dominating; are outgoing, uninhibited, and self-confident; are 
>unemotional; are unfriendly.

I'd guess that virtually everyone on this list has an elevated 5.

I further suspect that the accuracy of Koppel's and Argamon's test is 
inversely correlated with the subject's MMPI Scale 5.


-- David Lubkin.




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Dec  1 18:22:17 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:22:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
Message-ID: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>

I've thought a bit on this lately and am a little let down with the pace of 
transportation. If you look at air travel over the last 50 years there are 
few major breakthroughs. 75 years ago, it took weeks to travel around the 
world and then with commercial air travel, that was cut down to a day or 
merely hours. 50 years later, we're still pretty much at the same flight 
times. We have more routes and scheduled and tvs in the seats but flights 
are still about the same length. Perhaps they are even longer if you take 
security waits into the equation.

I think the main reason why air travel tech has stalled is lack of 
competition. There's really only two companies making planes-Airbus and 
Boeing- and both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments. Air 
travel is subsidized by local governments and businesses who don't have much 
incentive to decrease travel time.

For ground travel, in the US at least, road trips take less time because the 
speed limit has been increased from 55 to 70-75 on interstates. It's nice to 
be save 2 hours from an Atlanta to Miami trip, but I'm still waiting for 15 
minute NY-London trips and flying cars.

How long until the science fiction breakthroughs come on line? Transporters, 
etc.

I've done a bit of teleconferencing and videoconferencing and while it is 
sufficient for basic communication, it's not yet replacing meatspace.

BAL
>From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at br.inter.net>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:57:22 -0200
>
>Hello extropians,
>
>I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. The 
>first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems to be stalled. 
>Is it related? Are we concentrating our resourses in evolving our 
>communication means because our transportation means are poor, or does de 
>current pace of developments on comms in fact causes less effort on 
>advancing transportation? Just thinking. Sorry for the bad english, but 
>it's not my native language and I am still learning.
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some 
good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  1 19:29:55 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:29:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
Message-ID: <410-220031211192955719@M2W054.mail2web.com>

From: Brian Lee 

>I've thought a bit on this lately and am a little let down with the pace
of transportation.<

It's not exactly travelling next door or across the planet, but it's
something to think about.


_A Vision of Future Space Transportation_ (Apogee Books Space Series)
by Tim McElyea, David Brin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1896522939/104-3904145-7775949
?v=glance

"The glorious space age has come and gone. So what now? What's next? To go
further, to go faster, we must take the next step. Space is still full of
mystery and challenges humankind as much as ever. Ideas on what the next
step, or steps vary greatly and there is no shortage of concepts for the
future of space transportation. Concepts include new engines, new
strategies, harnessing gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear energy and more.
This book will take you on a guided visual tour of the future of space
transportation. From Earth to Orbit to In-Space transportation, you will
sample what is being considered and get an easy-to-understand explanation
of what the spacecraft will do and how it will work. 

"Decades ago Dr. Wernher von Braun teamed with Walt Disney to animate a
mission to Mars and inspired a generation. Today multimedia, animation and
video serve a similar communications need. The CD-ROM included contains
official NASA videos, vehicle concept animation, and dynamic multimedia.
View spacecraft concepts in 3D, see mission animation and hear first hand
what the visionaries of the aerospace industry hope to accomplish."




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 20:29:29 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:29:29 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01c3b849$d535ebb0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Guns


>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > I doubt it.
> > It's a religious issue that is a matter of faith.
>
> Sorry, Dirk, but the numbers really do prove my side. Dr. John Lott's
> study was of ALL FBI crime data from 1980 to 1995 and proves that
> right-to-carry reduces crime. Antyi-gun studies always cherry pick
> their data sets from communities that fit their prejudices. NONE have
> ever looked at even a large fraction of the data that Lott's study
> covered. Furthermore, a more recent study of the same data using more
> advanced statistical methods demonstrated that the crime reduction was
> greater than the 12% that Lott reported, more in the order of 25%.
>
> Faith does not get proven by statistics, faith only exists in SPITE of
> evidence to the contrary, so I am sorry, but it is the anti-gun stance
> that lives by faith.

The faith I am referring to is the *belief* that society should have no say
in the legitimacy of your position.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From scerir at libero.it  Mon Dec  1 20:53:27 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:53:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000801c3b84d$2c2f8450$68c31b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Brian Lee" 

> How long until the science fiction breakthroughs come on line? 
> Transporters, etc.

If you mean teleportation we are waiting for a "physical" 
full interpretation (and then implementation) of it.

Because, talking about the transmission of quantum information
from Alice to Bob, in general and also in the usual teleportation 
scheme, we intuitively think there must be a channel connecting 
Alice and Bob. But, in this case, a paradox arises. If - look here - 
'only' two 'classical' bits were sent from Alice to Bob, by 'classical'
means, how did the 'full' quantum information pass from Alice to Bob? 
This seems to be a violation of the conservation of information,
or something like this. There are different views about it.  

Somebody thinks there is no trasmission of quantum information 
from Alice to Bob, but the (missing) quantum information is already 
there, at Bob's home, 'because' we live in a multiverse. 

Another possible view states there is 'another' channel, 
'another' path connecting Alice and Bob, which is defined 
by the two world-lines of the distributed EPR particle pair. 
This means - following Bennett - that the 'remaining' quantum information
must have been transmitted from Alice to the EPR source 'backward in 
time' and then from the EPR source to Bob 'foward in time'. 
This interpretation is fully consistent (no paradoxes like 'you can
kill your grandfather' arise here) so long as the two 'classical' 
bits Alice wish to send (to Bob) remain unknown, while that weird
informational jamming happens.
  



From alex at ramonsky.com  Mon Dec  1 20:51:29 2003
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scott Walker Kama Sutra
References: <p05100302bbefada56603@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <3FCBA9D1.6010907@ramonsky.com>



Amara Graps wrote:

> Came into my office to pick up some papers about carbonaceous
> chondrites on Earth, and I leave my office as I saw words and pictures
> about kama sutra for robots. Made me smile. Have a good day.
>
> Amara

Hey, there's hope for me yet  :  )
AR




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Dec  1 21:01:17 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gender roles
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201154514.0287fec8@mail.comcast.net>

After my posting re Scale 5, I got curious and did a little more 
research.  The test was revised slightly for the MMPI-2.  Since I read the 
score interpretation taught to clinical psychologists (reprinted below), 
questions and doubts about anything clinical psychologists assert have been 
bubbling inside me faster than I can voice them.

But I thought you might be interested in what passes for science.

 From http://cmhs.utoledo.edu/npiazza/Courses/Adv%20Personality/MMPI-2.htm :

Scale 5 Interpretations for Men

 > 75 -- Typically self-proclaimed homosexuals and persons willing to admit 
their homosexual concerns.

65 - 75 -- Lacks identification with culturally prescribed sex roles. 
Passive, inner-directed, have aesthetic interests, and may even seem 
effeminate.

58 - 64 -- Men tend toward aesthetic activities, are imaginative, 
introspective, and have a wide range of interests. They are socially 
perceptive and sensitive to interpersonal interactions. Typical range for 
most college educated men.

45 - 57 -- Traditional identification with sex role interests and 
activities. Typical range for college educated males in masculine oriented 
fields, e.g., engineering and agriculture.

< 44 -- Very strong identification with traditional masculine role. May be 
rigid and inflexible about their masculinity. Tend to be adventurous, 
easygoing, coarse, and have interests in mechanics, sports, and outdoor 
activities.

Scale 5 Interpretations for Women

 > 75 -- Typically self-proclaimed homosexuals and persons willing to admit 
their homosexual concerns.

65 - 74 -- Unusual for women to score in this range. Check for errors in 
scoring or profiling. Not interested in appearing or behaving according to 
traditional feminine role. Tend to be vigorous, aggressive, dominating, and 
competitive. Confident and spontaneous, but may become anxious when 
expected to conform to traditional feminine sex roles.

45 - 64 -- Less interested in traditional feminine activities with more 
masculine interests and activities that women who score low on this scale.

35 - 44 -- Genuinely identifies with traditional feminine interests and 
activities.

< 34 -- Over-identification with the feminine role. Tend to be passive, 
submissive, modest, yielding, and demure. They may be coy, seductive, and 
feign helplessness. May be self-pitying, masochistic, and manipulate men 
via sex.


-- David Lubkin.




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  1 21:03:25 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:03:25 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <025401c3b84e$a177aac0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Lee" <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
To: <hemm at br.inter.net>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


> I've thought a bit on this lately and am a little let down with the pace
of
> transportation. If you look at air travel over the last 50 years there are
> few major breakthroughs. 75 years ago, it took weeks to travel around the
> world and then with commercial air travel, that was cut down to a day or
> merely hours. 50 years later, we're still pretty much at the same flight
> times. We have more routes and scheduled and tvs in the seats but flights
> are still about the same length. Perhaps they are even longer if you take
> security waits into the equation.
>
> I think the main reason why air travel tech has stalled is lack of
> competition. There's really only two companies making planes-Airbus and
> Boeing- and both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments.
Air
> travel is subsidized by local governments and businesses who don't have
much
> incentive to decrease travel time.


It's more basic than that.
To get from my house in Britain to a friends in New York takes approximately
13hrs.
Of that, 7 is the flight time.

I have no intention of paying a premium so I can knock 3hrs off that time.
It's not the speed of the flight that matters, but the journey times and
getting through the airports at both ends.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Dec  1 22:16:12 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> Transhumanism *is* a distinct put-off to the
> majority of
> women.

Inherently?  No more than it is a distinct put-off to
the majority of men, at least by my experience.
There are many things that (Western) men and women
both want, self-control among them.

Is not one of the end goals of transhumansism vastly
increased control over oneself, including the ability
not to age and die if desired?


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Dec  1 22:41:38 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20031201224138.6071.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> I ran across this online program that tries to
> analyze the gender
> of the writer of a writing selection. I am writing
> quite a lot these
> days, and I was curious about what the "gender
> genie" would
> calculate for my gender.
> 
> http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html
> 
> "According to Koppel and Argamon, the algorithm
> should predict the
> gender of the author approximately 80% of the time."
> 
> However, in my case, it was wrong, 100% of the time.

Same here.  Perhaps it can distinguish
"classic-masculine" from "classic-feminine", but it's
probable that most people on this list are neither.
As per the recent posts on Scale 5, perhaps there are
actually three mental "genders" in modern society:
masculine, feminine, and educated (which incorporates
some traits from the classic pair - like sensitivity
to others from feminine and assertiveness from
masculine - but also has traits all its own).

I'm not sure if "educated" is quite the most accurate
word for it, but from the reports, it does seem to be
what highly-educated men and women tend towards.

...I wonder.  If I am correct about that, then might
some of the social problems we're seeing be caused by
a fundamental perception of "there are men" and "there
are women", with the modification "some men act like
women and some women act like men", with no allowance
for this third "gender" since it falls outside of that
model?  (And if there is a third, might there be a
fourth?  Or would that be dividing things up too far
to be useful?)

The source of the model is obvious - and body
modification is not (yet) widespread enough that there
are many who do away with the bothersome reproductive
organs.  (What if I don't want to have kids, but
rather to impress other peoples' kids so they'll
follow in my footsteps more firmly than offspring
related only by genetics?)


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 02:49:54 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:49:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <20031201153957.96469.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c3b87e$f737df90$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It's far from simple.
> > Why don't you tell me how you can own fully automatic rifles in
> > California?
> 
> It is simple: California is in violation of the US Constitution, and
> cases are proceeding through the courts right now...

Furthermore, the Taxifornia government is evil and corrupt,
in the pockets of gambling interests and under the control
of those who plot to harm the taxpayers.  A group of them
were caught by a live microphone a few months ago, plotting
to cut funds to highway repair, so that drivers would hit
potholes and ruin their tires, resulting in their crying 
out for higher taxes to repair roads.  Fortunately, they
were heard by everyone in the capital building.  Busted!
Book em, Dano.

Watch what happens next fall.  We will send these reprehensible
miscreants packing with a one-way ticket out of Taxamento,
and that will be a fiiiine day indeed.  The voters will 
take this state back from those who would enslave our minds, 
restrict our sacred freedoms, plunder our paychecks and 
mess up our tires.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 03:07:24 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:07:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201154514.0287fec8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <003801c3b881$68d30e20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

Looks like fun:

http://motobykz.co.uk/MercF300/Merc300Funjet.htm

spike



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Dec  2 04:42:27 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:42:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
In-Reply-To: <003801c3b881$68d30e20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <003801c3b881$68d30e20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312012328260.-457029@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>


Wow, spike! It looks like a wonderfully updated version of
the Messerschmitt from the 1950s....

Here, Google!  :)
http://members.shaw.ca/tallteri/messeropenme.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/tallteri/messerclosed.jpg

Ha! You can even make a paper model!
http://papertoys.com/messerschmitt.htm

If the F300 LifeJet gets 50 mpg I'll be *happy* to
have one!  oooh. :)  I can just see it now, chasing around
these little mountain roads!  ;D

Regards,
MB

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:

> Looks like fun:
>
> http://motobykz.co.uk/MercF300/Merc300Funjet.htm
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 04:53:06 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:53:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <01ee01c3b849$d535ebb0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031202045306.22644.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> The faith I am referring to is the *belief* that society should have
> no say in the legitimacy of your position.

Ah, well, on that, society does have a say, and more than 3/4 of the US
population supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. 39
states have laws guaranteeing a right-to-carry-concealed, most of which
were passed in the last decade, a decade in which the US has seen crime
drop by half, a phenomenon seen in no other industrialized nation,
where no other industrialized nation has as gun laws as free as ours.
Society has spoken, in support of my position.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 04:55:32 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <002b01c3b87e$f737df90$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031202045532.79700.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > It's far from simple.
> > > Why don't you tell me how you can own fully automatic rifles in
> > > California?
> > 
> > It is simple: California is in violation of the US Constitution,
> and
> > cases are proceeding through the courts right now...
> 
> Furthermore, the Taxifornia government is evil and corrupt,
> in the pockets of gambling interests and under the control
> of those who plot to harm the taxpayers.  A group of them
> were caught by a live microphone a few months ago, plotting
> to cut funds to highway repair, so that drivers would hit
> potholes and ruin their tires, resulting in their crying 
> out for higher taxes to repair roads.  Fortunately, they
> were heard by everyone in the capital building.  Busted!
> Book em, Dano.

Ah, finally the statists trespass on one freedom that Californians
cannot brook trespass against: the right to drive.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 05:01:14 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
In-Reply-To: <003801c3b881$68d30e20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031202050114.77087.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Looks like fun:
> 
> http://motobykz.co.uk/MercF300/Merc300Funjet.htm

Why call it a jet if it has no jet engine???

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Dec  2 06:04:55 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:04:55 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
References: <20031202045306.22644.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <044001c3b89a$35475ed0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Guns


>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> > The faith I am referring to is the *belief* that society should have
> > no say in the legitimacy of your position.
>
> Ah, well, on that, society does have a say, and more than 3/4 of the US
> population supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. 39
> states have laws guaranteeing a right-to-carry-concealed, most of which
> were passed in the last decade, a decade in which the US has seen crime
> drop by half, a phenomenon seen in no other industrialized nation,
> where no other industrialized nation has as gun laws as free as ours.
> Society has spoken, in support of my position.

But I thought you believed in 'inalienable' rights?
Or is gun ownership not one of them?

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 06:31:16 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:31:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202045532.79700.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c3b89d$e3cdfdd0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> 
> Ah, finally the statists trespass on one freedom that Californians
> cannot brook trespass against: the right to drive.
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey


Roger that, big time.  They won't admit it, but the
tripling of the car tax is what got our previous sorry
excuse for a governor hurled out of office head first.
People looked the other way while all the other stuff
was going on, but when they messed with our wheels, it
was time to take action.  {8^D

Extropians, do stop and think about this: we all pay taxes 
out the kazoo and most of it disappears into the mist, gone
forever.  But a little gets spent on a wonderful toy:
the interstate highway system.  And what a thing it is:
whenever we take a notion we can hop in our internal 
combustion freedom machines and set out on a journey, on the
road like Jack Kerouac!  Just go, take off, get the hell
outta town for a while.  It doesn't even cost much, especially 
if you take along camping gear and a cooler full of grub and 
sodas and beer.  You can drive a typical detroit all day for 
40 or 50 bucks, chase the far horizon for a solid week for just 
a few Franklins.  You seldom need to slow down or pay a toll, 
rarely get caught in heavy traffic, none of that, just roll 
along for as long as you want.  This works especially well
out in the western US, big open country, no one around,
like a ride thru the desert on a horse with no name, cause
there aint no one there to give you no pain.  Psychiatrists
offices must be filled with people who have never discovered
driving your cares away on the open road, free wind blowing
in one ear and out the other.

What a terrific way to unwind!  Low cost getaway, man!  
No need to compare it with sex, because you can do 
both.  Not only can money buy happiness, it isn't even 
particularly expensive any more.  Go with a sweetheart
or with a bunch of guys, or just go by yourself and have 
a hell of a good time.  For those who understand the
extra freedom of going on two wheels, all the above
only more so.  

If all tax dollars were spent as well as they
are on the good old interstate highway system, well
then, even *I* would be in favor of taxes, and this
is *me* talking.

{8-]

spike




Dont mess with our wheels or our roads.   



From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 06:48:29 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <003e01c3b89d$e3cdfdd0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312012235510.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:

> If all tax dollars were spent as well as they are on the good old
> interstate highway system, well then, even *I* would be in favor of
> taxes, and this is *me* talking.

OK, so here's a question I was pondering briefly the other day: if all of
the money spent on the Interstates since their inception had been instead
pumped into R&D for several companies like Moller, would we have
competitively-priced flying cars yet?  And if we did have (VTOL) flying
vehicles, would we still need roads?

The reason I was thinking about it is that I recently finished reading 
Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, where the Neanderthal 
society in an alternate universe has developed advanced technology while 
maintaining their hunter-gatherer ways, and although they have flying 
vehicles and helicopters, they never invented roads, or even non-VTOL 
aircraft with their required long clearings for takeoff and landing.  And 
I was wondering how feasible this was -- wouldn't you still need roads for 
shipping heavy items?



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 07:18:10 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:18:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312012235510.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3b8a4$7156ff20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Don Dartfield
> 
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:
> 
> > If all tax dollars were spent as well as they are on the good old
> > interstate highway system, well then, even *I* would be in favor of
> > taxes, and this is *me* talking.
> 
> OK, so here's a question I was pondering briefly the other 
> day: if all of the money spent on the Interstates since their
inception had 
> been instead pumped into R&D for several companies like Moller, would
we have
> competitively-priced flying cars yet?

No.  Moller and others aren't struggling against a lack of 
research, they are struggling against physics.  There is a
good reason why those designs don't fly.  The military has
dumped cubic tons of money into flying cars, but the power
requirements keep pushing us towards the flying cars that
we have had for fifty years: helicopters.  

The equations for power requirements as a function of rotor
length are well understood Don.  Textbooks on VTOL design
are available at your local university.  There is a very 
good reason why choppers have long rotors, and why sailplanes
with long skinny wings have a more efficient glide slope
than high powered aircraft.

spike 




From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  2 10:24:00 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:24:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:16:12PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Inherently?  No more than it is a distinct put-off to
> the majority of men, at least by my experience.

We seem to be both trading anecdotes here.

> There are many things that (Western) men and women
> both want, self-control among them.

I'm very certain that there is empiric evidence
that transhumanism acceptance rate in males is at
least an order (maybe two) of magnitude higher than
women.

However, I have no actual statistics in hand, so I can't
prove my case.
 
> Is not one of the end goals of transhumansism vastly
> increased control over oneself, including the ability
> not to age and die if desired?

Most old people look forward to dying. Too much control
is a bad thing, imo.

You've been soaking in here too long. The bulk of the
world is rural; try preaching there. You'll be surprised...

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031202/2209ab0b/attachment.bin>

From jacques at dtext.com  Tue Dec  2 11:51:58 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:51:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <3FCC7CDE.1000609@dtext.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> I'm very certain that there is empiric evidence
> that transhumanism acceptance rate in males is at
> least an order (maybe two) of magnitude higher than
> women.
> 
> However, I have no actual statistics in hand, so I can't
> prove my case.

I'll say the obvious: speculation (for best and worse) is distinctively 
male. You don't easily get the attention of a woman with speculation 
(except her attention on yourself, as a typical... male). They are 
usually more practical, caring about what is in the present and makes a 
difference there.

It's one of the obvious gender opposition in the culture, and it is 
probable that it reflects some biological difference (the origin of 
which seems rather easy to imagine). Of course, like all 
"genderalizations", I don't intend it normatively and anyone is welcome 
to be a counter-example. I am a counter-example of many gender things 
that I think usually hold.

Jacques




From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Dec  2 14:01:50 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:01:50 GMT
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Opening of Biotech
Message-ID: <E1ARB67-0005Nm-K6@odie.runbox.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031202/3d2674d2/attachment.html>

From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 14:05:00 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <000001c3b8a4$7156ff20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020604230.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:

> No.  Moller and others aren't struggling against a lack of research,
> they are struggling against physics.  There is a good reason why those
> designs don't fly.

I thought that the current Moller Skycar *does* fly -- it just costs a 
million dollars.



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  2 14:19:24 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:19:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <01b801c3b823$ce7276c0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
References: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
	<184DD522-240A-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
	<01b801c3b823$ce7276c0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <20031202141923.GC22120@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:57:22PM -0200, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:

> I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. The first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems to be stalled. Is it related? Are we concentrating our resourses in evolving our communication means because our transportation means are poor, or does de current pace of developments on comms in fact causes less effort on advancing transportation? Just thinking. Sorry for the bad english, but it's not my native language and I am still learning.

Current communications depend on advances in electronics
and optics; the signalling speed is about the speed of
light already. Electromagnetic communication needs
no wires but is limited in bandwidth/cell, the 
amount of wire/fibre buried is clearly
very limited (watch the current dark fibre debacle).
However, better coding and hardware can put 
more bits/s through a given infrastructure.

Transportation has stalled in throughput because it's
an infrastructure issue (new infrastructure can't occupy
the same space as old, need to be compatible and is 
intrinsically expensive), and speed is an energy and noise
issue (you want to stay subsonic, and evacuated channels
are ridiculously expensive).

If you want to go to orbit, you still have the atmosphere
to go through (and it *is* called rocket science not for
nothing). The best you can do is hypersonic scramjet,
and if you thought Concorde was expensive... 

So, yeah, communication is where it's at. Especially if we
get good telepresence. Online gaming is progressing nicely
towards VR already. Once we get head-up displays with good
head tracking and good body tracking you can mix both freely.

You can expect good augmented reality in about 15-20 years.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031202/6717502f/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 14:38:12 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Guns
In-Reply-To: <044001c3b89a$35475ed0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031202143812.43177.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> >
> > --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The faith I am referring to is the *belief* that society should
> > > have no say in the legitimacy of your position.
> >
> > Ah, well, on that, society does have a say, and more than 3/4 of
> the US
> > population supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. 39
> > states have laws guaranteeing a right-to-carry-concealed, most of
> which
> > were passed in the last decade, a decade in which the US has seen
> crime
> > drop by half, a phenomenon seen in no other industrialized nation,
> > where no other industrialized nation has as gun laws as free as
> ours.
> > Society has spoken, in support of my position.
> 
> But I thought you believed in 'inalienable' rights?
> Or is gun ownership not one of them?

I don't believe, I know. That I know that I have inalienable rights
such as the keeping and bearing of arms (any arms, not just guns) is a
distinctly different issue as to whether any particular society thinks
so as well. It is fortunate that I live in a society where a
supermajority posesses similar knowledge, for that means I do not have
to either move somewhere else, or work very hard to secure my liberties
against the slave mentality of a serf society such as you do. In my
society, we have constitutional barriers against modern ignorance
corrupting our natural rights, barriers which serve to protect those
rights in times when public opinion sways and flags, such as the
1968-86 period.

It is quite evident that certain serf societies on the european
continent and elsewhere still believe they have no right to defend
their liberties yet still beleive they are are free. They believed this
before WWII as well, and look where that got you.

We saw a similar phenomenon with the slavery period here in the US,
where house slaves saw no reason for the field slaves to yearn for
liberty in the north, that privilege was available to those who
sufficiently pleased the masters and those that did not deserved to
work the fields.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From amara at amara.com  Tue Dec  2 13:43:18 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:43:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <p05100301bbf23ed83cae@[150.146.134.133]>

Dear Natasha,

>
>Amara, bella, perhaps the test is outdated.

I hope so.

In any case the people in this group can provide a sample to
further check the algorithm. The transhumanists are a pretty wide mix
in the gender arena, in my view.


>
>We cannot expect either gender to write in tithe style prescribed to it by
>any one generational testing regulation.

Vero

>  Also, I don't think it is
>necessarily pejorative that a test senses a "male" writing style. Androgyny
>is beautiful and an ability to write both across both gender-styles is a
>lovely thing to do. This is expressly, I put on a tie many times when I
>give a talk.  There is a time and place for all aspect of our "selves" and
>you seem to have chosen an educated style in your articles.

or 'it' chose me :-)

>  However, I
>wonder what the article you wrote on Fiorella Terenzi comes out as.

'Male'

>  Did
>you run that one through the test?

(just tried)

For the record, the results for all of my poetry test out as 'Male' too.

>
>As an educated scientist, your training will come out in your writing no
>matter how you fancify it.

Vero

>Also, try running some of your email stories
>(that you send to your friends) through the test.

Thank you for the suggestion. I didn't try that before, mostly
because I am more myself in those personal writings, and they
are private among my friends and family.

The results from those vignettes are that they are more skewed
towards the 'Female' scale, in fact, an almost perfect balance
between 'Male' and 'Female'. The interesting thing (to me) about my
email stories is that I think my writing style is more or less
uniform, but the topics change. Those that discuss immediate
relationship topics immediately test out as 'Female'. I don't think
that it is a very smart algorithm, that is, if a man talks about
relationships he would probably test out as 'Female' too.


>
>Brings me back to the beginning. Who's judging and is the criteria
>objective.
>


It's hard for me to see how my writings appear while I'm on the
inside of my head. Directly, no one is judging but me, but
indirectly, (depending on which writings) editors are judging. No
matter, though, because I didn't gain very much from that exercise.
In the end, I don't  think the criteria for that test were useful
criteria.

Amara
-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 14:57:48 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312012235510.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202145748.87585.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:
> 
> > If all tax dollars were spent as well as they are on the good old
> > interstate highway system, well then, even *I* would be in favor of
> > taxes, and this is *me* talking.
> 
> OK, so here's a question I was pondering briefly the other day: if
> all of the money spent on the Interstates since their inception had
> been instead pumped into R&D for several companies like Moller,
> would we have competitively-priced flying cars yet?  And if we did
> have (VTOL) flying vehicles, would we still need roads?

Firstly, most all of the money spent on the interstates was money
collected in the form of taxes on gasoline, which was burned by
motorists driving the roads, i.e. a self funded mandate. People get
ticked if you take taxes for one purpose and spend them on another that
doesn't benefit the purpose in which they are paying the taxes.

A smarter concept would be to take all the aviation-gas tax revinues
and invest them in aircar development, rather than building airports
and subsidizing airline tickets.

That being said, air cars that burn fuels are just bad ideas, IMHO. The
mpg efficiency sucks major league. Don't get me wrong, I want one
myself, but from any rational economic or environmental perspective,
air cars are major wastes of resources on consumer pleasure if they are
burning chemical fuels.

We were all told as kids that we would live in a future of air cars
because the research back in the 1950's and 60's indicated that we
would develop anti-gravity sometime in the 21st century, or at least
high power high efficiency ion propulsion technologies.

> 
> The reason I was thinking about it is that I recently finished
> reading Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, where the
> Neanderthal society in an alternate universe has developed
> advanced technology while maintaining their hunter-gatherer ways,
> and although they have flying
> vehicles and helicopters, they never invented roads, or even non-VTOL
> aircraft with their required long clearings for takeoff and landing. 
> And I was wondering how feasible this was -- wouldn't you still need
> roads for shipping heavy items?

Developing technology requires a certain critical mass of population,
accumulated knowledge, and an educated class of tinkerers. Hunter
gatherer economics cannot support a large enough population exclusively
to allow the needed critical mass to accumulate. Besides an ignorance
of neanderthal physiognomy, and a misuse of the term 'parallax', he
displays a similar ignorance of basic caloric economics.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 14:59:43 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020604230.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202145943.88024.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> 
> I thought that the current Moller Skycar *does* fly -- it just costs
> a million dollars.

His R&D saucer does fly, somewhat. It sucks major amounts of fuel to do
so. Prepare to pay $100 in gas to fly to work each day.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 15:16:44 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <20031202141923.GC22120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031202151644.11109.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:57:22PM -0200, Henrique Moraes Machado
> wrote:
> 
> > I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation.
> 
> Current communications depend on advances in electronics
> and optics; the signalling speed is about the speed of
> light already. Electromagnetic communication needs
> no wires but is limited in bandwidth/cell, the 
> amount of wire/fibre buried is clearly
> very limited (watch the current dark fibre debacle).
> However, better coding and hardware can put 
> more bits/s through a given infrastructure.

Yes, virtually all of the increases in bandwidth in the last decade
have been in improved compression algorithms and higher frequency use,
and the attendand equipment designs to do so.

> 
> Transportation has stalled in throughput because it's
> an infrastructure issue (new infrastructure can't occupy
> the same space as old, need to be compatible and is 
> intrinsically expensive), and speed is an energy and noise
> issue (you want to stay subsonic, and evacuated channels
> are ridiculously expensive).

It's also an energy issue. You can build SSTs and SSTOs all day long
that use existing airports. What you can't get over is the energy cost.
The faster you go, the more fuel/mile you burn to deal with thermal
friction, and higher power propulsion systems tend also to be less fuel
efficient on a gallons per lb thrust basis.

The good thing is that resource prices drop over time as technology
decreases resource utilization costs and increases utilization
efficiency. Eventually higher velocity transportation systems become
commercially feasible, this is just a much longer curve than
communications has.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From amara at amara.com  Tue Dec  2 14:48:34 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:48:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <p05100300bbf255bda10b@[150.146.134.133]>

Dear Eugene:

>Transhumanism *is* a distinct put-off to the majority of
>women.

Perhaps. The main reason that I occasionally talk here is because I
have some good friends here.  For me, that is more important than
the meme-complex, if that provides insight. I see my future with my
own circle of friends, family, teachers, students, and not any
particular group. (In this respect I've probably changed during the
last year or two.)

>I do not see how to package the meme complex in a more palatable
>way.

(I'll need to think on it.)

>  Perhaps our transhumanist women can produce a diagnosis, and a
>suggestion.

I'm not the best person to produce a diagnosis and suggestion on
this topic now. Probably you know that often, or at least in the last
several years, I think that I don't have a strong enough character
to accept/handle/counter/respond in a good way to some of the
aggression and/or coldness and/or other nastiness that I sometimes
encounter on the tranhumanist lists. I had years of practicing
talking on Usenet too, but somehow that wasn't the right training
for here. This is not any cause for alarm, though, because I have
similar thoughts and feelings when I think that I am not strong
enough to handle living in Italy, and then I meet someone with a
warmth and generosity that blows me away, and it makes me want to
continue trying. Same thing with the transhumanists. My headspace
regarding interaction with strangers is not the best this year
anyway because of this tremendously difficult year and I'm very
tired.


Amara
-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 16:05:21 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:05:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <3FCC7CDE.1000609@dtext.com>
Message-ID: <002301c3b8ee$169d7150$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > I'm very certain that there is empiric evidence
> > that transhumanism acceptance rate in males is at
> > least an order (maybe two) of magnitude higher than
> > women.
> > 
> 
> I'll say the obvious: speculation (for best and worse) is 
> distinctively male. You don't easily get the attention of a woman with
speculation 
> (except her attention on yourself, as a typical... male). They are 
> usually more practical, caring about what is in the present 
> and makes a difference there...

This is one that made the rounds last newtonmass:


 Do you know what would have happened if it had been Three Wise Women
instead of Three Wise Men?

They would have asked directions,
arrived on time,
helped deliver the baby,
cleaned the stable,
made a casserole,
brought practical gifts, and
there would be Peace On Earth.

{8^D

spike





From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 16:08:40 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:08:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020604230.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <002a01c3b8ee$8d5bd980$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:
> 
> > No.  Moller and others aren't struggling against a lack of research,
> > they are struggling against physics.  There is a good 
> > reason why those designs don't fly.
> 
> I thought that the current Moller Skycar *does* fly -- it 
> just costs a million dollars... Don


If it does fly, it's worth twice that, nay three times.
There are plenty of yahoos around here that have money
to blow their noses on, $3E6 wouldn't even slow
them down.  spike



From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 16:10:47 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202145748.87585.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020809550.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Besides an ignorance of neanderthal physiognomy, and a misuse of the
> term 'parallax', he displays a similar ignorance of basic caloric
> economics.

So you read the books?  What was the ignorance of neanderthal physiognomy 
and ignorance of caloric economics?



From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 16:11:14 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020556000.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> Most old people look forward to dying. Too much control is a bad thing,
> imo. You've been soaking in here too long. The bulk of the world is
> rural; try preaching there. You'll be surprised...

But if they had the choice, and if they weren't encumbered by religious 
ideas about death being a good thing, I would think they would rather be 
young again than die.





From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  2 16:23:21 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:23:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bbf255bda10b@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <003001c3b8f0$9a585d50$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

Amara, where can I find the gender genie test?  That previous
URL was about how to interpret it, but I didn't see the
test itself.  spike


Yukadoos below.  Most of them are old, some new.  
I didn't write em but I had fun with them:


======================

1. Two peanuts walk into a bar.  One was a salted.


2. A jumper cable walks into a  bar. The barman says "I'll
serve you, but don't start anything."


3. A sandwich walks into a bar. The barman  says, "Sorry,
we don't serve food in here."


4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.



5. A man walks into a bar with a slab of  asphalt under his
arm and says, "A beer please, and another one for the road."



6. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says  to the other,
"Does this taste funny to you?"


7. "Doc, I can't stop singing 'The green, green  grass of home.'"
"That sounds like Tom Jones syndrome." "Is it common?"  "It's not
unusual."


8. Two cows standing next  to each other in a field, Daisy says
to Dolly. "I was artificially  inseminated this morning." "I don't
believe you," said Dolly. "It's true, no  bull!" exclaimed Daisy.


9. Two hydrogen atoms  walk into a bar. One says, "I've lost my
electron." The other says, "Are you  sure?" The first replies,
"Yes, I'm positive..."


10. A man takes his Rottweiler to the vet and  says, "My dog's
cross-eyed. Is there anything you can do for him?" "Well,"  says
the vet, "let's have a look at him" So he picks the dog up and
examines  his eyes, then checks his teeth. Finally, he says "I'm
going to have to put  him down." "What? Because he's cross-eyed?"
"No, because he's really heavy."


11. I went to buy some camouflage trousers the  other day but I
couldn't find any.


12. I went to the butcher's the other day and I bet him $50 that
he couldn't reach the  meat on the top shelf. He said, "No,the
steaks are too high."


13. I went to a seafood disco rave last  week...and pulled a mussel.


14. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly; but when  they lit
a fire in the craft, it sank, proving once and for all that you
can't have your kayak and heat it too.!


15.  A man walks into a doctor's office. "What seems to be the problem?"
asks the doc. "It's... um...well... I have five penises," replies the
man.
"Blimey!" says the doctor, "How do your trousers fit?" "Like a glove."


16. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A  fsh.




From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  2 16:27:16 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:27:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020556000.9234-100000@hplx.net>
References: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020556000.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202162715.GJ22120@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:11:14AM -0800, Don Dartfield wrote:

> But if they had the choice, and if they weren't encumbered by religious 

I don't know what the cutoff is, but in the current generation it's
difficult to get through to people past 50. Maybe our generation will
fare better; we'll see. Kids are easy, but I'm not sure they retain
the view as they age. 

I notice several transhumanists have drifted away as they aged.

> ideas about death being a good thing, I would think they would rather be 

They think they're immortal already, so they will fight you tooth and nail when
you attempt to take their only protection away. Actually, they will simply
reject whatever you say, so there's even not much fighting involved.

> young again than die.

A lot of people do not want to become young again. Because they're
comfortable as they are, and don't want to go back to teen/twen angst.
They don't understand that you can have the one, and not the another
as well. 

It will become iffy as chronical diseases make the daily living
really painful, so anything becomes an improvement (you never seen
old people longing for death?). But, old people are the toughest cases.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031202/0c72a36c/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 16:28:35 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:28:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWSWEEK:   Test your Digital IQ
Message-ID: <184670-220031222162835774@M2W095.mail2web.com>

"Next Frontiers:

Test Your Ditigal IQ
     Computers havae infiltrated almost every phase of our lives, from the
office to the car, phones to mucic. Just how much do you know about
technologies that are taking over your world?  Take this quick quiz and see
if you're a geek or a Luddite."
___________________________________________________________________

For Extropy list members, this test is utterly basic, but if anyone wants
to take it, here is one oneline:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/987180.asp

Some comments are funny by Ernie the attorney: 
http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/2003/11/newsweek_survey.h
tml

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 16:32:00 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:32:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <281450-2200312221632091@M2W092.mail2web.com>


Bloody hell Spike!  I'm trying to get some work done!!!

Every time I open my email hub to sneak a peek at an incoming message I
start lol and disrupting my workday.


======================

1. Two peanuts walk into a bar.  One was a salted.


2. A jumper cable walks into a  bar. The barman says "I'll
serve you, but don't start anything."


3. A sandwich walks into a bar. The barman  says, "Sorry,
we don't serve food in here."


4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.



5. A man walks into a bar with a slab of  asphalt under his
arm and says, "A beer please, and another one for the road."



6. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says  to the other,
"Does this taste funny to you?"


7. "Doc, I can't stop singing 'The green, green  grass of home.'"
"That sounds like Tom Jones syndrome." "Is it common?"  "It's not
unusual."


8. Two cows standing next  to each other in a field, Daisy says
to Dolly. "I was artificially  inseminated this morning." "I don't
believe you," said Dolly. "It's true, no  bull!" exclaimed Daisy.


9. Two hydrogen atoms  walk into a bar. One says, "I've lost my
electron." The other says, "Are you  sure?" The first replies,
"Yes, I'm positive..."


10. A man takes his Rottweiler to the vet and  says, "My dog's
cross-eyed. Is there anything you can do for him?" "Well,"  says
the vet, "let's have a look at him" So he picks the dog up and
examines  his eyes, then checks his teeth. Finally, he says "I'm
going to have to put  him down." "What? Because he's cross-eyed?"
"No, because he's really heavy."


11. I went to buy some camouflage trousers the  other day but I
couldn't find any.


12. I went to the butcher's the other day and I bet him $50 that
he couldn't reach the  meat on the top shelf. He said, "No,the
steaks are too high."


13. I went to a seafood disco rave last  week...and pulled a mussel.


14. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly; but when  they lit
a fire in the craft, it sank, proving once and for all that you
can't have your kayak and heat it too.!


15.  A man walks into a doctor's office. "What seems to be the problem?"
asks the doc. "It's... um...well... I have five penises," replies the
man.
"Blimey!" says the doctor, "How do your trousers fit?" "Like a glove."


16. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A  fsh.


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Dec  2 16:39:53 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:39:53 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
Message-ID: <3FCCC059.7080701@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Dec 01, 2003 09:42 pm MB wrote:
> Wow, spike! It looks like a wonderfully updated version of
> the Messerschmitt from the 1950s....
>

Huh! Three wheels - Far too many.

Try a Harley-style single-wheel motorcycle!

<http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2003/11/04/cx_dl_1104vow.html>
<http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61216,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_7?

What tricks could Spike do on one of these?


BillK









From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 16:40:47 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020809550.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202164047.14918.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Besides an ignorance of neanderthal physiognomy, and a misuse of
> the
> > term 'parallax', he displays a similar ignorance of basic caloric
> > economics.
> 
> So you read the books?  What was the ignorance of neanderthal
> physiognomy and ignorance of caloric economics?

>From what I've read, neurological studies of the shape of the brain
case of neanderthals indicate they lacked a lot of the higher brain
functions that homo sap needed to make the breakthrough to actual
conciousness, beyond being ordered around by a god module.

As for caloric economics, as I said in the previous post, you cant
generate enough calories per acre of wilderness via hunter gatherer
economics to support a large enough population or to support job
specialization needed to achieve a highly technological society. The
best such a society can do is have a tribe with a few specialized tool
makers and medicine men. You certainly could NOT support the industrial
infrastructure needed to build advanced technologies like helicopters.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 16:50:50 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202145748.87585.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020847000.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> misuse of the term 'parallax'

I'm also not sure where you got this.  Parallax is the apparent shift when 
you view something from two different positions, right?  I took his use of 
the term "Neanderthal parallax" to refer to the different way of looking 
at things that his main characters were exposed to when seeing things from 
the viewpoint of the Neanderthal society.  Seems like a perfectly valid 
use of the term to me.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 16:58:05 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:58:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWSWEEK:   Test your Digital IQ
In-Reply-To: <184670-220031222162835774@M2W095.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20031202165805.76866.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Next Frontiers:
> 
> Test Your Ditigal IQ

147
"nerd"
"loser"
"nerd"
"dweeb"
"melvin"
"dork"
"chode"
"geek"
ayup....

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 17:00:53 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020847000.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202170055.77812.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > misuse of the term 'parallax'
> 
> I'm also not sure where you got this.  Parallax is the apparent shift
> when you view something from two different positions, right?  I
> took his use of the term "Neanderthal parallax" to refer to the
> different way of looking at things that his main characters were
> exposed to when seeing things from the viewpoint of the Neanderthal
> society.  Seems like a perfectly valid use of the term to me.

He seemed to me to be using it as a term to describe parallel
universes. It is a bit of a stretch though I suppose not out of the
realm of artistic license.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 17:11:07 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202170055.77812.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020904200.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> He seemed to me to be using it as a term to describe parallel universes.
> It is a bit of a stretch though I suppose not out of the realm of
> artistic license.

Okay, then yeah, that would be an incorrect usage.  Unless he's trying to
coin a new "popular usage" meaning for the term.  Perhaps we should ask
him. <g> It might be handy to have a single word term for an alternate
universe in my writing, rather than always having to use "parallel
universe" or "alternate universe" or "from anooooooother
dimEEEENSSSSSSSion..."



From amara at amara.com  Tue Dec  2 16:40:46 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:40:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
Message-ID: <p05100300bbf27027d895@[150.146.134.133]>

Dear Spike:
>Amara, where can I find the gender genie test?

http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html


>Yukadoos below. Most of them are old, some new.
>        I didn't write em but I had fun with them:

>        1. Two peanuts walk into a bar. One was a salted.
[...]


http://www.amara.com/ilDolore_sm.jpg

(thanks for the laughs Spike. Really!)

Amara

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"The trouble with nude dancing is that not everything stops when the
music stops."   --Robert Helpmann


From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 17:46:46 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:46:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <00d901c3b8fc$51e46da0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:42 AM

> I ran across this online program that tries to analyze the gender
> of the writer of a writing selection. I am writing quite a lot these
> days, and I was curious about what the "gender genie" would
> calculate for my gender.
>
> http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html
>
> "According to Koppel and Argamon, the algorithm should predict the
> gender of the author approximately 80% of the time."


I ran the first 5000 words of my and Rory Barnes's
female-first-person-narrated novel THE HUNGER OF TIME through the algorithm:

Female Score: 5925
Male Score: 5036

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

==========

Cool!

Si I tried the first 6500 words of THE JUDAS MANDALA, a novel by me alone,
also first-person-female (but one tough cookie):

Female Score: 7519
Male Score: 7679

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

====

Well... close enough.

Then I tried the opening of THE WHITE ABACUS, much of it narrated by a
purportedly androgynous ai:






From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  2 17:57:46 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:57:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312012235510.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE58jq65Rn8P500000e41@hotmail.com>

That's just plain silly if you ask me. Roads have been around far longer
than cars. Long before the society was developed enough to make flying cars,
they would have had to invent roads and agriculture. The technology of a
civilization relies somewhat on the size of the population.
For example: You coulndn't have flying cars without highly developed
computer systems. Those wouldn;t exist unless the civilization was heavily
computerized.
That wouldn;t happen without a solid infrastructure of utilities and roads
to deliver the computers.
etc, etc.
Roads were a necessary contribution to the development of our civilization.

On a side note, I am currently considering the possibility that neandertal
man lacked the fine motor skills necessary for manipulating small objects.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Dartfield" <twodeel at jornada.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
system


> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:
>
> > If all tax dollars were spent as well as they are on the good old
> > interstate highway system, well then, even *I* would be in favor of
> > taxes, and this is *me* talking.
>
> OK, so here's a question I was pondering briefly the other day: if all of
> the money spent on the Interstates since their inception had been instead
> pumped into R&D for several companies like Moller, would we have
> competitively-priced flying cars yet?  And if we did have (VTOL) flying
> vehicles, would we still need roads?
>
> The reason I was thinking about it is that I recently finished reading
> Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, where the Neanderthal
> society in an alternate universe has developed advanced technology while
> maintaining their hunter-gatherer ways, and although they have flying
> vehicles and helicopters, they never invented roads, or even non-VTOL
> aircraft with their required long clearings for takeoff and landing.  And
> I was wondering how feasible this was -- wouldn't you still need roads for
> shipping heavy items?
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 17:59:57 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:59:57 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <00e601c3b8fe$1bfee740$4f9d4a43@texas.net>

Stupid goddamned emailer jumped the gun; try again:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:42 AM

> I ran across this online program that tries to analyze the gender
> of the writer of a writing selection. I am writing quite a lot these
> days, and I was curious about what the "gender genie" would
> calculate for my gender.
>
> http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html
>
> "According to Koppel and Argamon, the algorithm should predict the
> gender of the author approximately 80% of the time."


I ran the first 5000 words of my and Rory Barnes's
female-first-person-narrated novel THE HUNGER OF TIME through the algorithm:

Female Score: 5925
Male Score: 5036

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

==========

Cool!

So I tried the first 6500 words of THE JUDAS MANDALA, a novel by me alone,
also first-person-female (but one tough cookie):

Female Score: 7519
Male Score: 7679

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

====

Well... close enough.

Then I tried the opening of THE WHITE ABACUS, much of it narrated by a
purportedly androgynous ai:

Female Score: 4581
Male Score: 5318

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!


======

Hmmm. Fair enough.

So I tried the opening 1700 words of THE BLACK GRAIL, where the narrator is
a tough but reflective sword-wielding hero:

Female Score: 2354
Male Score: 1643

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

========

Whaaaa--?!

Damien Broderick
www.thespike.us








From jacques at dtext.com  Tue Dec  2 18:03:26 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:03:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and old people
In-Reply-To: <20031202162715.GJ22120@leitl.org>
References: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020556000.9234-100000@hplx.net>
	<20031202162715.GJ22120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <16332.54254.386946.867389@localhost.localdomain>

Eugen Leitl a ?crit (2.12.2003/17:27) :

> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:11:14AM -0800, Don Dartfield wrote:
> 
> > But if they had the choice, and if they weren't encumbered by religious 
> 
> I don't know what the cutoff is, but in the current generation it's
> difficult to get through to people past 50. Maybe our generation will
> fare better; we'll see. Kids are easy, but I'm not sure they retain
> the view as they age. 
> 
> I notice several transhumanists have drifted away as they aged.


If you are confident it won't happen in your lifetime, and you will
plain old die, then it is natural to discard crazy hopes and try to
mentally adapt to what you think is your real fate.

The old people have adapted. Adopting new hopes which seem improbable
is too tiring emotionally and cognitively. I am pretty sure that if
the thing was really available NOW, most would be happy to take the
trouble of changing their mind and choose to avoid death. It is just
that if they don't believe it will happen, they don't want to disturb
the acceptance and adaptation they have managed to build in
themselves. (Which makes good sense to me.)


Jacques




From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Dec  2 18:14:37 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202164047.14918.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020854170.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> From what I've read, neurological studies of the shape of the brain case
> of neanderthals indicate they lacked a lot of the higher brain functions
> that homo sap needed to make the breakthrough to actual conciousness,
> beyond being ordered around by a god module.

Really?  That seems odd.  I thought they could make musical instruments,
and had larger braincases than us ... but they lack higher brain
functions?  Are these brand new studies?

In any case, in the Neanderthal Parallax trilogy's worldview (or
worldsview, as the case may be), actual consciousness seemed to be
attributed more more of a random event which was intimately tied with the
universe splitting, rather than being purely a function of brain
structure.  Probably not realistic, but that doesn't mean

> As for caloric economics, as I said in the previous post, you cant
> generate enough calories per acre of wilderness via hunter gatherer
> economics to support a large enough population or to support job
> specialization needed to achieve a highly technological society. The
> best such a society can do is have a tribe with a few specialized tool
> makers and medicine men. You certainly could NOT support the industrial
> infrastructure needed to build advanced technologies like helicopters.

Maybe not for us, but given the higher-than-human intelligence of Sawyer's
Neanderthals, maybe they could technology without requiring such a high
population density.  Maybe their advanced intelligence means that
individuals can invent high technology without needing a lot of spare 
people. ;)



From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 18:16:28 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:16:28 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00e601c3b8fe$1bfee740$4f9d4a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <015901c3b900$6a4bd8c0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>

This is fun! I ran the first 6000 words of my novel-under-development
through the thing. YGGDRASIL STATION is told by a nerdboy Slan/godlet:

Female Score: 5878
Male Score: 6776

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

=========

Okay, you're getting better, d00D.

Damien Broderick



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  2 18:20:43 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:20:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>

I think that this has occurred simply because the masses have decided that
what we have is good enough. The market has stabilized and the cost-benefit
is about equal. The airlines already struggle with making profits because of
this. If they raise the price of tickets, more people choose to drive to
their destination. Faster flights and more exclusive, dedicated service to
streamline the waiting would only increase the cost which most people are
simply not willing to pay.
This doesn;t mean that the technology hasn't improved however. If you look
at the last 50 years (1953 to today) there are many breakthroughs fololowing
Yeager's 1947 mach 1 flight in a single-man rocket with wings. Concorde
travels at 1350 mph, SR-71 travels at mach 3.3. We went to the moon in 1969
(speeds averaging 25,000 mph). Aurora (if it exists) is supposed to cruise
between mach 5 and mach 8. Nasa's X-43 HyperX is supposed to travel between
mach 7 and mach 10. The shuttle re-enters about mach 23 (i think)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lee" <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
To: <hemm at br.inter.net>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


> I've thought a bit on this lately and am a little let down with the pace
of
> transportation. If you look at air travel over the last 50 years there are
> few major breakthroughs. 75 years ago, it took weeks to travel around the
> world and then with commercial air travel, that was cut down to a day or
> merely hours. 50 years later, we're still pretty much at the same flight
> times. We have more routes and scheduled and tvs in the seats but flights
> are still about the same length. Perhaps they are even longer if you take
> security waits into the equation.
>
> I think the main reason why air travel tech has stalled is lack of
> competition. There's really only two companies making planes-Airbus and
> Boeing- and both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments.
Air
> travel is subsidized by local governments and businesses who don't have
much
> incentive to decrease travel time.
>
> For ground travel, in the US at least, road trips take less time because
the
> speed limit has been increased from 55 to 70-75 on interstates. It's nice
to
> be save 2 hours from an Atlanta to Miami trip, but I'm still waiting for
15
> minute NY-London trips and flying cars.
>
> How long until the science fiction breakthroughs come on line?
Transporters,
> etc.
>
> I've done a bit of teleconferencing and videoconferencing and while it is
> sufficient for basic communication, it's not yet replacing meatspace.
>
> BAL
> >From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at br.inter.net>
> >To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
> >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:57:22 -0200
> >
> >Hello extropians,
> >
> >I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. The
> >first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems to be
stalled.
> >Is it related? Are we concentrating our resourses in evolving our
> >communication means because our transportation means are poor, or does de
> >current pace of developments on comms in fact causes less effort on
> >advancing transportation? Just thinking. Sorry for the bad english, but
> >it's not my native language and I am still learning.
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some
> good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Dec  2 18:26:08 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:26:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00d901c3b8fc$51e46da0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <006001c3b901$d0972ca0$cfff4d0c@hal2001>

I tried it on some stuff I wrote and it was correct 3 out of 4 times, but
according to it by far the most masculine prose came from something I didn't
write, the first few pages of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone by JK
Rowling, Female Score: 912 Male Score: 1737.



John K Clark      jonkc at att.net






From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 18:39:50 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:39:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00d901c3b8fc$51e46da0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <018001c3b903$af0533a0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>

Let's see how the sucker reacts to my theoretical book THE ARCHITECTURE OF
BABEL:

Words: 2490

Female Score: 1788
Male Score: 3677

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Hmm. We boyz do hard wordz, eh?

Let's check out THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS:

Weird, it cracks up and can't cope. Repeatedly. Can't handle Derrida, huh?

Damien Broderick




From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  2 18:52:14 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:52:14 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
References: <p05100300bbf10272b8a2@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00d901c3b8fc$51e46da0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <019101c3b905$6a7da4e0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>

And a fairly flagrantly `male' piece of strutting, my gonzo review of John
Clute's APPLESEED:

Words: 2732

(Female Score: 1834
Male Score: 3577

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Let's try some of THE SPIKE:

Words: 2718

Female Score: 2597
Male Score: 3432

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Inneresting...

Damien Broderick




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  2 19:38:14 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:38:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWSWEEK:   Test your Digital IQ
In-Reply-To: <184670-220031222162835774@M2W095.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <009501c3b90b$d7b92600$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

This is not a knowledge test, it is a market survey.  "Did you buy your
computer online?", etc.  What do you use most?  Where do you use it?  How
often do you use it?  They are surveying what people use, not what people
know.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From charlie at antipope.org  Tue Dec  2 19:53:35 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:53:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
	<LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <372B67A6-2501-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 2 Dec 2003, at 18:20, <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think that this has occurred simply because the masses have decided 
> that
> what we have is good enough. The market has stabilized and the 
> cost-benefit
> is about equal. The airlines already struggle with making profits 
> because of
> this. If they raise the price of tickets, more people choose to drive 
> to
> their destination. Faster flights and more exclusive, dedicated 
> service to
> streamline the waiting would only increase the cost which most people 
> are
> simply not willing to pay.
>

Personally, I'd like *slower* intercontinental flights. Jet lag leaves 
me feeling washed out for days, and the cramped cabin conditions are 
distinctly unpleasant. I'd be more than happy to travel by airship at, 
say, 200-300km/h instead of by jet at 800-1000km/h, as long as the 
cubic volume available to passengers was comparable to that on a 
sea-going ship. And if there's one thing airships aren't short on, it's 
cubic volume! Standard class on the Hindenberg included a berth in a 
two-bunk stateroom and access to the lounge and promenade decks. Give 
me bandwidth, a lounge to sit in with a laptop, and a comfortable bed, 
and I'd be a lot happier to take 48 hours to cross the Atlantic 
(getting work done en route and shifting my sleep pattern at a natural 
rate) than spending 7 hours in cattle class (unable to work and feeling 
like crap at the other end of the journey).

(NB: This isn't to say that I wouldn't prefer to travel by sub-orbital 
hop and get wherever I'm going in mere minutes, but as a comparison to 
today's subsonic jet travel an airship has its merits.)


-- Charlie



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Dec  2 20:12:05 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:12:05 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
Message-ID: <3FCCF215.6010501@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Dec 02, 2003 09:08 am Spike wrote:
> If it does fly, it's worth twice that, nay three times.
> There are plenty of yahoos around here that have money
> to blow their noses on, $3E6 wouldn't even slow
> them down.
>

Popular Science have published a review
'Best of What's New 2003'
<http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2003/homepage/0,18882,,00.html>

In the Aviation section they mention the Bell Agusta 609

Vertical takeoff, high-speed cruising: This is the ideal, and
potentially profitable, vision for air commuting. Which is why two
leading helicopter builders--Texas-based Bell and Agusta of
Italy--carried out a long-awaited first hovering flight of the
tilt-rotor BA609 in March. The little brother of the Pentagon?s
controversial, expensive, formerly crash-prone and now improved V-22
Osprey, the BA609 takes off straight up, rotates its engines forward,
then flies like a plane--twice as fast as a helicopter. It is scheduled
to enter service in 2007, a mere 52 years after Bell flew its first
experimental tilt-rotor in 1955.

<http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAircraft/ba_609/>

Sounds more practical than the Moller Skycar.

BillK

PS. All the other sections are worth a read also!





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Dec  2 20:13:30 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:13:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:


>
> Most old people look forward to dying.
>

Unfortunately this is true. Young folk do not "get it", most
of the time. When one finds health failing, pain a constant
companion, friends and loved ones gone (already dead), it
can be hard to keep up enthusiasm to go on.

Now living life longer in better condition, feeling good and
energetic and strong..... that's a winner, most folk would
like it, in my experience. But living longer when you're old
and poor and sick and getting worse? Why?

> Too much control
> is a bad thing, imo.

What do you mean by "too much control is a bad thing"? Would
you *force* people to continue to exist in their misery and
pain and suffering because ... what?

Regards,
MB


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Dec  2 21:37:22 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:37:22 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org><20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com><20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <06eb01c3b91c$8dbd4480$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles


>
>
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Most old people look forward to dying.
> >
>
> Unfortunately this is true. Young folk do not "get it", most
> of the time. When one finds health failing, pain a constant
> companion, friends and loved ones gone (already dead), it
> can be hard to keep up enthusiasm to go on.

And there's one other factor - one that I'm beginning to experience.
It is the 'seen it all' syndrome where fewer and fewer things hold any
novelty.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  2 21:49:53 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:49:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <20031202214953.GT22120@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:13:30PM -0500, MB wrote:
> 
> What do you mean by "too much control is a bad thing"? Would
> you *force* people to continue to exist in their misery and
> pain and suffering because ... what?

This is from another context entirely! This is directed to
the control freaks amongst us. It can be liberating to realize
that this is only an illusion of control, in a world that is
entirely uncontrollable. 

(I better stop before I get all new-agey here).

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031202/bded2407/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 21:51:46 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020854170.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031202215146.19703.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > From what I've read, neurological studies of the shape of the brain
> case
> > of neanderthals indicate they lacked a lot of the higher brain
> functions
> > that homo sap needed to make the breakthrough to actual
> conciousness,
> > beyond being ordered around by a god module.
> 
> Really?  That seems odd.  I thought they could make musical
> instruments,
> and had larger braincases than us ... but they lack higher brain
> functions?  Are these brand new studies?

No, neanderthals did not have larger braincases than homo sapiens, that
is a myth. What they did have was larger spaces for anterior lobes,
i.e. the more primitive area of the brain, while having less space for
frontal lobes.

Making music, nor even religion, is not a function of conciousness.
Birds make music all the time, and apes are known to use tools and make
primitive art. Conciousness in man is not even thought to have
developed (according to some) until after the invention of writing.
Read Julian Jaynes' book The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bicameral Mind.

> 
> Maybe not for us, but given the higher-than-human intelligence of
> Sawyer's
> Neanderthals, maybe they could technology without requiring such a
> high
> population density.  Maybe their advanced intelligence means that
> individuals can invent high technology without needing a lot of spare
> people. ;)

As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence. The fact that
they are extinct demonstrates that they failed miserably at the most
important test of intelligence against a more intelligent competitor
for the same resources.

Even if they were of higher intelligence does not mean anything about
reducing the need for a technological and industrial infrastructure.
Homo sap did not NEED written language until after it had developed
agriculture. Virtually no hunter gatherer societies invented writing
independently in all of pre-history. Writing is an artifact of
agricultural technology and the need to manage its infrastructure in
the areas of labor pooling, resource sharing, land ownership, etc.
Societies that do not have such needs never develop writing because
they don't need writing as a management technology.

Even if we assume that for some reason, neanderthals needed writing to
keep track of who owned what hunting areas, what shelters belonged to
what hunters, to store knowledge of wild plant medicines and so forth
(they would actually have to have a really poor memory to have such a
need, since homo sapiens hunter gatherers have been able to perform
such functions without writing for thousands of years), this would not
allow the development of a leisure class of scientific minds that would
be needed to spur technological development, especially if they have
poor memories.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 22:06:57 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <3FCCF215.6010501@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20031202220657.48617.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Popular Science have published a review
> 'Best of What's New 2003'
> <http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2003/homepage/0,18882,,00.html>
> 
> In the Aviation section they mention the Bell Agusta 609
> 
> <http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAircraft/ba_609/>
> 
> Sounds more practical than the Moller Skycar.

Well, it carries three times as many people as a Moller. It is probably
an $8-10 million vehicle. I saw a mockup for a two seater tiltrotor
called a BAT several years ago in Aviation Week that was on display at
an airshow. A tiltrotor that holds 2-4 people is what would be more
practical than the Moller.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Dec  2 22:27:02 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:27:02 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <20031202215146.19703.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <070501c3b923$7e548c90$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
system


>
> As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence. The fact that
> they are extinct demonstrates that they failed miserably at the most
> important test of intelligence against a more intelligent competitor
> for the same resources.

ie outbreeding their competitor.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Dec  2 22:55:51 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:55:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <06eb01c3b91c$8dbd4480$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>

I just read someone who said:

"no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet during the 1990s"

and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must have had the 
dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.  Can anyone point to a quote?



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  2 23:05:15 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <20031202215146.19703.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE47EIXq2gEIn00001353@hotmail.com>

> No, neanderthals did not have larger braincases than homo sapiens, that
> is a myth. What they did have was larger spaces for anterior lobes,
> i.e. the more primitive area of the brain, while having less space for
> frontal lobes.
Do you have anything to show this? Everything I have come acroos shows the
braincase itself exceeding modern man's by about 200cc.
Here for example: http://www.ecu.edu/org/ags/archives/hominidtable.htm
Kevin


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 23:40:32 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <070501c3b923$7e548c90$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031202234032.78927.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>> 
> >
> > As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence. The fact
> that
> > they are extinct demonstrates that they failed miserably at the
> most
> > important test of intelligence against a more intelligent
> competitor
> > for the same resources.
> 
> ie outbreeding their competitor.

No, there is no evidence of that. Neanderthals suffered from several
disadvantages: their bones were much more dense, so they could not
swim. Their arms did not allow as much dexterity as homo sap so they
could not wield distance weapons like spears with any accuracy or force
beyond ten meters or so, and so likely never evolved the mental ability
to judge trajectories very well. 

Their lack of intelligence was evidenced primarily by their extreme
lack of hygiene or organization in their living quarters (jokes about
the living arrangements of certain geeks notwithstanding). They
typically lived in nests of decaying prey, bones, and ash, infested by
rodents and insect parasites. They seemed to have developed a basic
concept of "mine" with regards to personal property, such that dead
neanderthals were buried with "their stuff", a feature that many
anthropologists assumed meant some sort of religious belief in an
afterlife existed, but this is nothing more than transference.

As another poster mentioned, burial was an act of conspicuous
consumption. Neanderthal burials became less and less elaborate over
time as pressure from homo sapiens put many clans on the run and could
not afford such displays. Hunger will turn any animal into a thief.

This competition was not exclusive to the neanderthal/homo sap
confrontation. There was a similar intelligence arms race going on
between predator species and prey species in all parts of the world
during this period up until the present day. A predator species would
evolve a larger brain case, and gain advantage over its prey species
until the selective preying on less intelligent prey resulted in the
evolution of smarter prey. This cut back on the competetiveness of the
predator species until it evolved into a smarter species with a bigger
brain.

This goes on today, particularly with regard to human predation on deer
and other mammal populations in North America. Human hunters use ever
more advanced technologies to help hunt these animals, but do not
decimate the herd, due to wildlife management principles. This has
resulted in the forced evolution of smarter deer, bear, and other
animal species. Especially with deer, where predation has been
predominantly on the male deer, one can see a measurable difference in
the intelligence of bucks vs does.

Back to the debate at hand, homo sapiens was just smarter than
neanderthals, and like many of the large mammals worldwide following
the Ice Age, neanderthal was forced into extinction because homo
sapiens was smart enough to outpredate anything, but not at that point
concious enough to manage wildlife wisely.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Dec  2 23:46:55 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:46:55 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <20031202234032.78927.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <076a01c3b92e$92076c20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
system


>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence. The fact
> > that
> > > they are extinct demonstrates that they failed miserably at the
> > most
> > > important test of intelligence against a more intelligent
> > competitor
> > > for the same resources.
> >
> > ie outbreeding their competitor.
>
> No, there is no evidence of that. Neanderthals suffered from several
> disadvantages: their bones were much more dense, so they could not
> swim. Their arms did not allow as much dexterity as homo sap so they
> could not wield distance weapons like spears with any accuracy or force
> beyond ten meters or so, and so likely never evolved the mental ability
> to judge trajectories very well.

Yet it is quite conceivable that Homo Sapiens simply bred more quickly, esp
since they were smaller and presumably needed less food.
Only a 1% differential would have led to Neanderthals becoming extinct in a
very short timescale.
It may have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Dec  2 23:48:42 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031202214953.GT22120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031202234842.10650.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:13:30PM -0500, MB wrote:
> > What do you mean by "too much control is a bad
> thing"? Would
> > you *force* people to continue to exist in their
> misery and
> > pain and suffering because ... what?
> 
> This is from another context entirely! This is
> directed to
> the control freaks amongst us. It can be liberating
> to realize
> that this is only an illusion of control, in a world
> that is
> entirely uncontrollable. 

Sorry, but MB is correct.  I specified "control over
oneself" - as in, the opportunity to not grow old and
deterioriate, if desired.  That is not illusiory in
the same sense as "control" over other sentient
beings.

You are correct in what you did say: people who
currently have withered bodies, or who believe that
the only path to old age is to wither, might not want
to live forever given what they think it must mean.
But that is not what we are discussing.  We are
discussing the ability to live forever in relatively
good health.  (Frankly, it might be technically more
difficult to achieve immortality in a withered shell
than in a perpetually healthy shell, even if there
was not the desirability issue.  Were I to wither at
current rates, yet survive to 100, I might seriously
contemplate whether cryonic suspension might give me a
better chance of seeing the far future than continued
life.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec  3 00:07:46 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <06eb01c3b91c$8dbd4480$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031203000746.74516.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> And there's one other factor - one that I'm
> beginning to experience.
> It is the 'seen it all' syndrome where fewer and
> fewer things hold any
> novelty.

Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have
found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
it).  Likewise, one who believes they have experienced
everything could take a crack at designing, say, a
nanotech assembler to leave a grand legacy.  (If one
has experienced *everything*, this should be simple -
but, of course, it won't be since there are ways of
thinking and fields of knowledge one has not truly
experienced.)

There's always more to learn and do, although one
might become tired of it and start justifying that
everything out there is all the same.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec  3 00:07:59 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <06eb01c3b91c$8dbd4480$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031203000759.36606.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> And there's one other factor - one that I'm
> beginning to experience.
> It is the 'seen it all' syndrome where fewer and
> fewer things hold any
> novelty.

Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have
found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
it).  Likewise, one who believes they have experienced
everything could take a crack at designing, say, a
nanotech assembler to leave a grand legacy.  (If one
has experienced *everything*, this should be simple -
but, of course, it won't be since there are ways of
thinking and fields of knowledge one has not truly
experienced.)

There's always more to learn and do, although one
might become tired of it and start justifying that
everything out there is all the same.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec  3 00:10:20 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
Message-ID: <20031203001020.15316.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> There's always more to learn and do

...such as finding out why double-posts happen. 
(Sorry
about that.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 00:45:04 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE47EIXq2gEIn00001353@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031203004504.3065.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- kevinfreels at hotmail.com wrote:
> > No, neanderthals did not have larger braincases than homo sapiens,
> that
> > is a myth. What they did have was larger spaces for anterior lobes,
> > i.e. the more primitive area of the brain, while having less space
> for
> > frontal lobes.
> Do you have anything to show this? Everything I have come acroos
> shows the braincase itself exceeding modern man's by about 200cc.
> Here for example:
> http://www.ecu.edu/org/ags/archives/hominidtable.htm

http://www.psychomedia.it/pm/science/psybyo/mancia.htm
"FIG. 6 - Brain of a) cat, b) macaque, c) chimpanzee, d)
australopithecus, e) sinianthropus, f) Neanderthal Man, and g) Homo
sapiens. Numbers on the various circumvolutions indicate central areas
according to Brodmann. Note the considerable development of the parieto
- occipital cortex in Australanthropus and the large cranial fan
aperture which bring it very close to Neanderthal Man. In Homo Sapiens
we find a further widening of the fan and an increase in the cortical
areas of the "liaison brain". "

As stated, neanderthalis lacked a number of advanced brain
developments, relying instead on enlargement of more primitive lobes.

A problem with the hominid table brain volume specs you cited is that
the volumes specified for neanderthalis were calculated using a number
of fossils that exhibited a congenital malformation involving a lack of
the sagittal suture, which would lead to larger than normal brain case
size. This is not unsurprising, since the first neanderthalis found was
severely wracked by arthritis, a condition that led early
anthropologists to conclude that the neanderthalis was primitive
because it walked hunched over. It was not until the arthritic
condition of the bones was recognised that this picture of
neanderthalis changed.

Another problem with the table is that homo sapiens sapiens exhibited a
much wider variation in braincase size than neanderthalis, ranging from
as little as 900cc to as much as 2200 cc, with entirely healthy skull
development.

I would also be concerned about a paper that referred to a
neanderthalis' diet as including "veggies". Is that a scientific term?


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 00:52:24 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <076a01c3b92e$92076c20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031203005224.4746.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> Yet it is quite conceivable that Homo Sapiens simply bred more
> quickly, esp
> since they were smaller and presumably needed less food.
> Only a 1% differential would have led to Neanderthals becoming
> extinct in a very short timescale.
> It may have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

It might, but examination of the tool record indicates differently.
Tools of neanderthalis were typically far more crude than sapiens
tools, they also lacked in variety, and despite being capable of it,
they never adopted force multiplier weapons like spear throwers or
bows.

They were also less adaptable, evolved specifically for the subarctic
conditions just south of the glacier line during the ice ages, they
lacked the adaptability of sapiens to migrate and survive in any
climate. They faced a quandary quite similar to that faced by the
native americans at the hands of european migration.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec  3 01:01:00 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:01:00 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
References: <20031203000759.36606.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <079501c3b938$eacfcd20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles


> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > And there's one other factor - one that I'm
> > beginning to experience.
> > It is the 'seen it all' syndrome where fewer and
> > fewer things hold any
> > novelty.
>
> Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
> new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have

I do, which makes the problem more acute - not less.

> found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
> 90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
> it).  Likewise, one who believes they have experienced

To some extent, but almost all technologies simply enable one to do existing
things faster or easier.
I'm not bored by the Net, any more than I'm bored by a screwdriver.
It's just another tool.

> everything could take a crack at designing, say, a
> nanotech assembler to leave a grand legacy.  (If one
> has experienced *everything*, this should be simple -
> but, of course, it won't be since there are ways of
> thinking and fields of knowledge one has not truly
> experienced.)

I've been an engineer for 25years and I'm *bored* by it now.
That includes nanotech, after the first few 'gee whizz' minutes of reading
about some new innovation.

> There's always more to learn and do, although one
> might become tired of it and start justifying that
> everything out there is all the same.

Depends what you mean by 'new'.
Every program I've ever written has been 'new'.
That kind of 'new' is now tedious.


Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 01:03:54 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:03:54 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <20031202234032.78927.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<076a01c3b92e$92076c20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE47zJcZikaTA00001485@hotmail.com>

Or, given the fact that so many humans engage in farm animal sex, maybe they
were assimilated into human society yet were unable to produce viable
offspring when crossbred.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
system


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
> system
>
>
> >
> > --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence. The fact
> > > that
> > > > they are extinct demonstrates that they failed miserably at the
> > > most
> > > > important test of intelligence against a more intelligent
> > > competitor
> > > > for the same resources.
> > >
> > > ie outbreeding their competitor.
> >
> > No, there is no evidence of that. Neanderthals suffered from several
> > disadvantages: their bones were much more dense, so they could not
> > swim. Their arms did not allow as much dexterity as homo sap so they
> > could not wield distance weapons like spears with any accuracy or force
> > beyond ten meters or so, and so likely never evolved the mental ability
> > to judge trajectories very well.
>
> Yet it is quite conceivable that Homo Sapiens simply bred more quickly,
esp
> since they were smaller and presumably needed less food.
> Only a 1% differential would have led to Neanderthals becoming extinct in
a
> very short timescale.
> It may have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
>
> Dirk
>
> The Consensus:-
> The political party for the new millennium
> http://www.theconsensus.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From twodeel at jornada.org  Wed Dec  3 01:06:54 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031202170055.77812.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021659120.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Making music, nor even religion, is not a function of conciousness.
> Birds make music all the time, and apes are known to use tools and make
> primitive art. Conciousness in man is not even thought to have developed
> (according to some) until after the invention of writing. Read Julian
> Jaynes' book The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the
> Bicameral Mind.

Yes, birds make music and apes use tools, but creating a musical
instrument (a flute, in particular) seems like a much more advanced thing
to do than sing like a bird or use a stick to fish out termites.  After
reading Steven Baxter's novel _Evolution_, though, I realize that even
this relatively sophisticated toolmaking does not necessarily indicate
full-fledged consciousness, or even consciousness at all.  So I'm
interested to read more.  The book you recommended will cost me $18 at 
Borders, though, since my local library doesn't have it -- is there any 
other book on the subject you'd recommend over this one, or is this the 
one I should go for?

> As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence.

Well, I said "given the superior intelligence of Sawyer's Neanderthals."  
In his trilogy, they WERE more intelligent than humans (or at least their
modern-day descendants were), regardless of whether they were in reality.  
Call it a suspension-of-disbelief thing.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 01:46:24 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questioning The Consensus
In-Reply-To: <076a01c3b92e$92076c20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <20031203014624.98420.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

Dirk,
From: http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/judicial/index.html
"The origin of Rights in human nature is a more plausible argument. For
example, it can be argued that the 'Right of self defence' is rooted in
and derived from innate instincts for self preservation. However, it
does require some convoluted and unconvincing reasoning to extrapolate
that to other Rights such as the 'Right to vote'. It is also not much
of a foundation if one has the power to alter Human nature at its
genetic source, which will soon be an available technology. Which
leaves Rights as a social construct - but what kind of construct?"

The "right to vote" is a part and parcel of the right to choose, a
result of every individual posessing free will.

Having the power to alter human nature, according to your charter,
would be illegal and unacceptable, so you cannot have your cake and eat
it. You cannot argue away human nature as the source of rights with
claims that technology is hand hand to alter that nature if your party
intends to prevent such technology from being applied.

Furthermore, self modification is an inherent part of self-ownership.
If you cannot alter your own nature, then you are a slave to that which
prevents you from doing so.

Secondly, do you really think that altering of human beings would go so
far as to change the basic features of human sentience? Given that the
goal of your alleged claim to transhumanism is to improve humans, to
advance human capabilities, it follows that a more capable human would
have MORE rights. Nor is this out of line with human development. Once
humans could not speak, and therefore had no right to free speech. Once
human predecessors had no weapons technology, and had no right to bear
arms.

As we become more abled, we gain greater liberty. As humans are
differently abled, they are differently free. A quadrepelegic is not
free to walk until s/he makes the investment in regaining that ability,
but the quadrepelegic is free to travel by other means: by wheelchair,
for example. A person capable of leading a nation responsibly is able
to handle the liberty of controlling massive destructive capabilities,
like nuclear weapons.

Your "Consensus" is a rather minor form of fascism that grants liberty
as privilege issued by the whim of government and not as ability gained
via nature of being born or nurture of being raised as a free citizen.

No government you imagine can prevent becoming a tyranny because you
have proposed no means of embedding checks on abuse of power or of
limiting the potential for majoritarian tyranny. Contracts mean nothing
when the people who sign them do not believe they posess that which
they are negotiating as an inherent property of their being. When
anything can be negotiated, then slavery is only one vote away.



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 01:51:01 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021659120.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031203015101.20727.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> 
> > As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence.
> 
> Well, I said "given the superior intelligence of Sawyer's
> Neanderthals."  
> In his trilogy, they WERE more intelligent than humans (or at least
> their
> modern-day descendants were), regardless of whether they were in
> reality.  
> Call it a suspension-of-disbelief thing.

Well, that is a pretty thin thing to not disbelieve. The primary
features that neanderthal would have needed to gain greater
intelligence were the very thing that sapiens developed, so unless you
just mean they stayed ugly, any 'more intelligent' neanderthalis would
have been evolved into sapiens, so far as brain structure was concerned.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec  3 02:27:11 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 02:27:11 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Questioning The Consensus
References: <20031203014624.98420.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <07d901c3b944$f5fdee00$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:46 AM
Subject: Questioning The Consensus


> Dirk,
> From: http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/judicial/index.html
> "The origin of Rights in human nature is a more plausible argument. For
> example, it can be argued that the 'Right of self defence' is rooted in
> and derived from innate instincts for self preservation. However, it
> does require some convoluted and unconvincing reasoning to extrapolate
> that to other Rights such as the 'Right to vote'. It is also not much
> of a foundation if one has the power to alter Human nature at its
> genetic source, which will soon be an available technology. Which
> leaves Rights as a social construct - but what kind of construct?"
>
> The "right to vote" is a part and parcel of the right to choose, a
> result of every individual posessing free will.

Sure - you can choose to fly like a bird by flapping your arms, but it won't
work.
You can choose to express your opinion, and others can choose to ignore it -
or execute you.

> Having the power to alter human nature, according to your charter,
> would be illegal and unacceptable, so you cannot have your cake and eat

Not at all - where does it say that? The Consensus Essentia?

> it. You cannot argue away human nature as the source of rights with
> claims that technology is hand hand to alter that nature if your party
> intends to prevent such technology from being applied.

On the contrary - the party is expressly in favour of altering Human
Nature - which is why the notion of Rights as flowing from Human Nature is
no foundation at all.

> Furthermore, self modification is an inherent part of self-ownership.
> If you cannot alter your own nature, then you are a slave to that which
> prevents you from doing so.

Who said one cannot alter ones nature?

> Secondly, do you really think that altering of human beings would go so
> far as to change the basic features of human sentience? Given that the

Yes, in some cases.

> goal of your alleged claim to transhumanism is to improve humans, to
> advance human capabilities, it follows that a more capable human would
> have MORE rights. Nor is this out of line with human development. Once

Just as many Rights as they can take and hold - like now.

> humans could not speak, and therefore had no right to free speech. Once
> human predecessors had no weapons technology, and had no right to bear
> arms.

So?

> As we become more abled, we gain greater liberty. As humans are

And we lose it by becoming dependent on others.

> differently abled, they are differently free. A quadrepelegic is not
> free to walk until s/he makes the investment in regaining that ability,
> but the quadrepelegic is free to travel by other means: by wheelchair,
> for example. A person capable of leading a nation responsibly is able
> to handle the liberty of controlling massive destructive capabilities,
> like nuclear weapons.
>
> Your "Consensus" is a rather minor form of fascism that grants liberty
> as privilege issued by the whim of government and not as ability gained
> via nature of being born or nurture of being raised as a free citizen.

A loonytarian POV.
As I said, in practice Rights flow from a social contract.
They have no other existence.

> No government you imagine can prevent becoming a tyranny because you
> have proposed no means of embedding checks on abuse of power or of
> limiting the potential for majoritarian tyranny. Contracts mean nothing
> when the people who sign them do not believe they posess that which
> they are negotiating as an inherent property of their being. When
> anything can be negotiated, then slavery is only one vote away.

Nothing in principle can prevent tyranny, only make it less likely.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 02:33:31 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:33:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021659120.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <007501c3b945$d9a29a20$4f9d4a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Dartfield" <twodeel at jornada.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:06 PM

> > Read Julian
> > Jaynes' book The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the
> > Bicameral Mind.

> The book you recommended will cost me $18 at
> Borders, though, since my local library doesn't have it -- is there any
> other book on the subject you'd recommend over this one, or is this the
> one I should go for?

It's extremely eccentric and ignored by the literature. Try Damasio or
Calvin (William, not John).

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 02:41:43 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021659120.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <20031203024143.25933.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Don Dartfield <twodeel at jornada.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes, birds make music and apes use tools, but creating a musical
> instrument (a flute, in particular) seems like a much more advanced
> thing
> to do than sing like a bird or use a stick to fish out termites. 

THis is true, however, the flute discovered in a neanderthal grave was
dated to the same period in which evidence has been found of trading of
sapiens made bone tools and jewelry with neanderthals. So it is
conceivable that the flute originated with sapiens and was traded to
neanderthals. Neanderthals were not known for developing much tool
technology beyond that which distinguished them from heidelbergensis,
and that which they initially developed remained pretty static for the
remainder of their tenure, like a mathematician doing nobel prize work
at age 20 and coasting the rest of his life with no new ideas.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/hominids2.html

> After reading Steven Baxter's novel _Evolution_, though, I realize
> that even this relatively sophisticated toolmaking does not 
> necessarily indicate full-fledged consciousness, or even 
> consciousness at all.  So I'm interested to read more.  The book
> you recommended will cost me $18 at Borders, though, since my local
> library doesn't have it -- is there any other book on the subject
> you'd recommend over this one, or is this the one I should go for?

Well, I assume you like SF. Neal Stephenson wrote a book called Snow
Crash which you might be familiar with. A lot of the basic ideas he
used in fleshing out his plot device of root language viral programming
of humans is based on Jaynes' work. Of course, he does take it to a
rather absurd conclusion... but that was the book that actually
motivated me to read Jaynes, to get the straight scoop. In Snow Crash,
when Hiro is in his Library in the metasphere talking to the Librarian,
he is talking about a lot of Jaynes work.

That being said, Jaynes is not an exciting writer. It has been very
slow reading for me. I tend to fall asleep frequently reading it,
something which has never happened before with anything I've ever read.
Perhaps there is a virus in my mind that does not want me to read it...


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 02:49:21 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:49:21 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
References: <20031203000746.74516.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE25q5Z3JjQWr00001500@hotmail.com>

It's interesting to note here how quickly new innovations make their way
into mainstream society and become the norm. A Cell phone that takes
pictures and sends them to someone else without wires and all fits in the
palm of your hand, $100. A PC that fits in your pocket, $500. Doing all my
Christmas shopping without ever having to leave my home? Priceless.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles


> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > And there's one other factor - one that I'm
> > beginning to experience.
> > It is the 'seen it all' syndrome where fewer and
> > fewer things hold any
> > novelty.
>
> Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
> new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have
> found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
> 90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
> it).  Likewise, one who believes they have experienced
> everything could take a crack at designing, say, a
> nanotech assembler to leave a grand legacy.  (If one
> has experienced *everything*, this should be simple -
> but, of course, it won't be since there are ways of
> thinking and fields of knowledge one has not truly
> experienced.)
>
> There's always more to learn and do, although one
> might become tired of it and start justifying that
> everything out there is all the same.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 03:04:16 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:04:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <20031203004504.3065.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE23k31TZ14eB00001516@hotmail.com>

Thanks for the reference. I'll add that to my collection. That's the first
I've seen of this. I really appreciate it. I wonder why all the references I
have, even current ones, average about 1500 for H. sapiens and 1700 for H.
neanderthalensis.

> I would also be concerned about a paper that referred to a
> neanderthalis' diet as including "veggies".

It was the quickest thing I could find with a quick Google and was only
intended as an example. I have a variety of sources in books, but those are
difficult to source in email. I didn't actually read that reference from
beginning to end. I was just searching for an example that stated what I had
read elsewhere.

 Is that a scientific term?

Yes, "veggies" is a scientific term. They keep changing the dictionary. Did
you see where they recently added the word "bling bling" to the Oxford
English dictionary? :-)






From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 03:06:38 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:06:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021659120.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE15KVApwOLZC00001522@hotmail.com>

I am reading The Neandethal's Necklace by Juan Luis Arsuaga. I just started
it and it seems really good.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Dartfield" <twodeel at jornada.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway
system


> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > Making music, nor even religion, is not a function of conciousness.
> > Birds make music all the time, and apes are known to use tools and make
> > primitive art. Conciousness in man is not even thought to have developed
> > (according to some) until after the invention of writing. Read Julian
> > Jaynes' book The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the
> > Bicameral Mind.
>
> Yes, birds make music and apes use tools, but creating a musical
> instrument (a flute, in particular) seems like a much more advanced thing
> to do than sing like a bird or use a stick to fish out termites.  After
> reading Steven Baxter's novel _Evolution_, though, I realize that even
> this relatively sophisticated toolmaking does not necessarily indicate
> full-fledged consciousness, or even consciousness at all.  So I'm
> interested to read more.  The book you recommended will cost me $18 at
> Borders, though, since my local library doesn't have it -- is there any
> other book on the subject you'd recommend over this one, or is this the
> one I should go for?
>
> > As above, neanderthals were not of higher intelligence.
>
> Well, I said "given the superior intelligence of Sawyer's Neanderthals."
> In his trilogy, they WERE more intelligent than humans (or at least their
> modern-day descendants were), regardless of whether they were in reality.
> Call it a suspension-of-disbelief thing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec  3 03:13:43 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:13:43 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
References: <20031203000746.74516.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Law10-OE25q5Z3JjQWr00001500@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <082d01c3b94b$7565fdd0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles


> It's interesting to note here how quickly new innovations make their way
> into mainstream society and become the norm. A Cell phone that takes
> pictures and sends them to someone else without wires and all fits in the
> palm of your hand, $100. A PC that fits in your pocket, $500. Doing all my
> Christmas shopping without ever having to leave my home? Priceless.

Tedious and predictable, but useful.
Now show me some technology that is neither, and that enables me to do
something I have never before done (that is worth doing).
Back in 1977 I wrote a document on an idea I had, a 'digital book'. The idea
was shelved by GEC management (as usually happens in Britain), but a couple
of years ago I actually worked on the Cytale ebook in Paris. I can't say it
was a 'new' experience from an engineering POV. Paris far outranked it.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  3 03:25:29 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:25:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
In-Reply-To: <281450-2200312221632091@M2W092.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <006101c3b94d$19dadce0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> natashavita at earthlink.net> 
> 
> Bloody hell Spike!  I'm trying to get some work done!!!
> 
> Every time I open my email hub to sneak a peek at an incoming 
> message I start lol and disrupting my workday.
> 
> 
> ======================


Ja, me too.  I crack me up.  My jokes are more fun than
my job.  

Bloody hell?  Sounds very British.  A Maxism perhaps?

{8^D

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  3 03:31:52 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:31:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
In-Reply-To: <3FCCC059.7080701@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <006201c3b94d$fe1cda70$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Huh! Three wheels - Far too many.
> 
> Try a Harley-style single-wheel motorcycle!
> 
<http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2003/11/04/cx_dl_1104vow.html>
<http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61216,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_7?

What tricks could Spike do on one of these?


BillK

Ja this does look cool, altho it's hard to see
how it would fare in an emergency stop situation.
Of course they would be great for racing and the
bikini tug-of-war games, etc, for which the Segway
seems perfect.

spike

ps, Bill, I can ride a unicycle, as well as a
bicycle and motorcycle on the back wheel, so I
imagine this contraption wouldn't be so different.  s



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  3 03:59:03 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:59:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] new record prime!
In-Reply-To: <019101c3b905$6a7da4e0$4f9d4a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <006901c3b951$ca3c8800$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

Woooohooooo!

Michael Shafer discovered the 40th known Mersenne prime, 
2^20996011-1.

This prime is over 6.3 million digits, beating the 
previous world record prime by over 2 million decimal digits.

Scott has handed out the press release and already the 
first online article of the discovery has appeared:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994438

You can also read Scott's press release
http://www.mersenne.org/20996011.htm

The size of the record largest known prime is about 2^7529000
times larger than the previous record which was set about two
years ago, so the size of the record largest prime doubled
about every 8.4 seconds on the average, which is itself a
record.

The previous records were set on the dates shown in the
table below, along with the number of seconds for each
doubling.  So you can see the doubling time is shorter
than ever:

Record set on:		Doubling time in seconds:

01-Jul-94			614.8
03-Sep-96			172.4
13-Nov-96			43.7
24-Aug-97			15.6
27-Jan-98			298.5
01-Jun-99			10.7
14-Nov-01			11.9
17-Nov-03			8.4

Ohhhh, this is waaay cool.  Who wants to have a party?
There are several other math types in the area who
will go and party our brains out at such a happy
occasion.

{8^]

spike





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Dec  3 04:11:04 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:11:04 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <079501c3b938$eacfcd20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
References: <20031203000759.36606.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<079501c3b938$eacfcd20$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312022228550.-84115@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>



On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Dirk Bruere wrote:


>
> I've been an engineer for 25years and I'm *bored* by it
now.
> That includes nanotech, after the first few 'gee whizz'
minutes of reading
> about some new innovation.



Ah! My brother, who is now in his mid 70s, told me something
very like this when he was not yet quite 50. He said he'd
done all the things he had set out as goals, and was
currently looking at the wide open space of "now what?"

He took early retirement when it was offered (he was an
engineer also, mechanical) and then he began to *play* with
various things he'd not really had time for during his
working life.

He built a machine shop for himself - so he could make
things. He made some knives - by hand. That was quite a
challenge. He learned to make Damascus steel knife blades.

Some of the furniture from our parents' home was in bad
shape and he began to repair it. He repaired our old square
piano which was coming to pieces inside and out.  Then he
began to make some furniture, a grandfather (tallcase)
clock. He made the clockworks as well as the case. He
learned to carve the lovely shell patterns that show up on
18th century Chippendale style furniture. He made a chest of
drawers. He made a sideboard for his younger daughter. And
then another clock.

He decided it might be fun to build an electric car.  I
think he's on car #2 now.

He took up playing the bagpipe because he thought it might
be easy. Wrong. He found it was quite hard. But he also
found it relieved his headaches after his aneurism surgery.
:?

He began working on the genealogy our grandfather had been
collecting, putting it in order, making copies of old
documents, visiting places mentioned in them.

He found that he couldn't buy some of the tools he needed,
so he began to make his tools.

It's quite an experience to visit him. He has so many
interests now he hardly ever leaves his house unless his
wife insists.  He hardly ever does anything that was related
to his job. It's all play, and it runs free.

There's stuff out there. You can find it. It may not be what
you expect. It may be sort of out of your field, but nothing
wrong with that.

:)

Regards,
MB





From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Dec  3 07:09:04 2003
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:09:04 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gender Genie - analyzing writing styles
In-Reply-To: <006101c3b94d$19dadce0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <281450-2200312221632091@M2W092.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202230803.02edc5e0@pop.earthlink.net>

At 07:25 PM 12/2/03 -0800, Spike wrote:

> > natashavita at earthlink.net>
> >
> > Bloody hell Spike!  I'm trying to get some work done!!!
> >
> > Every time I open my email hub to sneak a peek at an incoming
> > message I start lol and disrupting my workday.
> >
> > ======================
>
>Ja, me too.  I crack me up.  My jokes are more fun than
>my job.
>
>Bloody hell?  Sounds very British.  A Maxism perhaps?

Better than a marxist :-)

N 



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec  3 05:50:38 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:50:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <002701c3b961$64673ec0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robin Hanson wrote,
> I just read someone who said:
> 
> "no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet 
> during the 1990s"
> 
> and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must 
> have had the dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.
> Can anyone point to a quote?

I suggest reading through "A Brief History of the Internet" at
<http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml>.  It has references to
all the milestones in Internet creation, including white papers,
conferences, etc.  

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec  3 05:54:20 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:54:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fight in California over gene-altered GloFish pets
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBKEOJCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From CNN: The nation's first genetically altered household pet - a fish that
glows in the dark - is set to begin appearing in stores next month
everywhere except perhaps California, the only state with a ban on
lab-engineered species. On Wednesday, the California Fish and Game
Commission is scheduled to take up an application from Yorktown Technologies
of Austin, Texas, to market the GloFish in California.
State wildlife officials have concluded that the Florida-grown fluorescent
zebra fish poses no danger, and they have recommended that the state exempt
it from the ban. But environmental and public interest groups, along with
commercial fishermen, oppose an exemption.
"What California says is going to make very little difference in the long
run if all the other states are going to allow them," said Peter Jenkins, an
attorney and policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety. Similarly, I
think restrictive laws in the US are going to make very little difference in
the long run if most other countries are going to allow lab-engineered
species.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/b4e12f25/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec  3 06:05:57 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:05:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE25q5Z3JjQWr00001500@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c3b963$87acde60$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

"Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote,
> Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
> new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have
> found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
> 90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
> it).

In 1985 I had networked Macintoshes which had a hypertext browser called
"HyperCard", that allowed hypertext links to bring up cards from remote
networked computers.  This predated Windows-95 by a decade.  This stuff
isn't new and wasn't adopted quickly.  It just didn't gain popularity until
much later.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec  3 07:24:04 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:24:04 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEOKCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New York Times: Sometime in the future, when the distinction
between cosmetologist and molecular biologist has faded and gene shops dot
the seedier urban streets like tattoo parlors, the philosophers, moralists
and historians of science will try to pin down the moment when the new age
began. Science historians will probably say it started with the discovery of
DNA, or the mapping of the human genome. Others will claim it started when
Dolly was cloned and it became clear that the tools of biotechnology had
moved out of the high church of pure research and into the unpredictable
hands of people who bred sheep for profit.
I think the moment is now. And the creature that embodies the escape of
biotechnology into the world at large - a movement that will never be
reversed - is an aquarium fish that glows in the dark. This is the tipping
point, when the world irrevocably turns toward the science-fiction fantasies
of writers like Philip K. Dick and William Gibson, who envision biomedical
technology permeating every corner of the marketplace, from global
corporations on down to small-time illegal operations like stolen-car chop
shops. Imagine if you will, that you could pay to have genes for glowing in
the dark inserted into your own body. How many glowing teenagers would there
be? And who would stop them, once they reached age 18? After all, one's own
body is one's own business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/658212ef/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec  3 07:44:24 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:44:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <002701c3b961$64673ec0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEOLCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

I did. In 1990 I was playing with the idea to start a net access business
for individual end users, and even found someone who was maybe willing to
invest some money. Then I let them talking me out of the idea, "this is too
crazy, there will never be a market for this". Now when I wish to do some
sweet daydreaming I think of what I would do with all the money that I would
have now if I had followed my idea to the end.
Two lessons here: 1 - believe in your ideas - 2 - get your ass off the
armchair and do it.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Harvey
Newstrom
Sent: 03 December 2003 06:51
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?


Robin Hanson wrote,
> I just read someone who said:
>
> "no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet
> during the 1990s"
>
> and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must
> have had the dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.
> Can anyone point to a quote?

I suggest reading through "A Brief History of the Internet" at
<http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml>.  It has references to
all the milestones in Internet creation, including white papers,
conferences, etc.



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 10:09:46 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:09:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031203000759.36606.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <06eb01c3b91c$8dbd4480$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
	<20031203000759.36606.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031203100946.GI22120@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:07:59PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek out
> new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have

The "seen it all syndrome" is only in part due to the
actual loss of novelty due to previous exposure. 
It's definitely mostly an aging artifact, similiar 
to the subjectively slower passage of time (both 
can be temporarily disrupted with psychoactive 
substances; e.g. with LSD down to ridiculous extremes 
of subjectively stopped time flow).

Unfortunately, there's no way to "cure" that with 
meds. It is definitely hard to establish a habit of
habit disruption, but it's possibly the only simple
countermeasure that might work. (Oh, and getting
a good night's worth of sleep).

There are exceptions from the rule, though, people who
remain novelty-seekers up to extremely high age. 
(I've met a nanotechnology enthusiast who's well 
past 80, for instance).

> found some novelty in the World Wide Web during the
> 90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed to
> it).  Likewise, one who believes they have experienced
> everything could take a crack at designing, say, a
> nanotech assembler to leave a grand legacy.  (If one

Many professionals can't do the same occupation in their spare 
time as during dayjob. I've talked to some old hand
system designers, but while they are very effective
in what they do they do not revel in novel approaches
(in their craft, it's frequently only for the better).

> has experienced *everything*, this should be simple -
> but, of course, it won't be since there are ways of
> thinking and fields of knowledge one has not truly
> experienced.)

We do need a speciality sustainable nootropic that's low on side effects.
Unfortunately, there's probably no such thing 
save of completely replasticize the brain.
 
> There's always more to learn and do, although one
> might become tired of it and start justifying that
> everything out there is all the same.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/fc41c748/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 10:24:37 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:24:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031202234842.10650.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031202214953.GT22120@leitl.org>
	<20031202234842.10650.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031203102437.GJ22120@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:48:42PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Sorry, but MB is correct.  I specified "control over
> oneself" - as in, the opportunity to not grow old and
> deterioriate, if desired.  That is not illusiory in

We're talking very nicely in othogonal directions to
each other, but it's no problem, as we occasionally
do manage to connect sometimes.

> the same sense as "control" over other sentient
> beings.

It would be a very good thing to have control over
our physical layer. What I'm objecting is a belief
of having a control over your own mind by equivalent
of waving a dead chicken (Freud, Jung & Co). I have
similiar scathing opinion of AI people who think
philosophy and introspection will result in actual
application leads. 

More specifically, realization that you can't control
everything is liberating to the borderline
obsessive-compulsive amongst us, and can lead to
actual increase in control. It's the equivalent of
attemting to micromanage your life.
 
> You are correct in what you did say: people who
> currently have withered bodies, or who believe that
> the only path to old age is to wither, might not want
> to live forever given what they think it must mean.

We've donned our Ministry of Propaganda hat here, 
I presume.

> But that is not what we are discussing.  We are
> discussing the ability to live forever in relatively

Forever is a bit misleading. According to this week's
version of physics, nothing is eternal. In a Darwinian
scenario there's always a nonzero probability that you'll
become a loser in the next round, though a tiny fraction
of original individuals will have extremely long time
spans. 

> good health.  (Frankly, it might be technically more
> difficult to achieve immortality in a withered shell
> than in a perpetually healthy shell, even if there
> was not the desirability issue.  Were I to wither at
> current rates, yet survive to 100, I might seriously
> contemplate whether cryonic suspension might give me a
> better chance of seeing the far future than continued
> life.)

You of course realize that the vast majority of people
in the industrialized countries die demented. Not much
left to suspend there, alas.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/c8a4d7c6/attachment.bin>

From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Dec  3 10:57:06 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:57:06 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20031201161346.GM22650@leitl.org>
	<20031201221612.77696.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031202102400.GJ13516@leitl.org>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312020915560.-298187@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <6F50E5F1-257F-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 2 Dec 2003, at 22:55, Robin Hanson wrote:

> I just read someone who said:
>
> "no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet during the 
> 1990s"
>
> and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must have had 
> the dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.  Can anyone point 
> to a quote?

Surely "True Names" by Vernor Vinge counts? He had the net as a 
ubiquitous service, certainly, and that was published in 1980. And I'm 
pretty certain it was explicitly the internet -- or an n'th generation 
descendant -- that he was talking about.

Caveat: fictional source, rather than academic paper.



-- Charlie



From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Dec  3 11:03:37 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:03:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <20031203024143.25933.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031203024143.25933.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <58479C34-2580-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 3 Dec 2003, at 02:41, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Well, I assume you like SF. Neal Stephenson wrote a book called Snow
> Crash which you might be familiar with. A lot of the basic ideas he
> used in fleshing out his plot device of root language viral programming
> of humans is based on Jaynes' work. Of course, he does take it to a
> rather absurd conclusion... but that was the book that actually
> motivated me to read Jaynes, to get the straight scoop.

It's worth noting that Jaynes' book has been more than somewhat 
discredited in the field; he is to evolutionary biology pretty much 
what Immanuel Velikovsky is to planetography.

There's a reason some SF authors like his ideas; it's because they make 
for a great fictional playground-setting. That's not exactly the same 
thing as liking them because the evidence supports them ....



-- Charlie



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Dec  3 13:07:26 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:07:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
Message-ID: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Dec 02, 2003 05:07 pm  Adrian Tymes wrote:
> There's always more to learn and do, although one
> might become tired of it and start justifying that
> everything out there is all the same.


On Tue Dec 02, 2003 09:11 pm MB wrote:
> There's stuff out there. You can find it. It may not be what
> you expect. It may be sort of out of your field, but nothing
> wrong with that.


These sentiments strike me as having the flavor of youthful enthusiasm.
When you are younger, everything is new and exciting, you are healthy
and fit and full of energy and you want to 'go boldly beyond the frontiers'.

There are relatively few people who manage to retain an interested,
inquiring, searching outlook on life into old age. It is very difficult
for people in their 20s and 30s to imagine what they will feel like in
their 60s and older. It is not just the physical deterioration which
makes actual movement more difficult, but for old people the world
appears to be a much more dangerous place. If a young person trips and
falls or is pushed over, they just sprung back up onto their feet. For
an old person it can mean months in hospital.

On the mental side, the 'seen it all before' syndrome is also very real.
Computer techies will have seen the 'burn-out' effect on whiz-kids who
just can't do it any more. The people who are the big achievers are all
'driven' by their own various demons.

As the human race becomes longer-lived they will face two problems. The
obvious one is keeping themselves in good physical health. There is a
vast field of medical research that is required for life-extension.

The more subtle problem will be mental. The young researchers cannot
appreciate that their fresh, inquiring minds could ever change. But they
will. Every experience that is assimilated will change them, until after
60 or 70 years they will be very different. All the exciting dramas of
youth will become less important. An older person will be more likely to
respond with 'Jeez, not that again!'.

This point has come up before, where some people are of the opinion that
a civilization where everyone is thousands of years old will be a
civilization that does not go out exploring the universe.
i.e. the 'What's the point?' attitude.

 From our present point of view, the immortals will have to do
'something' with their time. If we bring in intelligence enhancement as
well, then it becomes even more unlikely that we can find out or
appreciate what that 'something' will be.

If that 'something' is mental, virtual-worlds or nano-worlds based, then
actual physical travel out in the universe will be unlikely. Even if by
then humanity is still based in physical bodies in which to do the
traveling.

So how do you plan to spend the next 7,000 years?


BillK



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Wed Dec  3 14:06:58 2003
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:06:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>

BillK wrote:

> On the mental side, the 'seen it all before' syndrome is also very real.
> Computer techies will have seen the 'burn-out' effect on whiz-kids who
> just can't do it any more. The people who are the big achievers are all
> 'driven' by their own various demons.


Oh yeah, that is so true. I can allready feel it myself at the tender 
age of 38. I have allways been an "extreme" techie. But computers are 
getting more and more boring every day. Solving the same old problems in 
slightly different ways.

On the other side, I find quality in my life increasingly important, and 
there are many examples of people living good lives at a high age. 
People at the age of 50 usually tell that they are living out the best 
part of their life. Free of the stresses of homebuilding and kids.

We can also hope that a exponential growth in technology can make up for 
the "seen it all before" feeling.

Or perhaps side-effect-free recreational drugs will make it all moot.


regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 14:42:19 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:42:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <20031203144219.GB1229@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:06:58PM +0100, Max M wrote:

> Oh yeah, that is so true. I can allready feel it myself at the tender 
> age of 38. I have allways been an "extreme" techie. But computers are 
> getting more and more boring every day. Solving the same old problems in 
> slightly different ways.

Me three, at 37. Getting ready to move on to make my hands
dirty in a different field. Not exactly easy, given my current
location and economic climate (drug discovery and bio
startups have been ailing for some time, and ROI is as
far removed as ever, so I expect them to start crashing
en masse quite soon -- so far they've been just not hiring
for a couple of years, or so). 

I'm quite interested to discuss personal plans (job, financial,
relocation) with other european transhumanists, as most of EU
is basically in the same situation.
 
> On the other side, I find quality in my life increasingly important, and 
> there are many examples of people living good lives at a high age. 

Absolutely.

> People at the age of 50 usually tell that they are living out the best 
> part of their life. Free of the stresses of homebuilding and kids.

Heard that, too. Latter stresses seem to be yet in front of me, though :)
 
> We can also hope that a exponential growth in technology can make up for 
> the "seen it all before" feeling.

So far it's not managing very well.
 
> Or perhaps side-effect-free recreational drugs will make it all moot.

Have you ever seen a side-effect-free drug? It's too coarse a tool by
far. I'm afraid we'll have really to wait for personal molecular medicine,
which might take too long (and be too expensive) for our age group.

Is the first immortal generation born already? Maybe, but it's pretty
impossible to tell yet. 

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/960277a3/attachment.bin>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Dec  3 14:55:13 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:55:13 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312030924410.-37899@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>


Yes, there is a flavor of youthful enthusiasm here, but it
is not intentional (on my part). What I was trying to point
out is that one spends 25+ years "working" (often on someone
else's projects) and not playing. And finally, if one is
blessed with decent health, one can try playing.

I gave an example of my brother, and he's in his mid 70s.

My other brother is pushing 80. He does ice skating, model
building, studying German (he always wanted to learn the
language after he was there in WW2), reading, website
building for friends - and travel. He sleeps a lot, and my
sister in law says she thinks he may have been without
sufficient sleep all his working life. But he is busy and
AFAIK happy. The work he does now is not what he did in his
job, but he still has connections there.

I myself am only hitting this wall now, and I do wonder
"what's the point?" I don't feel very good, aches and pains.
I'm not as strong as I was, and I need more support system.
:( It's most irritating. But there are new things out there.
I've built a website for a non-profit a friend of mine
suggested, I do a bit of database work for a former boss, I
help some older less able friends to get around, and I've
taken up Shaped Note Singing. I also have become interested
in snakes and I roller skate with friends. And I have more
time (which is a darn good thing, as I have less strength!)
for my garden.

This is mostly new stuff for me, as I simply didn't have
time when I was working and raising my family.

However.... I admit, I'm not at all sure I'd want to look at
another 100 or so years of it. My health isn't what I'd
desire.

That said, I think the *real* problem is elsewhere. It is
within my mind.  My brothers have more internal drive than I
do, they are ...  smarter. They've always been that way.

None of us watch TV (except my oldest brother watches the
iceskating).  I'd rather sleep! :)))

I still think there's more neat stuff for me out there, I
just haven't found it yet.

That's one reason I (usually) lurk on this list. It's
interesting. And full of new stuff.

And my email was meant to be an encouragement.

Regards,
MB
ps. There's also a sort of mid-life thing that some men go
through - having spent all their energies on "the job".
Perhaps this is part of the original poster's trouble?

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, BillK wrote:

> On Tue Dec 02, 2003 05:07 pm  Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > There's always more to learn and do, although one
> > might become tired of it and start justifying that
> > everything out there is all the same.
>
>
> On Tue Dec 02, 2003 09:11 pm MB wrote:
> > There's stuff out there. You can find it. It may not be what
> > you expect. It may be sort of out of your field, but nothing
> > wrong with that.
>
>
> These sentiments strike me as having the flavor of youthful enthusiasm.
> When you are younger, everything is new and exciting, you are healthy
> and fit and full of energy and you want to 'go boldly beyond the frontiers'.
>


From twodeel at jornada.org  Wed Dec  3 14:56:25 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312030656090.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Max M wrote:

> We can also hope that a exponential growth in technology can make up for
> the "seen it all before" feeling. Or perhaps side-effect-free
> recreational drugs will make it all moot.

I would think that combining these last two ideas would be a good
solution.  Hopefully we will eventually have the technology to get rid of
feelings of boredom whenever they occur and keep that spicy
zest-for-new-things feeling around all the time to drive us onward ...
whether it is implemented as a chemical you ingest, or a device that is
worn or injected or something, or a fundamental re-engineering of our
mental hardware.



From hemm at openlink.com.br  Wed Dec  3 15:07:51 2003
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:07:51 -0200
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
	<LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <012801c3b9af$399446e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Well, I'm not thinking only about intercontinental flights, but also our day-by-day transport, such as automobiles. You can put a hybrid engine in your car, you can use stem cells, you can put any kind of electronics in it, but it's still a car and will be stuck in the same traffic jam with all the other less advanced cars. You can make planes faster, but you'll still need to go to the airport and check-in and pass through the same metal detectors and deal with the same overbooking and wait lists.
What I mean is that todays means of transportation follow the same old paradigm of fifty years ago. They improved, of course, but they are still intrinsically the same. The most advanced jet and the first airplane use exactly the same principles to fly.

HeMM

-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
Para: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 2 de dezembro de 2003 16:20
Assunto: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


| I think that this has occurred simply because the masses have decided that
| what we have is good enough. The market has stabilized and the cost-benefit
| is about equal. The airlines already struggle with making profits because of
| this. If they raise the price of tickets, more people choose to drive to
| their destination. Faster flights and more exclusive, dedicated service to
| streamline the waiting would only increase the cost which most people are
| simply not willing to pay.
| This doesn;t mean that the technology hasn't improved however. If you look
| at the last 50 years (1953 to today) there are many breakthroughs fololowing
| Yeager's 1947 mach 1 flight in a single-man rocket with wings. Concorde
| travels at 1350 mph, SR-71 travels at mach 3.3. We went to the moon in 1969
| (speeds averaging 25,000 mph). Aurora (if it exists) is supposed to cruise
| between mach 5 and mach 8. Nasa's X-43 HyperX is supposed to travel between
| mach 7 and mach 10. The shuttle re-enters about mach 23 (i think)
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Brian Lee" <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
| To: <hemm at br.inter.net>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
| Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 12:22 PM
| Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
| 
| 
| > I've thought a bit on this lately and am a little let down with the pace
| of
| > transportation. If you look at air travel over the last 50 years there are
| > few major breakthroughs. 75 years ago, it took weeks to travel around the
| > world and then with commercial air travel, that was cut down to a day or
| > merely hours. 50 years later, we're still pretty much at the same flight
| > times. We have more routes and scheduled and tvs in the seats but flights
| > are still about the same length. Perhaps they are even longer if you take
| > security waits into the equation.
| >
| > I think the main reason why air travel tech has stalled is lack of
| > competition. There's really only two companies making planes-Airbus and
| > Boeing- and both are heavily subsidized by their respective governments.
| Air
| > travel is subsidized by local governments and businesses who don't have
| much
| > incentive to decrease travel time.
| >
| > For ground travel, in the US at least, road trips take less time because
| the
| > speed limit has been increased from 55 to 70-75 on interstates. It's nice
| to
| > be save 2 hours from an Atlanta to Miami trip, but I'm still waiting for
| 15
| > minute NY-London trips and flying cars.
| >
| > How long until the science fiction breakthroughs come on line?
| Transporters,
| > etc.
| >
| > I've done a bit of teleconferencing and videoconferencing and while it is
| > sufficient for basic communication, it's not yet replacing meatspace.
| >
| > BAL
| > >From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at br.inter.net>
| > >To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
| > >Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
| > >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:57:22 -0200
| > >
| > >Hello extropians,
| > >
| > >I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. The
| > >first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems to be
| stalled.
| > >Is it related? Are we concentrating our resourses in evolving our
| > >communication means because our transportation means are poor, or does de
| > >current pace of developments on comms in fact causes less effort on
| > >advancing transportation? Just thinking. Sorry for the bad english, but
| > >it's not my native language and I am still learning.
| > >_______________________________________________
| > >extropy-chat mailing list
| > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
| > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
| >
| > _________________________________________________________________
| > Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some
| > good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > extropy-chat mailing list
| > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
| > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
| >
| _______________________________________________
| extropy-chat mailing list
| extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
| http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
| 


From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec  3 15:23:16 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:16 GMT
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
Message-ID: <E1ARYqS-0001zc-MI@fetch-bak.runbox.com>

I think when the physical problems of old age (including hormonal and neurochemical changes) are solved, the rest will follow. There is no reason why you cannot keep a fresh and interested outlook on life while gaining experience. Many people in their 70s would be happy to do sometimes the same stupid things they did in their teens. The bad side of aging is a phisical thing.

> As the human race becomes longer-lived they will face two problems. The
> obvious one is keeping themselves in good physical health. There is a
> vast field of medical research that is required for life-extension.
> 
> The more subtle problem will be mental. The young researchers cannot
> appreciate that their fresh, inquiring minds could ever change. But they
> will. Every experience that is assimilated will change them, until after
> 60 or 70 years they will be very different. All the exciting dramas of
> youth will become less important. An older person will be more likely to
> respond with 'Jeez, not that again!'.


From hemm at openlink.com.br  Wed Dec  3 15:31:31 2003
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:31:31 -0200
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com><LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>
	<012801c3b9af$399446e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <013e01c3b9b2$87404800$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

I mean fuel cell... stupid me :) 

-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at openlink.com.br>
Para: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2003 13:07
Assunto: Re: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


Well, I'm not thinking only about intercontinental flights, but also our day-by-day transport, such as automobiles. You can put a hybrid engine in your car, you can use stem cells, you can put any kind of electronics in it, but it's still a car and will be stuck in the same traffic 


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 15:37:10 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:37:10 +0100
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <012801c3b9af$399446e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
	<LAW10-OE41pQq5pneeF00000f39@hotmail.com>
	<012801c3b9af$399446e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <20031203153710.GE1229@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:07:51PM -0200, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:

Can you please wrap your lines? You're difficult
to quote otherwise.

> Well, I'm not thinking only about intercontinental flights, but also our day-by-day transport, such as automobiles. You can put a hybrid engine in your car, you can use stem cells, you can put any kind of electronics in it, but it's still a car and will be stuck in the same traffic jam with all the other less advanced cars. You can make planes faster, but you'll still need to go to the airport and check-in and pass through the same metal detectors and deal with the same overbooking and wait lists.
> What I mean is that todays means of transportation follow the same old paradigm of fifty years ago. They improved, of course, but they are still intrinsically the same. The most advanced jet and the first airplane use exactly the same principles to fly.

Intercontinental flights have the largest payoff, because
here the pure flight time counts most. A suborbital
flight is essentially orbit, once you go through the
atmosphere and back. You can't shortcut these much, because
no known material will survive several cycles of that plasma 
bath, nevermind the accelerations required (Shuttle already
is pretty close to what humans can stomach).

You can't do better than orbit, because you need to accelerate
all the way, and you need a nuke drive for that. Things look
much better in vacuum, where you can use large circumsolar hardware
clouds pushing your sail-driven probe at several g for months.
It is not obvious we can do better than this, but our knowledge
of physics might be incomplete in that respect.

Planes yes, so here an individual VTOL can make sense,
even if it's slow and uses a lot of fuel. You don't have to go
to the airfield, and pass security (in fact, there are people
who collectively rent a pilot and a small jet, the advantage is
that they land on small airfields with less security overhead -- 
less hassle can be worth a lot to some people). You certainly
can't do long-distance VTOL without refuelling, and a larger
plane will be always better on longer distance even with
security overhead.

If you look at cars, it's obvious that volume is better
than surface, so an orthogonal matrix-bus based traffic
system in a large volume is pretty optimal (smallest
average distance possible, no blockage at crossing),
but for many reasons people choose suburbia, arguably
the opposite point in design space.

Suburbia might actually have a point, if you consider
that this is _insolated_ surface. Suburbia can become
energy-self reliant, not inner city centers. It's
a question of surface/volume ratio. 
 

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/11314bc7/attachment.bin>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Wed Dec  3 15:46:24 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:46:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <002701c3b961$64673ec0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031203104058.01e64960@mail.gmu.edu>

I wrote:
 > I just read someone who said:
 > "no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet
 > during the 1990s"
 > and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must
 > have had the dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.
 > Can anyone point to a quote?

On 12/3/2003 Harvey Newstrom responded:
>I suggest reading through "A Brief History of the Internet" at
><http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml>.  It has references to
>all the milestones in Internet creation, including white papers,
>conferences, etc.

That is a history of who did what when, not of who predicted what when.

Charlie Stross responded:
>Surely "True Names" by Vernor Vinge counts? He had the net as a ubiquitous 
>service, certainly, and that was published in 1980. And I'm pretty certain 
>it was explicitly the internet -- or an n'th generation descendant -- that 
>he was talking about. Caveat: fictional source, rather than academic paper.

Science fiction authors typically resist the interpretation that just 
because they wrote a novel describing a hypothetical future, than they were 
seriously predicting that future would happen within fifteen years.

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 responded:
>I did. In 1990 I was playing with the idea to start a net access business
>for individual end users, and even found someone who was maybe willing to
>invest some money. Then I let them talking me out of the idea, "this is too
>crazy, there will never be a market for this". Now when I wish to do some
>sweet daydreaming I think of what I would do with all the money that I would
>have now if I had followed my idea to the end.

OK, but did you publish your prediction in any way, such as in a mailing 
list archive?

>Two lessons here: 1 - believe in your ideas - 2 - get your ass off the
>armchair and do it.

This first lesson seems overblown.  Presumably all the people who disagreed
with you at the time believed in their ideas as well.  They were wrong and
you were right.  On average how is this evidence that everyone should be
more confident?



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  3 15:48:54 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:48:54 -0800
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <013e01c3b9b2$87404800$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <003901c3b9b4$f51323f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> I mean fuel cell... stupid me :) 
> 
> De: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at openlink.com.br>
> Assunto: Re: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation:
> 
> Well, I'm not thinking only about intercontinental flights, 
> but also our day-by-day transport, such as automobiles. You 
> can put a hybrid engine in your car, you can use stem cells...

No no Henrique, you have typoed into a brillian idea:
stem cells for your car!  You put them in the tank
and they replicate into any defective part.

Repairing worn or ripped leather seats would be the
first application, since those started out as cells
anyway, but then as we get more advanced we could 
have them fix leaks in the radiator, then worn bearings,
then when we get really good, the electronics.

I haven't seen your posts before, so welcome to the
list, imaginative young inventor!  {8-]

spike







From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Dec  3 15:50:33 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:50:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <58479C34-2580-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
References: <20031203024143.25933.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<58479C34-2580-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <3FCE0649.2040805@pobox.com>

Charlie Stross wrote:
> 
> On 3 Dec 2003, at 02:41, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
>> Well, I assume you like SF. Neal Stephenson wrote a book called Snow
>> Crash which you might be familiar with. A lot of the basic ideas he
>> used in fleshing out his plot device of root language viral programming
>> of humans is based on Jaynes' work. Of course, he does take it to a
>> rather absurd conclusion... but that was the book that actually
>> motivated me to read Jaynes, to get the straight scoop.
> 
> It's worth noting that Jaynes' book has been more than somewhat 
> discredited in the field; he is to evolutionary biology pretty much what 
> Immanuel Velikovsky is to planetography.
> 
> There's a reason some SF authors like his ideas; it's because they make 
> for a great fictional playground-setting. That's not exactly the same 
> thing as liking them because the evidence supports them ....

FYI all:  They're talking about Julian Jaynes (I think) and "The Bicameral 
Mind".  The Jaynes I talk about is E.T. Jaynes and "Probability Theory: 
The Logic of Science".  No relation AFAIK.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Dec  3 16:06:13 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:06:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031203104058.01e64960@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20031202175419.01e7b5a0@mail.gmu.edu>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031203104058.01e64960@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <3FCE09F5.2010709@pobox.com>

Eric Drexler in "Engines of Creation" went on at some length about the 
importance of hypertext; this anticipates the Web, I suppose, and actually 
helped build the Web, historically speaking; but not the Net.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec  3 16:10:30 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:10:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

BillK wrote,
> On the mental side, the 'seen it all before' syndrome is also 
> very real. Computer techies will have seen the 'burn-out' 
> effect on whiz-kids who just can't do it any more. The people 
> who are the big achievers are all 'driven' by their own 
> various demons.

I have this.  I get sick of seeing all these "new" ideas that are rehashes
of stuff we did decades ago.  Most of these fail or have the same problems
that were encountered earlier.  (Those who don't know history are doomed to
repeat it, etc....)  That's why I am so pessimistic all the time.  It's easy
to have irrational exuberance in youth.  But after you go through the same
thing dozens of times, you learn not to be so na?ve the next time around.

I also just realized that I am a professional pessimist.  As a security
expert, auditor, debugger, investigator, hacker, etc., my job is to see the
problems that no one else sees.  I literally get paid for, and spend 60
hours per week trying to brainstorm how things can go wrong rather than how
they can go right.  I see obvious flaws that everybody else seems oblivious
to.  Other engineers explain how great their projects can be, whereas my job
is to explain how horribly they can go wrong.  I really do not believe I am
being unrealistically negative.  I really see real problems that everyone
else ignores.  I am very good at my job.  However, it means that I see a
much darker and more dangerous world where technology is not as stable as
people think.

> The more subtle problem will be mental. The young researchers 
> cannot appreciate that their fresh, inquiring minds could 
> ever change. But they will. Every experience that is 
> assimilated will change them, until after 60 or 70 years they 
> will be very different. All the exciting dramas of youth will 
> become less important. An older person will be more likely to 
> respond with 'Jeez, not that again!'.

Exactly!

However, I think the enthusiasm of youth is automatic because things are new
and different.  Transhumanism used to be new and different.  But after being
on these lists for over a decade, there aren't very many new ideas going
around.  Older people also feel like they are running out of time.  Ten
years ago, people were predicting the singularity, moon bases and
immortality in a decade or two.  Now that we are half way there, the goals
don't seem any closer, yet time is running out.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Dec  3 16:37:03 2003
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:37:03 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <ECA5B4E2-25AE-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>


On 3 Dec 2003, at 16:10, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> BillK wrote,
>> On the mental side, the 'seen it all before' syndrome is also
>> very real. Computer techies will have seen the 'burn-out'
>> effect on whiz-kids who just can't do it any more.
> I have this.  I get sick of seeing all these "new" ideas that are 
> rehashes
> of stuff we did decades ago.  Most of these fail or have the same 
> problems
> that were encountered earlier.  (Those who don't know history are 
> doomed to
> repeat it, etc....)  That's why I am so pessimistic all the time.

Me too. 39, burned-out as a programmer. (Luckily I've found a second -- 
third? -- full-time career as an SF writer.)

>  I am a professional pessimist.  As a security
> expert, auditor, debugger, investigator, hacker, etc., my job is to 
> see the
> problems that no one else sees.  I literally get paid for, and spend 60
> hours per week trying to brainstorm how things can go wrong rather 
> than how
> they can go right.  I see obvious flaws that everybody else seems 
> oblivious
> to.  Other engineers explain how great their projects can be, whereas 
> my job
> is to explain how horribly they can go wrong.  I really do not believe 
> I am
> being unrealistically negative.  I really see real problems that 
> everyone
> else ignores.  I am very good at my job.  However, it means that I see 
> a
> much darker and more dangerous world where technology is not as stable 
> as
> people think.

There's nothing quite like subscribing to COMP.RISKS for a few years to 
take the edge off your enthusiasm for novelty for its own sake!

> However, I think the enthusiasm of youth is automatic because things 
> are new
> and different.  Transhumanism used to be new and different.  But after 
> being
> on these lists for over a decade, there aren't very many new ideas 
> going
> around.  Older people also feel like they are running out of time.  Ten
> years ago, people were predicting the singularity, moon bases and
> immortality in a decade or two.  Now that we are half way there, the 
> goals
> don't seem any closer, yet time is running out.

If we achieve physiological cures for senescence we'll need to find new 
strategies for dealing with a surfeit of experience. Memory excision? 
Facilitated un-learning?

It may be that natural forgetfullness will save us from our own sense 
of anomie over deep time (for values of deep time measured in decades 
to centuries), but I suspect we'll need something a lot better -- 
especially once memory prostheses become available and widely used. 
We've also got the problem that our legal and information systems 
aren't designed to forget over time. A person who is public enemy #1 in 
their first century may well be someone completely different in their 
third. How do we deal with this?


-- Charlie



From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Dec  3 17:10:59 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:10:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> However, I think the enthusiasm of youth is automatic because things are new
> and different.  Transhumanism used to be new and different.  But after being
> on these lists for over a decade, there aren't very many new ideas going
> around.  Older people also feel like they are running out of time.  Ten
> years ago, people were predicting the singularity, moon bases and
> immortality in a decade or two.  Now that we are half way there, the goals
> don't seem any closer, yet time is running out.

I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems to be doing 
so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow my lead doesn't seem to 
help people, either - or helps only insofar as they are moved to study 
tractable interesting subjects.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 17:27:33 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:27:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20031203172733.GL1229@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems to be doing 
> so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow my lead doesn't seem to 

Ur, do you realize how this sounds?

> help people, either - or helps only insofar as they are moved to study 
> tractable interesting subjects.

I'm not sure you're using your resources very wisely. 
AI is a high risk/high tradeoff field, but an academic and/or
industrial career would have provided you far more leverage 
than you currently have. 

By now I'm 99% certain that a sustainably visible online
persona is incompatible with getting things done. I'd be out of
here long ago if I wasn't so hooked.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/1e82e679/attachment.bin>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec  3 17:28:09 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:28:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031203104058.01e64960@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <00c401c3b9c2$d7679670$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robin Hanson wrote,
> On 12/3/2003 Harvey Newstrom responded:
> >I suggest reading through "A Brief History of the Internet" at 
> ><http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml>.  It has references 
> >to all the milestones in Internet creation, including white papers, 
> >conferences, etc.
> 
> That is a history of who did what when, not of who predicted what when.

Wow.  Remind me not to have you do any research for me!  :-)

You think that the Internet was based on past network usage and not build on
wide-spread predictions of how the future network would be used and what it
had to support?  All requirements documents are based on future predictions.
There are technical predictions of load, spread, and acceptance.  There are
social predictions about home use, cultural changes, and usefulness.  There
were business predictions of privatization, business use and international
commerce.  There were persuasion papers trying to gain funding, convince
congress, and gain corporate support.  Of *course* they are chock full of
predictions about how great and widespread the internet was going to be in
the future!

Some quick examples of documents listed in the reference you dismissed:

In 1962: J.C.R. Licklider of MIT writes a paper describing a globally
connected "Galactic Network" of computers.  He predicts what they can do and
how they will be used.

The congressional record of 1986 quotes Al Gore as saying, "America's
Highways transport people and materials across the country.  Federal
freeways connect with state highways which connect in turn with county roads
and city streets.  To transport data and ideas, we will need a
telecommunications highway connecting users coast to coast, state to state,
city to city.  The study required in this amendment will identify the
problems and opportunities the nation will face in establishing that
highway."

In 1988, the NSF sponsors a series of workshops at Harvard on the
commercialization and privatization of the Internet.  They predicted what it
would be like and how it could occur.

Also in 1988, Kahn et al. write a paper "Towards a National Research
Network."  It predicted the future of the Internet.

In 1988, the congressional record Gore proposing a bill to create the
internet, "The act would provide for a 3-gigabit-per-second national
network, develop federal standards, take into account user views, examine
telecommunications policy, build an information infrastructure composed of
databases and knowledge banks, create a national software corporation to
develop important software programs, establish a clearinghouse to validate
and distribute software, promote artificial intelligence databases, increase
research and development projects, study export controls affecting
computers, review procurement policies to stimulate the computer industry,
and enhance computer science education programs."

The Dec. 29, 1988 edition of the New York Times predicted, "Computer
scientists and Government officials are urging the creation of a nationwide
"data superhighway" that they believe would have a dramatic economic impact,
rivaling that of the nation's interstate highway system.  This highway would
consist of a high-speed fiber-optic data network joining dozens of
supercomputers at national laboratories and making them available to
thousands of academic and industry researchers around the country...."

Legislation introduced in October by Senator Albert Gore, Democrat of
Tennessee, included initial financing for development and construction of a
National Research Network. Backers of the measure say that Federal financing
for the project is necessary to develop the technology and convince industry
that vastly speedier computer networks are commercially viable.

In 1989, Gore told a House committee, "I genuinely believe that the creation
of this nationwide network and the broader installation of lower capacity
fiber optic cables to all parts of this country, will create an environment
where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses with
access to supercomputing capability being very, very widespread. It's sort
of like, once the interstate highway system existed, then a college student
in California who lived in North Carolina would be more likely to buy a car,
drive back and forth instead of taking the bus. Once that network for
supercomputing is in place, you're going to have a lot more people gaining
access to the capability, developing an interest in it. That will lead to
more people getting training and more purchases of machines."  (Inventing Al
Gore, p. 217).

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 17:29:22 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:29:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <58479C34-2580-11D8-AF95-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <20031203172922.14718.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org> wrote:
> 
> On 3 Dec 2003, at 02:41, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Well, I assume you like SF. Neal Stephenson wrote a book called
> Snow
> > Crash which you might be familiar with. A lot of the basic ideas he
> > used in fleshing out his plot device of root language viral
> programming
> > of humans is based on Jaynes' work. Of course, he does take it to a
> > rather absurd conclusion... but that was the book that actually
> > motivated me to read Jaynes, to get the straight scoop.
> 
> It's worth noting that Jaynes' book has been more than somewhat 
> discredited in the field; he is to evolutionary biology pretty much 
> what Immanuel Velikovsky is to planetography.
> 
> There's a reason some SF authors like his ideas; it's because they
> make 
> for a great fictional playground-setting. That's not exactly the same
> thing as liking them because the evidence supports them ....

Well, they primarily don't like him because he is a pshrink, not a
biologist or an anthropologist or an archaeologist. Considering the
stories anthropologists are known to weave from the most specious of
evidence, the only thing that saves them from similar derision is that
there is so little evidence to begin with.


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec  3 17:37:26 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:37:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <00c501c3b9c4$217e4dc0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
> I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems 
> to be doing so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow
> my lead doesn't seem to > help people, either - or helps only
> insofar as they are moved to study tractable interesting subjects.

You're young and naive.  Wait until you are middle-aged, pot-bellied and
balding, and there is still no singularity or general AI.  How will you feel
then?

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 17:39:41 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:39:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <010501c3b9c4$70899820$d5994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems to be doing
> so wrong.

What you're doing right is being younger than 25. Good choice! Keep it up!

Damien Broderick
[younger than 60, but only just]



From max at maxmore.com  Wed Dec  3 18:01:40 2003
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:01:40 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203114551.05beab00@mail.earthlink.net>

At 10:10 AM 12/3/2003, Harvey wrote:

>I also just realized that I am a professional pessimist.

I shouldn't encourage you, but...

Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives' Decisions
by Dan Lovallo; Daniel Kahneman
Harvard Business Review, Editor reviewed on 07/07/03, originally published 
on 07/01/03
http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO77031947495


>   As a security
>expert, auditor, debugger, investigator, hacker, etc., my job is to see the
>problems that no one else sees.  I literally get paid for, and spend 60
>hours per week trying to brainstorm how things can go wrong rather than how
>they can go right.  I see obvious flaws that everybody else seems oblivious
>to.  Other engineers explain how great their projects can be, whereas my job
>is to explain how horribly they can go wrong.  I really do not believe I am
>being unrealistically negative.  I really see real problems that everyone
>else ignores.  I am very good at my job.  However, it means that I see a
>much darker and more dangerous world where technology is not as stable as
>people think.

 From my review at the above URL:
"The pervasive human tendency for over-optimism ? with all its costly 
consequences in business decisions ? can be highly beneficial when confined 
to the right places. To the extent that your company can cleanly separate 
functions and positions that involve or shape decision-making and those 
that promote or guide action, optimism can be left untouched in the latter 
but not the former. As the authors note, an optimistic CFO is a disaster 
waiting to happen, but optimism in a sales force or in some aspects of R&D 
should be healthy."

[...]
Because we naturally adopt an ?inside view? of the situation and decision 
to be made, we nevertheless greatly overestimate our chances of success. 
Economists are no help; those not well versed in the dark arts of 
behavioral finance will only feed our optimism with academic cocaine that 
explains all those hugely costly mistakes as risky but rational decisions. 
Lovallo and Kahneman will have none of this exculpatory nonsense. They 
locate the problem in several factors: A combination of cognitive biases 
including attribution errors, anchoring and competitor neglect, along with 
organizational pressures including stretch goals, discouragement of 
?disloyal? pessimism, and the pressure to present proposals in the best 
possible light in order to secure funding and support.

All is not lost. Lovallo and Kahneman explain how taking ?the outside view? 
can counter endemic over-optimism. [...]

Some other pieces on this topic (linked from the above review):

Risk Taking: A Tale of Two Biases

Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming

Make Room for Gloom

Rationality: The Next Competitive Advantage

Why So Many People (Not You, Of Course) Made So Many Brain-Dead Investments 
(And How Not to Make Them Again)


>However, I think the enthusiasm of youth is automatic because things are new
>and different.

This accounts for much of it, no doubt. But some of it seems to be a matter 
of individual differences in temperament. As I close in on my 40th birthday 
I continue to find an enormous range of things fascinating. One of my 
biggest time management challenges is containing my interest in so many 
things. Age usually affects this part of temperament, probably by killing 
off dopamine neurons, etc. Anti-aging research will certainly need to 
tackle this aspect of degeneration.

>  Transhumanism used to be new and different.  But after being
>on these lists for over a decade, there aren't very many new ideas going
>around.  Older people also feel like they are running out of time.  Ten
>years ago, people were predicting the singularity, moon bases and
>immortality in a decade or two.  Now that we are half way there, the goals
>don't seem any closer, yet time is running out.

I don't recall anyone being optimistic about moon bases -- most of us have 
been unhappily aware of the slow progress with space technology. Other 
ideas *are* coming about -- idea futures, for example. It would be 
interesting to dig out the issue of Extropy that featured a range of 
predicted dates for various events. I recall that Eric Drexler had highly 
optimistic projections, but others looked to 100+ years for many of the 
items listed. I think I was somewhere in the middle. If anyone has the 
issue at hand along with an OCR scanner, it would provide some interesting 
data points.

Max



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 18:13:55 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:13:55 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEOKCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE61nQ13eZZfm00001f74@hotmail.com>

Does anyone know if this glow-in-the-dark gene gets passed on to it's offspring? I would assume so. Imagine the interest that children will suddenly have in genetics when they can breed yellow glo-fish with maybe a red glo-fish and get some red, yellow, and orange glo-fish. 
And what of those glowing teenagers? Will they mate and give birth to glo-babies? 
This could have serious implications for the military. What if all 18 yr old men decided to glow in the dark? Night engagements could get really risky > :-P
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
  To: hit ; extropy-chat 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:24 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?


  From the New York Times: Sometime in the future, when the distinction between cosmetologist and molecular biologist has faded and gene shops dot the seedier urban streets like tattoo parlors, the philosophers, moralists and historians of science will try to pin down the moment when the new age began. Science historians will probably say it started with the discovery of DNA, or the mapping of the human genome. Others will claim it started when Dolly was cloned and it became clear that the tools of biotechnology had moved out of the high church of pure research and into the unpredictable hands of people who bred sheep for profit. 
  I think the moment is now. And the creature that embodies the escape of biotechnology into the world at large - a movement that will never be reversed - is an aquarium fish that glows in the dark. This is the tipping point, when the world irrevocably turns toward the science-fiction fantasies of writers like Philip K. Dick and William Gibson, who envision biomedical technology permeating every corner of the marketplace, from global corporations on down to small-time illegal operations like stolen-car chop shops. Imagine if you will, that you could pay to have genes for glowing in the dark inserted into your own body. How many glowing teenagers would there be? And who would stop them, once they reached age 18? After all, one's own body is one's own business.


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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/67a3dd0f/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Wed Dec  3 18:22:53 2003
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:22:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanogen's new patents in nanotech and
	nanomanufacturing
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203122201.06059b40@mail.earthlink.net>


Nanogen shares soar on patent
Newly issued patent broadens its proprietary position in nanotechnology and 
nanomanufacturing areas.
December 3, 2003: 11:30 AM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of Nanogen Inc. jumped more than 50 percent 
Wednesday after the company said it received a U.S. patent related to the 
fledgling field of nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/technology/nanogen.reut/index.htm


_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________




From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 18:40:37 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:40:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Planck life and `thought bubbles'
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20031203114551.05beab00@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001801c3b9cc$f4f6fc80$d5994a43@texas.net>

Physics Nobelist Brian Josephson in fine form:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 18:40:02 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE61nQ13eZZfm00001f74@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031203184002.83995.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- kevinfreels at hotmail.com wrote:
> Does anyone know if this glow-in-the-dark gene gets passed on to it's
> offspring? I would assume so. Imagine the interest that children will
> suddenly have in genetics when they can breed yellow glo-fish with
> maybe a red glo-fish and get some red, yellow, and orange glo-fish. 
> And what of those glowing teenagers? Will they mate and give birth to
> glo-babies? 
> This could have serious implications for the military. What if all 18
> yr old men decided to glow in the dark? Night engagements could get
> really risky > :-P

There are both body paints and ingestible pigments that could block the
glo pigment. There are actually federal laws prohibiting intentionally
making yourself medically unfit for military service. Ostensibly it is
an act of sabotage that aids and abets the enemy.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From hal at finney.org  Wed Dec  3 18:40:23 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:40:23 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
Message-ID: <200312031840.hB3IeNn18771@finney.org>

I remember when I was young and just getting started working, I noticed
there were different ways that older people approached their jobs, as well
as life itself.  The more common attitude was a kind of bitter fatalism,
a sense of disappointment.  Things were going badly and getting worse.
They were grumpy and unhappy, warning against mistakes but mostly being
ignored.

Generally these were people who had not been all that succeessful, who
were doing the same work that they had done 20 years before.  So it is
understandable that they might be bitter and unhappy.

I also ran into a few old people who were quite different, who were
optimistic and energetic, full of ideas and enthusiasm.  These were
mostly people who had been successful in their careers, who had advanced
to relatively important positions.  Another group like this were older
college professors who were still active and pursuing their research.

It is not easy to distinguish cause and effect here.  Were people happy
or unhappy because of their success or lack of it?  Or were their basic
approaches to problems influencing their career paths?

As I get older, I can see how cynicism creeps in.  I still have mostly
the same goals and the same basic belief that they are possible, but
more and more I perceive that much of the support for these projects is
based on unfounded optimism and sloppy thinking.  I become impatient
with one-sided perspectives and want to see both the pro and the con
positions represented fairly.

A case in point is the recent online nanotech debate, where the spin from
"our side" is that Drexler whipped Smalley's butt.  I don't perceive it
that way at all.  I thought Drexler was evasive and slippery, and from my
current perspective I see this as a persistent strategy.  You can never
pin him down.  Whenever someone claims that something won't work, he just
calls "strawman" and says if that doesn't work, we'll do it some other
way.  But since he never comes out with a specific, concrete proposal,
he has a perfect defense.  You can't critique what doesn't exist.

I need to write up these thoughts in more detail, but here again I
find myself facing the same barriers which had defeated the older
engineers I observed as a youth.  I know that it will be an enormous
battle, offering pessimism where everyone only wants to hear good news.
I doubt that it will do any good, because even the cautions of a Nobel
prize winner are ignored.  And I question whether I have the energy to
engage in the kind of hard debate which would be necessary to give these
issues the kind of hearing that they deserve.

Those old men I knew had given up.  They were convinced that our
plans and projects would mostly fail, but they were unable to make
persuasive arguments.  Too many times in the past they had tried and
failed, had gained reputations as naysayers, as not being team players.
These reputations had probably helped to mire them in their dead end jobs.
And by then they had nothing left but bitterness, pro forma objections,
and head-shaking predictions of doom.

I don't think any of us wants to end up like that.  I certainly don't,
and yet I feel myself creeping in that direction.  What can we do about
it?

I have a couple of ideas.  The first, and simpler, is to try to couple
pessimism with optimism.  This is basically the idea of what Max called
Dynamic Optimism.  Dynamic optimism is realistic.  It's not a matter of
wearing rose colored glasses.  You see the problems, but you also try
to look at them as challenges rather than obstacles.  Rather than just
opposing what won't work, figure out what will give the best shot at
working, and become a proponent of that alternative.  This way you are,
in a sense, a leader rather than dead weight.  Maybe nobody is following
you at the moment, but it is a crucial difference in perspective.

But sometimes this approach is difficult.  You have a situation where
every path seems doomed, and you can't imagine a solution that will work.
Pessimism is pervasive, even becoming depression.  In this case the second
idea comes in, which is based on a philosophy I have long believed in,
of being faithful to oneself.  Try to think of yourself not as a person
living in a moment of time, but as a being who spans an entire lifetime.
Give credit to the person you were in the past.  Think of his goals as
well as your own, and try to honor both of them.  Remember how you felt
when you were young, and even if you don't feel that way now, try to
act in a manner which respects those feelings.

As you feel the pessimism of age encroaching, understand that this is
not necessarily a matter of wisdom and experience.  It can be hormones
and neuroanatomy.  Your brain is changing, your body is changing.
Don't assume that your beliefs now are necessarily more valid than your
old ones.

The idea, then, is to try to hold to a sliver of optimism, even if you
don't believe it in your gut, or in your hormones.  Fight your tendencies
to cynicism.  Admire the optimism and energy of youth rather than pity it.
Give support where you can, and avoid being an obstacle to those who
are moving forward.

So there you have it, Extropianism for the Elderly.  I'm not quite
there yet, but most of us will face these issues eventually.  Give some
thought to how you want to age, and realize that your own mental habits
today are putting you on a path which may be much more ingrained a few
decades from now.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 18:45:38 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <3FCE09F5.2010709@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20031203184538.19106.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Heinlein in his novel "Friday" envisioned a worldwide hyperlinked
information network as a research tool for private intelligence
agencies. Vinge's story "True Names" envisioned an online metaverse
that even those on welfare could access with inexpensive equipment
while others with more expensive bandwidth and processor capabilities
exerted great power to engage in MIP-sucking as well as DoS and other
attacks.

--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Eric Drexler in "Engines of Creation" went on at some length about
> the 
> importance of hypertext; this anticipates the Web, I suppose, and
> actually 
> helped build the Web, historically speaking; but not the Net.
> 
> -- 
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 19:31:36 2003
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Planck life and `thought bubbles'
In-Reply-To: <001801c3b9cc$f4f6fc80$d5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031203193136.51729.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>

 

Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:

Physics Nobelist Brian Josephson in fine form:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
Thanks for the link, Damien. It is truly comforting when one finds a great mind that independantly validate one's own thoughts on a matter. 
 
Cheers,
 


The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/17077343/attachment.html>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Dec  3 19:35:37 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:35:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
Message-ID: <3FCE3B09.6070506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Wed Dec 03, 2003 03:57 am Charlie Stross wrote:
> Surely "True Names" by Vernor Vinge counts? He had the net as a
> ubiquitous service, certainly, and that was published in 1980.
>

Right on the mark.   Quote:
For historians of cyberculture, science fiction author Vernor Vinge
enjoys unimpeachable street cred. Three years before William Gibson
dazzled the SF world with "Neuromancer," Vinge captured the essence of
the online reality to come in his eerily prescient novella "True Names",
published in 1981." "True Names" today reads more like a piece of
reportage than speculative science fiction. William Gibson may get all
the glory for defining the word "cyberspace," but Vinge actually nailed
the details. "True Names" includes online gathering places identical to
the MUDs (multi-user domains) that became the online rage in the late
'80s. Its protagonists guard their real names from the National Security
Agency and other hackers with cryptographic safeguards, just like
today's cryptopunks. And they live solely to log on -- the pathology of
today's Internet addiction is all-too-familiar in "True Names."


Any prediction about the world filled with computers talking to each is
likely to be later than the invention of personal computers themselves.
(approx 1975-1980). When the founders started working on linking
computers in the 1960s, they were talking about linking mainframes via
time-share terminals.

BillK





From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Dec  3 19:46:11 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:46:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <20031203172733.GL1229@leitl.org>
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>	<3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com>
	<20031203172733.GL1229@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <3FCE3D83.7040607@pobox.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems to be doing 
>>so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow my lead doesn't seem to 
> 
> Ur, do you realize how this sounds?

If it doesn't sound bloody fed up, then I phrased it wrong.

I am not running out of exciting ideas.
I am not running out of new ideas.
I am not sitting on my hands doing nothing.
I am not an optimist.
I am still learning the basics in various fields of study with which I was 
previously unacquainted.

So what are y'all doing wrong?

>>help people, either - or helps only insofar as they are moved to study 
>>tractable interesting subjects.
> 
> I'm not sure you're using your resources very wisely. 
> AI is a high risk/high tradeoff field, but an academic and/or
> industrial career would have provided you far more leverage 
> than you currently have. 

Eugen, an academic and/or industrial career, though it would indeed be 
easier than what I am doing now, will not prevent the coming train crash, 
and is therefore ruled out.  Perhaps the problem is that y'all see what 
you should be doing, then back off and do something easier instead.

> By now I'm 99% certain that a sustainably visible online
> persona is incompatible with getting things done. I'd be out of
> here long ago if I wasn't so hooked.

I shall probably come to a similar conclusion in the not too distant future.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 20:01:48 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:01:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
Message-ID: <410-22003123320148428@M2W075.mail2web.com>


Robin, I discussed the inceptive, imaginations/conceptions of the Internet
with John Perry Barlow today and and he told me:

"The first prediction I can think of is this: 

'Is it a fact - or have I dreamt it - that, by means of electricity, 
the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of 
miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is a 
vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence!'

That, believe it or not, was Nathanial Hawthorne, from the invocation 
of The House of Seven Gables. 

Then there was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who predicted, back in the 
50's. that evolution would next create a new layer based on global 
consciousness. 

Also, there was J.C.R. Licklider who was in charge of DARPA when the 
Internet was first conceived. 

My vote goes to Hawthorne, however."

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From barbara_lamar at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 19:31:30 2003
From: barbara_lamar at earthlink.net (Barbara Lamar)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:31:30 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <00c501c3b9c4$217e4dc0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <00ad01c3b9d4$0ec8c5b0$1301010a@Barbara>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Harvey
> Newstrom
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:37 AM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
>
>
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
> > I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems
> > to be doing so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow
> > my lead doesn't seem to > help people, either - or helps only
> > insofar as they are moved to study tractable interesting subjects.
>
> You're young and naive.  Wait until you are middle-aged,
> pot-bellied and
> balding, and there is still no singularity or general AI.
> How will you feel
> then?

Boredom vs. excitement isn't a matter of chronological age. I know people
who think they've seen and done it all by the age of 30 and others who still
find life exhilarating in their 90's (I've never known anyone older than
this, but I'd guess that such people would still be going strong in their
100's). The people who never get bored are those who continue to be curious
and open to new learning into adulthood. Most people seem to close down
after they grow up, and although they have pleasant moments from time to
time, life is no longer exciting for them. Curious people never grow
mentally old, always find life fresh and interesting.

The people who retain curiosity aren't just curious about major things such
as the meaning of life and making their next million bucks and the nature of
the universe. They're interested in seemingly trivial things as well, such
as what's around the next corner when they're walking, and how a mechanical
vegetable peeler works, and which kind of plants grows in cracks in the
sidewalk.

People have an abundance of curiosity when they're babies and small
children. Most of them lose it by the time they're 30. Those who retain it
past that age seem to keep it forever, or until their bodies completely give
out on them, and it makes all the difference in the way they approach life.
Eliezer comments that following his lead doesn't seem to help people. Maybe
curious people are not followers. I almost wrote that curiosity can't be
taught, but I'm not sure about this.

It's fun to imagine what the world would be like if someone found a way to
teach curiosity, or to reactivate whatever neural processes make children
curious in the first place. If a curiosity training course or treatment were
offered for sale, I wonder how many people would want to buy it.

Barbara










From barbara_lamar at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 19:37:39 2003
From: barbara_lamar at earthlink.net (Barbara Lamar)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:37:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <00b001c3b9d4$e9d26170$1301010a@Barbara>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Harvey
> Newstrom
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:11 AM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age

> I also just realized that I am a professional pessimist.

As a lawyer, I am too. Always raining of people's parades, pointing out all
the potential disasters. I've found that my work is much more fun and
interesting if I go beyond this and help people think of ways to overcome or
go around the obstacles. Sometimes this means scrapping what the client
thought was her goal, and identifying a more basic or ultimate goal that
doesn't suffer from the weaknesses of the original plan.

Barbara




From amara at amara.com  Wed Dec  3 19:17:26 2003
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:17:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
Message-ID: <p05100301bbf3e08100de@[150.146.134.133]>

Eugen* Leitl:

>On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:06:58PM +0100, Max M wrote:
>>  Oh yeah, that is so true. I can allready feel it myself at the tender
>>  age of 38. I have allways been an "extreme" techie. But computers are
>>  getting more and more boring every day. Solving the same old problems in
>>  slightly different ways.

>Me three, at 37.

Not me, I suppose (42). I'm mostly exhausted this year from working to make
basic living expenses and dealing with the Italian bureaucracy
and getting past a painful emotional situation that occurred upon
arrival earlier this year.

Usually I have too many interests for my time, and don't suffer that
kind of burnout. I had a burnout after my PhD, but that's normal.
Interests came back in time, I think. Visiting volcanoes and bike
trips helped me with that.


>I'm quite interested to discuss personal plans (job, financial,
>relocation) with other european transhumanists, as most of EU
>is basically in the same situation.


Suggestion: Don't move to Italy. The pay sucks as you probably know
(half the salary of other scientists in Europe). I didn't move here
for the salary, I moved to Italy for my passion, but I didn't
honestly expect the money situation to to be so bad. In addition,
science is not recognized by this government in general, and foreign
scientists have a particularly tough time of it.

This week, I read that there is a new law in discussion in the
Italian parliament for giving immigrants a large number of rights
for voting and representation in their communities, among other
things. Sounded good. The only requirement is a valid
permit-of-stay, and so I choked in my coffee. Why is that? If you
walk into a Questura (police) today, you will likely find a long
queue of foreigners filing permit-of-stay papers or, more likely,
waiting for the permit-of-stay papers that they filed months ago.
You are illegal to live in Italy without a permit-of-stay. If you
have the little receipt that the Questura  gives you that indicates
that they are processing your papers (by law, they are supposed to
do it in 20 days), then, if you travel outside of Italy, you are not
legal when you return, and they could throw you out, jail you,
whatever. Last week when I stood in the queue for the renewal for my
permit-of-stay, I saw one of my scientist friends from the INFN (National
Lab for Nuclear Physics). We had a nice chat, he is Japanese, and needs
a permit-of-stay (all nonEu require one). He has been waiting for
his for 11 months.

To explain where some of my exhaustion is coming from, when dealing
with the Italian government: An example: You walk into the police
department to get an  approval for your new address for some other
official papers and you walk out with a 16 step form with basically
impossible steps to complete. Tomorrow the instructions will be
different, of course.

And if you walk into that same office with an Italian, it's a one or
two step process. Simplice. I don't have Italians to walk into
bureaucrats office with me most of the time, though, the public
administrator or police look at me muttering 'stupid foreigner' or
some such thing and give me the strictest interpretation of the law.
There are an infinite number of interpretations for each law in Italy.
The police, in particular, treat foreigners all like criminals, and
you have to deal with them, otherwise you are not legal to live
here. 99.9% of Italians don't know what it is like for foreigners
('extracommunitari' or nonEU).  When I tell Italians what I have to
do, they usually say 'you are so unlucky', but I know it is not one
unlucky event. My folder of official documents for living and
working in Italy is almost two inches thick now. Every bureaucratic
office works in similar ways towards foreigners.

In approximately two weeks, I become illegal. My permit-of-stay
expires. Oh yes, I filled out the paperwork (with about 12 pieces of
documentation of different kinds for verification), for a renewal
(one would think that a *renewal* would be a simple process, but no)
and gave it to the Questura, but they say that it won't be ready for
about 5 months. Which means probably 8 or 9 months.

I know all of this because last year I went through the same thing.
I gave them a very large stack of papers for my original
permit-of-stay, then got 'fingerprinted' (actually fingerprinted,
handprinted, palmprinted, two sets of each). They told me that it
would take a couple of months to process it. It didn't, it took
five, and so I had to cancel two important business trips in the
Spring because my boss didn't want me to be illegal working here.
It's not trivial to miss my trips: I am involved with three
spacecraft missions: one will be launched in February, another one
is in the building phase and will be launched in about one year, and
another spacecraft arrives at its destination next summer, so not being
able to travel had an impact. More importantly, I could not be with
my mother when she had her lung cancer surgery in March.  I didn't
have a phone until September, so I could not have even a good phone
conversation with her. My mobile from my town always blinks out with
the bad em field and I could only get fragments of her words and she
was crying at that time. In October, when I finally got to travel to
see her, I learned that her heart had stopped three times
immediately after the operation, and the doctors didn't understand
her situation and were making it worse. I told myself that I would
never let an idiot government put me in such a terrible situation
again, that is, not being able to be with my family in an emergency,
and, now, it looks like a potential problem all over again. Except
that I am so disgusted with the Italian government, that I honestly
don't care, anymore, and I decided that I will travel anyway. I have
a stack of other kinds of official papers that prove my residence,
my work in Italy, I pay taxes, I have an Italian identity card, blah
blah blah, and so I will just carry that stack of papers with me when
I travel, for as long as it takes. I'll begin to use my Latvian passport
instead of my US passport when Latvia becomes part of the EU in May,
so that will help me here alot.

Other than the pay and the bureaucratic garbage, the quality of life
in Italy is actually very high. Living in my neighborhood, and
building my friendships is alot like living in a very large and warm
family.

>>  On the other side, I find quality in my life increasingly important, and
>>  there are many examples of people living good lives at a high age.

>Absolutely.

Agree too. My dad is one of my best examples for that.


Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  3 20:27:19 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:27:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
References: <410-22003123320148428@M2W075.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <009601c3b9db$dd37bda0$d5994a43@texas.net>


John Perry Barlow sez:
>
> "The first prediction I can think of is this:
>
> 'Is it a fact - or have I dreamt it - that, by means of electricity,
> the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of
> miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is a
> vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence!'
>
> That, believe it or not, was Nathanial Hawthorne, from the invocation
> of The House of Seven Gables.

Nathaniel. His character was talking, of course, about the telegraph, and in
the context of spiritualism:

=====

Chapter 17:

"Within the lifetime of the child already born," Clifford went on, "all this
will be done away. The world is growing too ethereal and spiritual to bear
these enormities a great while longer. To me, though, for a considerable
period of time, I have lived chiefly in retirement, and know less of such
things than most men,--even to me, the harbingers of a better era are
unmistakable. Mesmerism, now! Will that effect nothing, think you, towards
purging away the grossness out of human life?"

"All a humbug!" growled the old gentleman.

"These rapping spirits, that little Phoebe told us of, the other day," said
Clifford,--"what are these but the messengers of the spiritual world,
knocking at the door of substance? And it shall be flung wide open!"

"A humbug, again!" cried the old gentleman, growing more and more testy at
these glimpses of Clifford's metaphysics. "I should like to rap with a good
stick on the empty pates of the dolts who circulate such nonsense!"

"Then there is electricity,--the demon, the angel, the mighty physical
power, the all-pervading intelligence!" exclaimed Clifford. "Is that a
humbug, too? Is it a fact--or have I dreamt it--that, by means of
electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating
thousands of miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is
a vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence! Or, shall we say, it is
itself a thought, nothing but thought, and no longer the substance which we
deemed it!"

"If you mean the telegraph," said the old gentleman, glancing his eye toward
its wire, alongside the rail-track, "it is an excellent thing,--that is, of
course, if the speculators in cotton and politics don't get possession of
it. A great thing, indeed, sir, particularly as regards the detection of
bank-robbers and murderers."

"I don't quite like it, in that point of view," replied Clifford. "A
bank-robber, and what you call a murderer, likewise, has his rights, which
men of enlightened humanity and conscience should regard in so much the more
liberal spirit, because the bulk of society is prone to controvert their
existence. An almost spiritual medium, like the electric telegraph, should
be consecrated to high, deep, joyful, and holy missions. Lovers, day by,
day--hour by hour, if so often moved to do it,--might send their
heart-throbs from Maine to Florida, with some such words as these `I love
you forever!' --`My heart runs over with love!'--`I love you more than I
can!' and, again, at the next message 'I have lived an hour longer, and love
you twice as much!' Or, when a good man has departed, his distant friend
should be conscious of an electric thrill, as from the world of happy
spirits, telling him 'Your dear friend is in bliss!' Or, to an absent
husband, should come tidings thus

`An immortal being, of whom you are the father, has this moment come from
God!' and immediately its little voice would seem to have reached so far,
and to be echoing in his heart. But for these poor rogues, the
bank-robbers,--who, after all, are about as honest as nine people in ten,
except that they disregard certain formalities, and prefer to transact
business at midnight rather than 'Change-hours, --and for these murderers,
as you phrase it, who are often excusable in the motives of their deed, and
deserve to be ranked among public benefactors, if we consider only its
result,--for unfortunate individuals like these, I really cannot applaud the
enlistment of an immaterial and miraculous power in the universal world-hunt
at their heels!"

==========

I'm with the the old gentleman. :)

But Hawthorne might have been the first to predict porn spam, although it's
possible that he got the tone just a little bit wrong:

< An almost spiritual medium, like the electric telegraph, should be
consecrated to high, deep, joyful, and holy missions. Lovers, day by,
day--hour by hour, if so often moved to do it,--might send their
heart-throbs from Maine to Florida, with some such words as these `I love
you forever!' --`My heart runs over with love!' >

Damien Broderick



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec  3 20:27:11 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCE3D83.7040607@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20031203202711.80289.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Eliezer
> S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >>I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone
> else seems to be doing 
> >>so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow my
> lead doesn't seem to 
> > 
> > Ur, do you realize how this sounds?
> 
> If it doesn't sound bloody fed up, then I phrased it
> wrong.
> 
> I am not running out of exciting ideas.
> I am not running out of new ideas.
> I am not sitting on my hands doing nothing.
> I am not an optimist.
> I am still learning the basics in various fields of
> study with which I was 
> previously unacquainted.
> 
> So what are y'all doing wrong?

If it helps - so far as those five statements go, I'm
the same except I am an optimist.  And I, too, get
frustrated with many peoples' reluctance to do new
things, even when the necessity of the new things has
been demonstrated, merely because they are new.

I find it likely that all human beings (barring the
brain damaged) are physically capable of learning new
things.  The fear of the new just because it is new,
along with the fear of math and science, seem like
phobias learned (socialized) well after birth (but
usually before or during puberty), which just happen
to be common in modern society.

> >>help people, either - or helps only insofar as
> they are moved to study 
> >>tractable interesting subjects.
> > 
> > I'm not sure you're using your resources very
> wisely. 
> > AI is a high risk/high tradeoff field, but an
> academic and/or
> > industrial career would have provided you far more
> leverage 
> > than you currently have. 
> 
> Eugen, an academic and/or industrial career, though
> it would indeed be 
> easier than what I am doing now, will not prevent
> the coming train crash, 
> and is therefore ruled out.  Perhaps the problem is
> that y'all see what 
> you should be doing, then back off and do something
> easier instead.

Same thing here - except, the way I see it, I *want*
the "train crash" to happen.  Except slightly
differently: I want it to happen in a way that will
help everyone, not wind up with all of humanity
deleted overnight.  So, I try to introduce things
that will ameliorate the sudden effects, or try to
get people familiar with the tools they'll need to
ensure their own prosperity before they need 'em.
(For instance, one of the reasons for my patent:
experiments in malleable matter.  If the avearge
person, not just a few well-educated folk, has
internalized the concept of near-absolute control
over their surroundings, an AI using that tool won't
panic 'em as much.)

Granted, my current day job does not allow me to
pursue this.  But at least I am actively attempting
to rectify that situation - and my present setup
ensures that I will be in a position to try again in
several months if my current efforts do not allow me
to switch by then, even if having a separate day job
means less time to put towards the efforts, resulting
in a lower chance of immediate success.  (I don't
care so much about where I'll be tomorrow, as where
I'll be in 10 years.  But I do realize that the 10
year path I wish to follow requires that I eat
tomorrow, and today.)

> > By now I'm 99% certain that a sustainably visible
> online
> > persona is incompatible with getting things done.
> I'd be out of
> > here long ago if I wasn't so hooked.
> 
> I shall probably come to a similar conclusion in the
> not too distant future.

Define "sustainably visible online persona".  Where
above I was mostly the same way, here I depart: I use
this list as a tool - a source of inspiration, a
chance to discuss (and see the flaws and hidden
benefits of) far-out ideas (though I tend to stick to
the ones I might see in the near future), and so
forth.  As such, my presence varies: although I have
not measured this myself, I'm told that, in some
months, I'm one of the more prolific posters; other
months, I'm absent.


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Dec  3 20:38:06 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:38:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Planck life and `thought bubbles'
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk><5.1.0.14.2.20031203114551.05beab00@mail.earthlink.net>
	<001801c3b9cc$f4f6fc80$d5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <004501c3b9dd$5bc2a620$00b51b97@administxl09yj>

"The problem any such analysis has to face is that of explaining how it is
that, if such a mechanism for ESP or other paranormal processes exists,
these processes manifest themselves only in very specific ways, and in ways
that are not readily controllable."
- Brian D. Josephson (therein)

W. Pauli and N. Bohr were both, and independently, very close to elaborate
concepts like those by Josephson (see "N. Bohr - Collected Works", vol. 10,
Bohr - Pauli correspondence, circa 1955) and maybe something more
'polished'. Not to mention here Wigner, London and Bauer, etc.

For something much more orthodox see the quotation below, very
technical, and very clean too.

"In an experiment the [quantum] state reflects not what is actually
known about the system, but rather what is knowable, in principle,
with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not disturb
the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in
principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant,
one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference
to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject
into quantum mechanics."
- Leonard Mandel (Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, p. S-274)

But going back to that Josephson's quotation, he speaks of
"processes [which] manifest themselves only in very specific ways,
and in ways that are not readily controllable." This is, perhaps,
the point. But, look, it is a 'standard' point in quantum physics.

Behind the curtain, W. Pauli wrote:
"Quite independently of Einstein, it appears
to me that, in providing a systematic foundation
for quantum mechanics, one should start more from
the composition and separation of systems than
has until now (with Dirac, e.g.) been the case.
- This is indeed - as Einstein has correctly felt -
a very fundamental point in quantum mechanics,
which has, moreover, a direct connection with
your reflections about the cut and the possibility
of its being shifted to an arbitrary place."
(W. Pauli, in a letter to W. Heisenberg, just after
the EPR paper has been published).

Composition and separation of systems, hmmm. Conceptual issue 
indeed. This has something to do with Von Neumann who, speaking
of quantum mechanical problems, wrote: "I WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE A CONFESSION WHICH MAY SEEM IMMORAL: I DO NOT
BELIEVE IN HILBERT SPACE ANYMORE." in G.D. Birkhoff, Proceedings
of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 2, p. 158, (Ed. R.P. Dilworth),
American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 1961.

But, also, i.e., there is another simple, old, and famous problem.
The Young's interference effect, the double slit. Wheeler
(with his delayed choice gedanken exp.) and Zurek & Wootters 
tried many times to break the wall here. The question
is: is there an "uncontrollable" retrocausation?

We know that the two-slit (also the single slit) is just an 
apparatus capable of measuring the positions of photons passing 
through it. Thus it is an apparatus capable of (Heisenberg's
principle here) scattering those photons (which means:
spreading momentum of photons) in a forward directions,
and producing the well known interference pattern on the
screen. The interference is produced by the the probability
function |<p|psi>|^2, where p is momentum of each photon.

We also know (Copenhagen Interpretation, chapter:
Complementasrity Principle; Feynman's discussion; etc.) 
that the interference pattern disappears when the path of each 
photon (say through slit one, or trough slit two) becomes 
distinguishable.

As Anton Zeilinger writes (Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, page S-288)
"The superposition of amplitudes is only valid if there
is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle
took. It is important to realize that this does not imply
that an observer actually takes note of what happens.
It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern,
if the path information is accessible in principle from
the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment
and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but
in principle "still out there".
 
Now, imagine we have a Damien's screen, which 'feels' the path 
of each photon (say through slit one, or through slit two).
Impossible? Well, not so impossible. But let us skip this 
'material' point, for the moment.

So, if we substitute, in the two-slit apparatus, 
that Damien's screen for the usual screen, after those
photons have already passed through the slit(s), the 
interference pattern must vanish. (If the above principle
by Bohr, Feynman, Zeilinger, etc. is ok).

Now, what does it mean? What does it mean in terms of 
the quantum theoretical description? Interference 
means a certain kind of scattering, specifically
it means that the interference is produced by the the
probability function |<p|psi>|^2, where p is momentum
of each photon. No interference means a different kind 
of scattering, specifically it means that the interference 
is produced by a probability function |<p|psi>|^2 which  
lost the interference term.

Ok? Ok. Let us go on. If we set the usual screen we get
interference (pattern). If we set the Damien's screen
we get no interference (pattern). But how the
interference was created? By the scattering. Thus
by the position measurement performed at the
two-slit level. Thus: at the two-slit.

If we substitute the Damien's screen for the usual
screen (after the photons passed the two-slit) we change 
the scattering, which happened at the two-slit, that
is to say: in a different place, and at an earlier time.

Retrocausation? Who knows? Anyway not much different from
those para-psycho-effects, and from those bubble-models.







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec  3 20:40:08 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c3b9d4$0ec8c5b0$1301010a@Barbara>
Message-ID: <20031203204008.49499.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Barbara Lamar <barbara_lamar at earthlink.net> wrote:
> It's fun to imagine what the world would be like if
> someone found a way to
> teach curiosity

You mean similar to monks (Christian, Buddhist,
Shaolin, et cetera), but instead of contemplating
spirituality, encouraging insight into and exploration
(both physical and metaphorical) of the world so as to
discover its true properties?  Monastaries were where
most science (at least, what we'd recognize today as
science) was done in medeval times.

> If a curiosity training
> course or treatment were
> offered for sale, I wonder how many people would
> want to buy it.

It'd probably depend on how it was marketed.  "Hey,
you, got those seen-it-all, I'm-70-and-waiting-to-rot
blues?  Come on down to Uncle Zen's Curiosity
Meditations!  Shake off your I-don't-wannas, and
rediscover the joys of learning and doing new things!
Amaze your friends by understanding what those young
whippersnappers are up to, or maybe even amaze those
young whippersnappers by doing it better than they
can!  Clinically proven to improve general health and
add years to one's life expectancy in most cases."

Or what if it were offered for free, a la MIT's Open
CourseWare program?


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 20:39:14 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (kevinfreels at hotmail.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:39:14 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
References: <20031203184002.83995.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE54ljD2E20440000215c@hotmail.com>

>There are actually federal laws prohibiting intentionally
> making yourself medically unfit for military service. Ostensibly it is
> an act of sabotage that aids and abets the enemy.

THAT is interesting! I had no idea. How would this law effect  people who
wanted to upload at an early age? Hmmm. Something to ponder.........



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  3 20:44:23 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:44:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <3FCE3D83.7040607@pobox.com>
References: <008901c3b9b7$f996f700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<3FCE1923.6030805@pobox.com> <20031203172733.GL1229@leitl.org>
	<3FCE3D83.7040607@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20031203204423.GR1229@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:46:11PM -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> If it doesn't sound bloody fed up, then I phrased it wrong.
> 
> I am not running out of exciting ideas.
> I am not running out of new ideas.
> I am not sitting on my hands doing nothing.
> I am not an optimist.
> I am still learning the basics in various fields of study with which I was 
> previously unacquainted.

Good. Unless you want to start your own company,
I suggest you get credits for this, though.
 
> So what are y'all doing wrong?

Damien got it all in one sentence. We're aging ahead of you.
 
> >>help people, either - or helps only insofar as they are moved to study 
> >>tractable interesting subjects.
> >
> >I'm not sure you're using your resources very wisely. 
> >AI is a high risk/high tradeoff field, but an academic and/or
> >industrial career would have provided you far more leverage 
> >than you currently have. 
> 
> Eugen, an academic and/or industrial career, though it would indeed be 
> easier than what I am doing now, will not prevent the coming train crash, 

You could be an assistant prof, getting a modest salary, working on
what you're working now but for small interruptions due to teaching duties, 
have access to good resources and computing infrastructure, having 
several publications and letters before your name (which, strangely 
enough, people tend to notice, resulting in greater credibility) and 
would directly interact with bright young people. Giving them ideas,
you know.

There are worse fates than that, yes.

> and is therefore ruled out.  Perhaps the problem is that y'all see what 
> you should be doing, then back off and do something easier instead.

As to coming train crash:

Not everybody is sharing your sense of urgency, because not 
everybody is sharing the same threat model. Even less the 
proposed countermeasure.

I agree I personally should have been doing something else: nanotechnology.
I blew it by virtue of goofing off on the Internet, and not working
hard enough during critical years. You don't have to make a similiar
mistake, though. Projects have teams, have budgets. It's virtually
impossible to get money by sheer persuasion, without an accomplishment
track in your back. You might think it's a sidetrack, but let's
see whether you still think that a decade downstream.
 
> >By now I'm 99% certain that a sustainably visible online
> >persona is incompatible with getting things done. I'd be out of
> >here long ago if I wasn't so hooked.
> 
> I shall probably come to a similar conclusion in the not too distant future.

Very good. This stuff can eat up whole careers. Evil.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/d89baf53/attachment.bin>

From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  Wed Dec  3 21:14:49 2003
From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:14:49 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <200312031815.hB3IFOH28638@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0312031510450.14544-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> However, I think the enthusiasm of youth is automatic because things are new
> and different.  Transhumanism used to be new and different.  But after being
> on these lists for over a decade, there aren't very many new ideas going
> around.  Older people also feel like they are running out of time.  Ten
> years ago, people were predicting the singularity, moon bases and
> immortality in a decade or two.  Now that we are half way there, the goals
> don't seem any closer, yet time is running out.

There is Donald Norman's great quote that people tend to
overestimate the short-term progress of technological
change and underestimate the long-term effects. We need
to work hard and be patient, but the rewards will exceed
our expectations.

The same comment applies to your pessimism. If you look
at short-term events in the world it is easy to think its
all screwed up (it is). But compare the present to the
distant past and its much better now.

I'm 55. It is true that my enthusiasm isn't aroused as
easily it once was, but now its more focused on the
things that really matter. Some of these are purely
personal (health and happiness of family) but also for
example the singularity. I don't expect it within the
next 40 years and hence probably not within my lifetime,
but I am very hopeful of living to see amazing progress
in neuroscience and AI research. Also, I am working hard
to live healthy and long, so I can live to see as much
as possible.

My role model is Verner Suomi, who literally invented
weather satellites (everyone who watches satellite
animations on TV weather shows uses his invention). I
went to work for him in 1978. When he died at about age
85 in 1995 he had employees in his hospital room working
on a radically new kind of ocean buoy for measuring sea
surface heat flux. He made the lives of everyone around
him better.

Cheers,
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hibbard, SSEC, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI  53706
test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  608-263-4427  fax: 608-263-6738
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/vis.html



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Dec  3 21:34:23 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:34:23 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
Message-ID: <3FCE56DF.1070309@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Wed Dec 03, 2003 01:44 pm Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Very good. This stuff can eat up whole careers. Evil.
>

Well, the over 65s seem to be the fastest-growing segment of the
Internet population at present. (Probably catching-up with all the
younger age groups already on the Net).
And they have time to play here with no career pressures to tell them
otherwise.

The present necessity to earn a living and build a career is obviously a
strong behavior modifier for younger people. But that (in general)
doesn't apply to retired people with a pension.

When we have advanced life-extension science, can we expect that the
necessity to earn a living will go away? If the nano-Santa, or
Singularity-Santa, provides an income for everyone, how will the human
race spend the following centuries?

The problem I am concerned with is that the very fact of experiencing
life seems to change people over the years. The search for something new
seems to run out of steam after 50 or 60 years for most people.
How many centuries can you play golf for?
Immortals will need different objectives.

BillK







From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Dec  3 22:17:42 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:17:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEOLCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
References: <002701c3b961$64673ec0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203111126.02b06008@mail.comcast.net>

At 08:44 AM 12/3/2003 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>I did. In 1990 I was playing with the idea to start a net access business
>for individual end users, and even found someone who was maybe willing to
>invest some money. Then I let them talking me out of the idea, "this is too
>crazy, there will never be a market for this". Now when I wish to do some
>sweet daydreaming I think of what I would do with all the money that I would
>have now if I had followed my idea to the end.
>Two lessons here: 1 - believe in your ideas - 2 - get your ass off the
>armchair and do it.

Those are both great maxims but timing is everything.

My father had quite a few billion-dollar inventions -- like high-speed 
modems, many-focal-point lenses, fax machines, and very-high-resolution 
automated typography -- decades before they eventually boomed.  He was too 
far ahead, and he couldn't convince anyone with money.

It's not always profitable being a prophet.

I've learned consequently to focus my commercial ideas on a couple years 
out:  near enough that you can have a product ready to go just as people 
realize they want it.


-- David Lubkin.




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Dec  3 22:52:27 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:52:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bbf3e08100de@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203173205.032660f8@mail.comcast.net>

Amara wrote:

>I told myself that I would never let an idiot government put me in such a 
>terrible situation again, that is, not being able to be with my family in 
>an emergency, and, now, it looks like a potential problem all over again. 
>Except that I am so disgusted with the Italian government, that I honestly 
>don't care, anymore, and I decided that I will travel anyway.

It sounds like a very trying period.  I'm sure everyone joins me in hoping 
matters work out well for you, your mother, and your family.

Amara's story reminds me of the idiocies I experienced living in socialist 
Israel as a teenager.  I've often wondered whether my love of liberty comes 
more from having it curtailed by bureaucracies or by my autocratic father.

Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?


-- David Lubkin.




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Dec  4 00:38:56 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanogen's new patents in nanotech and
	nanomanufacturing
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203122201.06059b40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20031204003856.87202.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Nanogen shares soar on patent
> Newly issued patent broadens its proprietary
> position in nanotechnology and 
> nanomanufacturing areas.
> December 3, 2003: 11:30 AM EST
> 
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of Nanogen Inc. jumped
> more than 50 percent 
> Wednesday after the company said it received a U.S.
> patent related to the 
> fledgling field of nanotechnology and
> nanomanufacturing.
> 
>
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/technology/nanogen.reut/index.htm

I nominate this story for the most nanoflash/least
nanosubstance press release this month.  (Yes, it is
only the 3rd.  It'll be hard to top.)


From etheric at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 00:42:23 2003
From: etheric at comcast.net (R.Coyote)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:42:23 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age : libertarian fervor
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203173205.032660f8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <000801c3b9ff$7c3a4b20$0200a8c0@etheric>

"Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?"


Self employment experiences
A license for everything  (permission to breathe)
Right to travel "issues"
FDA polices
The drug war
The push for safer working conditions for thugs
The Religious right (wrong)
All those plastic hairdo sociopaths in power

Actually reading the Constitution and BOR

Lysander Spooner
Thomas Paine
T.J.



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lubkin" <extropy at unreasonable.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> Amara wrote:
>
> >I told myself that I would never let an idiot government put me in such a
> >terrible situation again, that is, not being able to be with my family in
> >an emergency, and, now, it looks like a potential problem all over again.
> >Except that I am so disgusted with the Italian government, that I
honestly
> >don't care, anymore, and I decided that I will travel anyway.
>
> It sounds like a very trying period.  I'm sure everyone joins me in hoping
> matters work out well for you, your mother, and your family.
>
> Amara's story reminds me of the idiocies I experienced living in socialist
> Israel as a teenager.  I've often wondered whether my love of liberty
comes
> more from having it curtailed by bureaucracies or by my autocratic father.
>
> Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?
>
>
> -- David Lubkin.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Dec  4 00:54:19 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <003901c3b9b4$f51323f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031204005419.91841.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I mean fuel cell... stupid me :) 
> > 
> > De: "Henrique Moraes Machado"
> <hemm at openlink.com.br>
> > Assunto: Re: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication
> vs transportation:
> > 
> > Well, I'm not thinking only about intercontinental
> flights, 
> > but also our day-by-day transport, such as
> automobiles. You 
> > can put a hybrid engine in your car, you can use
> stem cells...
> 
> No no Henrique, you have typoed into a brillian
> idea:
> stem cells for your car!  You put them in the tank
> and they replicate into any defective part.
> 
> Repairing worn or ripped leather seats would be the
> first application, since those started out as cells
> anyway, but then as we get more advanced we could 
> have them fix leaks in the radiator, then worn
> bearings,
> then when we get really good, the electronics.

I saw this in a game's backstory, some time ago.
(Carrier Command.  It's an interesting exercise in
being many places at once - literally, thanks to the
drone aircraft and tanks you pilot while operating the
main carrier.)  As they put it, the proper structure
of the carrier and all it's components was encoded
into each part of the ship.  When damage deformed the
components, local machinery tried to set things
right, presumably using (and requesting) feedstock
from the ship's central stores.


From etheric at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 01:05:20 2003
From: etheric at comcast.net (R.Coyote)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:05:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age: pot belly
References: <200312031840.hB3IeNn18771@finney.org>
Message-ID: <001f01c3ba02$b09bb040$0200a8c0@etheric>

" Extropianism for the Elderly"

One of the tricks to enthusiasm is to refuse to succumb to pot belly,  The
negative somatic feedback from ones de-conditioned body has a profound
effect on outlook, It's challenging to be an Eeyore when one is in top
shape.

Another thing I see is the lemming like volition  to trade the illusion of
security and amassing "stuff" for the liberty to mine the cafeteria of
experiences life offers, nothing heals the soul quite as quickly as AIRPORT.





"We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War is a spiritual
war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on
television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods,
and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're
very, very pissed off." -TD

Robert
Trailerpark Transhumanist


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> I remember when I was young and just getting started working, I noticed
> there were different ways that older people approached their jobs, as well
> as life itself.  The more common attitude was a kind of bitter fatalism,
> a sense of disappointment.  Things were going badly and getting worse.
> They were grumpy and unhappy, warning against mistakes but mostly being
> ignored.
>
> Generally these were people who had not been all that succeessful, who
> were doing the same work that they had done 20 years before.  So it is
> understandable that they might be bitter and unhappy.
>
> I also ran into a few old people who were quite different, who were
> optimistic and energetic, full of ideas and enthusiasm.  These were
> mostly people who had been successful in their careers, who had advanced
> to relatively important positions.  Another group like this were older
> college professors who were still active and pursuing their research.
>
> It is not easy to distinguish cause and effect here.  Were people happy
> or unhappy because of their success or lack of it?  Or were their basic
> approaches to problems influencing their career paths?
>
> As I get older, I can see how cynicism creeps in.  I still have mostly
> the same goals and the same basic belief that they are possible, but
> more and more I perceive that much of the support for these projects is
> based on unfounded optimism and sloppy thinking.  I become impatient
> with one-sided perspectives and want to see both the pro and the con
> positions represented fairly.
>
> A case in point is the recent online nanotech debate, where the spin from
> "our side" is that Drexler whipped Smalley's butt.  I don't perceive it
> that way at all.  I thought Drexler was evasive and slippery, and from my
> current perspective I see this as a persistent strategy.  You can never
> pin him down.  Whenever someone claims that something won't work, he just
> calls "strawman" and says if that doesn't work, we'll do it some other
> way.  But since he never comes out with a specific, concrete proposal,
> he has a perfect defense.  You can't critique what doesn't exist.
>
> I need to write up these thoughts in more detail, but here again I
> find myself facing the same barriers which had defeated the older
> engineers I observed as a youth.  I know that it will be an enormous
> battle, offering pessimism where everyone only wants to hear good news.
> I doubt that it will do any good, because even the cautions of a Nobel
> prize winner are ignored.  And I question whether I have the energy to
> engage in the kind of hard debate which would be necessary to give these
> issues the kind of hearing that they deserve.
>
> Those old men I knew had given up.  They were convinced that our
> plans and projects would mostly fail, but they were unable to make
> persuasive arguments.  Too many times in the past they had tried and
> failed, had gained reputations as naysayers, as not being team players.
> These reputations had probably helped to mire them in their dead end jobs.
> And by then they had nothing left but bitterness, pro forma objections,
> and head-shaking predictions of doom.
>
> I don't think any of us wants to end up like that.  I certainly don't,
> and yet I feel myself creeping in that direction.  What can we do about
> it?
>
> I have a couple of ideas.  The first, and simpler, is to try to couple
> pessimism with optimism.  This is basically the idea of what Max called
> Dynamic Optimism.  Dynamic optimism is realistic.  It's not a matter of
> wearing rose colored glasses.  You see the problems, but you also try
> to look at them as challenges rather than obstacles.  Rather than just
> opposing what won't work, figure out what will give the best shot at
> working, and become a proponent of that alternative.  This way you are,
> in a sense, a leader rather than dead weight.  Maybe nobody is following
> you at the moment, but it is a crucial difference in perspective.
>
> But sometimes this approach is difficult.  You have a situation where
> every path seems doomed, and you can't imagine a solution that will work.
> Pessimism is pervasive, even becoming depression.  In this case the second
> idea comes in, which is based on a philosophy I have long believed in,
> of being faithful to oneself.  Try to think of yourself not as a person
> living in a moment of time, but as a being who spans an entire lifetime.
> Give credit to the person you were in the past.  Think of his goals as
> well as your own, and try to honor both of them.  Remember how you felt
> when you were young, and even if you don't feel that way now, try to
> act in a manner which respects those feelings.
>
> As you feel the pessimism of age encroaching, understand that this is
> not necessarily a matter of wisdom and experience.  It can be hormones
> and neuroanatomy.  Your brain is changing, your body is changing.
> Don't assume that your beliefs now are necessarily more valid than your
> old ones.
>
> The idea, then, is to try to hold to a sliver of optimism, even if you
> don't believe it in your gut, or in your hormones.  Fight your tendencies
> to cynicism.  Admire the optimism and energy of youth rather than pity it.
> Give support where you can, and avoid being an obstacle to those who
> are moving forward.
>
> So there you have it, Extropianism for the Elderly.  I'm not quite
> there yet, but most of us will face these issues eventually.  Give some
> thought to how you want to age, and realize that your own mental habits
> today are putting you on a path which may be much more ingrained a few
> decades from now.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Dec  4 01:42:58 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <20031203102437.GJ22120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031204014259.33435.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:48:42PM -0800, Adrian
> Tymes wrote:
> > Sorry, but MB is correct.  I specified "control
> over
> > oneself" - as in, the opportunity to not grow old
> and
> > deterioriate, if desired.  That is not illusiory
> in
> 
> We're talking very nicely in othogonal directions to
> each other, but it's no problem, as we occasionally
> do manage to connect sometimes.

Agreed.

> What I'm objecting is a belief
> of having a control over your own mind by equivalent
> of waving a dead chicken (Freud, Jung & Co). I have
> similiar scathing opinion of AI people who think
> philosophy and introspection will result in actual
> application leads. 

Ah.  Yes, I agree here, too.  (I think that philosophy
and introspection might possibly be able to aid the
application leads...but result in it by themselves?
No chance.)

> > You are correct in what you did say: people who
> > currently have withered bodies, or who believe
> that
> > the only path to old age is to wither, might not
> want
> > to live forever given what they think it must
> mean.
> 
> We've donned our Ministry of Propaganda hat here, 
> I presume.

I'm disclaiming what I say to make sure the exact
meaning gets across.  This can take the air of
propaganda at times, since propaganda can emphasize
things that are literally true - and yet a slight
misreading would result in something that is very
much desired, whether or not it is actually true.
Similar word patterns, different intents.

> > But that is not what we are discussing.  We are
> > discussing the ability to live forever in
> relatively
> 
> Forever is a bit misleading.

True, but close enough relative to the finite
lifespans of today.

> > (Frankly, it might be technically
> more
> > difficult to achieve immortality in a withered
> shell
> > than in a perpetually healthy shell, even if there
> > was not the desirability issue.  Were I to wither
> at
> > current rates, yet survive to 100, I might
> seriously
> > contemplate whether cryonic suspension might give
> me a
> > better chance of seeing the far future than
> continued
> > life.)
> 
> You of course realize that the vast majority of
> people
> in the industrialized countries die demented. Not
> much
> left to suspend there, alas.

Exactly.


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Dec  4 01:51:29 2003
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:51:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020904200.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <3FCE9321.48980E79@mindspring.com>

Don Dartfield wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > He seemed to me to be using it as a term to describe parallel universes.
> > It is a bit of a stretch though I suppose not out of the realm of
> > artistic license.
> 
> Okay, then yeah, that would be an incorrect usage.  Unless he's trying to
> coin a new "popular usage" meaning for the term.  Perhaps we should ask
> him. <g> It might be handy to have a single word term for an alternate
> universe in my writing, rather than always having to use "parallel
> universe" or "alternate universe" or "from anooooooother
> dimEEEENSSSSSSSion..."

How about "stringworlds."

Terry


-- 
?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Dec  4 01:53:07 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and non-gender roles
In-Reply-To: <002a01c3b963$87acde60$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20031204015307.2284.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote,
> > Would not a good cure for that be to make or seek
> out
> > new things?  An elder of the 80s would surely have
> > found some novelty in the World Wide Web during
> the
> > 90s (assuming said elder was willing to be exposed
> to
> > it).
> 
> In 1985 I had networked Macintoshes which had a
> hypertext browser called
> "HyperCard", that allowed hypertext links to bring
> up cards from remote
> networked computers.  This predated Windows-95 by a
> decade.  This stuff
> isn't new and wasn't adopted quickly.  It just
> didn't gain popularity until
> much later.

Yeah, but that was just your content.  Seeing that
which thousands of other people build can be
qualitatively, not just quantitatively, different from
seeing that which just one or a few build.


From thespike at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  4 01:59:23 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:59:23 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] parallel universes
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020904200.9234-100000@hplx.net>
	<3FCE9321.48980E79@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <015801c3ba0a$3f4f3260$d5994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:51 PM

> > It might be handy to have a single word term for an alternate
> > universe in my writing, rather than always having to use "parallel
> > universe" or "alternate universe" or "from anooooooother
> > dimEEEENSSSSSSSion..."
>
> How about "stringworlds."

No, because it's inaccurate.

How about `D-branes'? or just Branes?

I know, it causes sniggers from those who think you're saying `brains'. Um,
how about `alloworlds'? Too much like `hello'. How about `xenoworlds'?

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 02:09:14 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <3FCE9321.48980E79@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20031204020914.248.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Don Dartfield wrote:
> > 
> > Okay, then yeah, that would be an incorrect usage.  Unless he's
> trying to
> > coin a new "popular usage" meaning for the term.  Perhaps we should
> ask
> > him. <g> It might be handy to have a single word term for an
> alternate
> > universe in my writing, rather than always having to use "parallel
> > universe" or "alternate universe" or "from anooooooother
> > dimEEEENSSSSSSSion..."
> 
> How about "stringworlds."

Well, 'timeline' is commonly used in many of the genre publications.
Paratime, paratemporal, and parareality are also used. One story I read
a long time back used 'schizm' as well.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 02:20:06 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age : libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <000801c3b9ff$7c3a4b20$0200a8c0@etheric>
Message-ID: <20031204022007.35427.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?"

Culmination of many things, but the biggest contributors were:

a) reading Heinlein SF
b) being in the military
c) running my own business and trying to sell a product in a market
tightly regulated by building, electrical and fire codes, heavily
subsidized and market distorted by inanely implemented government
programs, as well as trying to sell a new technology to a government
that did not think of it themselves.
d) fighting the Seattle Light Rail Project
e) being treated as a threat to national security by one of the major
political parties and its last presidential administration...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From hal at finney.org  Thu Dec  4 02:51:58 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:51:58 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline
Message-ID: <200312040251.hB42pw420688@finney.org>

Max More wrote:
> It would be 
> interesting to dig out the issue of Extropy that featured a range of 
> predicted dates for various events. I recall that Eric Drexler had highly 
> optimistic projections, but others looked to 100+ years for many of the 
> items listed. I think I was somewhere in the middle. If anyone has the 
> issue at hand along with an OCR scanner, it would provide some interesting 
> data points.

Coincidentally, someone posted this URL on the FX (idea futures game)
discussion list: http://web.archive.org/web/20030212092807/www.lucifer.com/~sean/N-FX/.
This is a Wayback Machine archive of an article on nanotech timelines,
and it includes a link to the Extropy issue which had that article.
Unfortunately, the archive failed to capture that issue, but the link
does identify it as Extropy #15, which I happen to have, and I can go
ahead and type in the data.

The predictors are Gregory Benford; Steve Bridge; Eric Drexler; FM-2030;
Mark Miller; Max More; and Nick Szabo.  These predictions are from 1995.
Explanatory notes include:

Szabo - "The first number is when something might be possible under ideal
engineering, economic, and politilcal conditions.  'now' means we could
have done it already.  The second number is the practical prediction,
based primarily on the viewpoint of starting a business..."

Bridge - "My answers are based on when something will 'actually happen'
rather than on when it will be possible."

Miller - "I will use the following variables: N = Now, 1995; S =
Singularity; DAF = Design Ahead Factor....  I predict Singularity as
occuring between N+10 and N+40.... I introduce a Design Ahead Factor
which I define as 10/(S-N).  If Singularity occurs in 10 years, DAF is 1.
If Singularity occurs in 40 years, DAF is 1/4."

Here is the table, modulo possible typos.  You will need to use a monospace
font to get the columns to line up:

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

Frozen Organ Transplant Is Routine
    2020    2010        never       1990s+      N+20 if (S>N+30)    1999-2008   2020-2030
Two Century Biological Lifespans
    2150    2050/2140   never       2010-2020   never               2015-2040   2040/2100
Indefinite Biological Lifespans
    2300    2080        1967                    S+50                2020-2045   2090/2150
Reanimation for Last Cryonics Suspendee
    2100    2060        2006-2021               S+6*DAF             2025-2055   2050/2200
Reanimation for Current Cryonics Suspendees
    2200    2090        2006-2021   2020        S+10*DAF            2030-2100   2400/2410
Biotech Cures for Most Heart Disease, Cancer & Aging
    2030    2030        never       1990s+      S+10*DAF            2015-2040   2090/2130
Fine-Tuned Mood/Motivation Transformation Drugs
    2010    2020        ?-2021      1990s+      N+10                1998-2010   2040/2050
Genius Drugs (>20 pts permanent IQ increase for most people)
    2030    2020        ?-2021                  S-10 to S+10*DAF    2020-2060   2010/2050

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy
    2040    2007/2025               1990s       N+20                2010        now/2010
Human Child Gestated Completely in Artificial Womb
    2020    2050                    2010-2020   S-5 to S-2*DAF      2015-2035   2100/2120
Cloning of a Human Being
    2050    2020                    2010        S-5 to S+4*DAF      2010        now/2010
Completely Genetically Composed Children
    2060    2050                                                    2015-2020   2060/2100
Extinct Species Reanimation (from preserved DNA)
    2100    2025        ?-2021                  N+5 to S+1                      2010/2020

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

Cryonics Industry Revenues $1 billion/year
    2035    2015                    2010-2020   N+30 (if S>N+30)    2015-2020   now/2020
Nanotech Factories
    2100    2030/2050   2006-2021   2010-2020   S-3 to S+1          2015-2030   2070/2080
Atomically Detailed Design for Self-Reproducing Drexler-style Assembler
    2070    2015        1998-2010               N+7                 2000-2015   2100/2100
High-Degree of Freedom Cell Repair Nanomachines
    2075    2040/2060   2006/2021   2010        S+2*DAF                         2160/2180
Reproducing Nanotech Assemblers
    2080    2025        2004-2019               S-3 to S+1          2020-2030   2120/2140
Really Cheap Fusion Power
    2100    2040                    2010-2020                       2010-2020   2200/2210
Nukes as Cheap as Tanks
    2105    2015                                                    2040-2050   2100/2150
Nukes as Cheap as Handguns          
    never   never                                                               2200/2250

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

Most Publications are Electronic
    2015    2015                    1990s+      N+10 to N+30        1999        2000/2005
Most Intellectual Publications are on Web
    2001    2008                    late 1990s  N+5 to N+30         1999-2002   2000/2005
Information Storage $0.01 per Megabyte
    2010    2020                                N+1 to N+10         2015        2010/2010
Computer Implanted in Brain
    2015    2045                    2010        N+1 to N+10         2020-2050   2010/2020
Human-Brain Equivalent Computers on a Desk
    2030    2030        2004-2019   2010        S-3*DAF             2030        2040/2050
Human-Level A.I.
    2030    2050        2004-2019   2010                            2040-2150   2150/2200
Uploaded Minds
    2060    2125        2006-2021               S+7*DAF             2040-2100   2300/2400
Uploads Running 1000x Faster than Humans
    2080    2125        2006-2021               S-3*DAF             2045-2100   2450/2450

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

Big Fraction of Economy Off Earth
    2200    2100        2006-2021               S+20*DAF+20         2100-2200   2150/2200
Big Fraction of Economy out of Solar System
    2800    3000        2011-2026               S+20*DAF+(50-200)   3000        2400/2500
Comet Mining, Javelins, Drugs, etc. (robotic space industry)
    2080    2075        2006-2021                                   2050        2040/2060
First Person on Mars
    2050    2025        2006-2021   2010-2020   N+15 to S+2*DAF     2025        2040/2060
First Person in Another Solar System
    2400    2085        2011-2026   2030-2050   S+10*DAF+20         2150-2400   2200/2400
Reproducing Comet Eaters
            2070                                                                 
Reproducing Asteroid Eaters
    2150    2045        2006-2021                                   2050-2070   2140/2180
Reproducing Starships
    2300    2200        2006-2021               S+2*DAF                         2350/2400

    Benford             Drexler                 Miller                          Szabo
            Bridge                  FM-2030                         More

1,000,000+ People Using Anon. Electronic Cash
    2010    2020                    1990s       N+10toN+30 to never 1999-2006   1997/1999
30%+ of Labor Telecommutes
    2015    2030                    1990s       never               never       2000/2050
Untaxable Economy Using Electronic Cash $100b/year
    2020                                        N+20 to never       2010-2115   1997/2005
Ocean Colonization
    20020   2020/2045                           never               2010-2050   now/2040
Most Education Privatized
    2005    2050                                N+10 to S+50                    now/2040
Most Law Enforcement Privatized
    2010    2095                                S+50 to never                   now/2150
Most Law Choice Privatized
    2020    never on Earth                      S+20*DAF+20tonever              now/2150
National Defense Privatized
    never   never on Earth                      never                           now/2200
Betting Markets a Big Policy Influence
    never    never                              S+20*DAF+20                     2000/2100


Lots of figures here, and it's pretty hard to see the logic behind some
of them.  Benford and Szabo put Reproducing Starships out in the 24th
century, while Drexler could have them coming out the year after next.
Actually, Drexler is kind of a one-note-Charlie here, putting almost
everything in the 2006-2026 time frame, even Big Fraction of Economy out
of Solar System.  I guess he assumes a nanotech singularity scenario.
The interstellar economy would presumably be self-reproducing space probes
zooming away from Earth in all directions and furiously converting nearby
star systems into computronium or some such.

I see Benford and Szabo as the most conservative, with Bridge and More
taking a middle ground, and Drexler and FM-2030 being the most aggressive.
FM's predictions don't make much sense to me but maybe they should be
thought of as somewhat metaphorical or poetic, which is how I perceive
his writing.

Other interesting aspects of the survey include the topic selection,
which is kind of a snapshot of the items of interest to the Extropian
community in the 1995 time frame.  I also note the absence of Eliezer
Yudkowski's influential conception of the Singularity as a sudden
transition to world whose rules, possibly even whose physics, are
determined by AIs of virtually infinite intelligence.

Hal


From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Dec  4 02:57:57 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:57:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] parallel universes
In-Reply-To: <015801c3ba0a$3f4f3260$d5994a43@texas.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020904200.9234-100000@hplx.net>	<3FCE9321.48980E79@mindspring.com>
	<015801c3ba0a$3f4f3260$d5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3FCEA2B5.1010909@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> No, because it's inaccurate.
> 
> How about `D-branes'? or just Branes?
> 
> I know, it causes sniggers from those who think you're saying `brains'.
> Um, how about `alloworlds'? Too much like `hello'. How about
> `xenoworlds'?

Surely this problem has been solved again and again...

Coming to mind offhand:

Branch
Dimension
World
Timeline
Worldline
Worldsurface
Ficton
Plane
Layer
Hubblebubble
Process

Depends on usage.  What are you trying to indicate?

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Dec  4 03:25:33 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:25:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312032220120.-276771@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>



--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came
from?"


Discovering that so many things I liked or wanted to do were
either taxed, prohibited, or regulated. That came as quite a
shock to me as I was growing up.

Regards,
MB



From naddy at mips.inka.de  Thu Dec  4 03:04:11 2003
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 03:04:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
References: <20031203184002.83995.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<LAW10-OE54ljD2E20440000215c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <bqm87b$269h$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> >There are actually federal laws prohibiting intentionally
> > making yourself medically unfit for military service. Ostensibly it is
> > an act of sabotage that aids and abets the enemy.
> 
> THAT is interesting! I had no idea. How would this law effect  people who
> wanted to upload at an early age? Hmmm. Something to ponder.........

Are you serious?  Presumably these laws apply to intentional actions
directly aimed at avoiding military service, say, chopping off your
foot after receiving your draft notification or later when in the
trenches.

They don't apply if you tattoo yourself in day-glo or chop off your
foot for personal preferences and it later happens to turn out that
you are unfit for military service due to these body modifications.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Dec  4 03:33:01 2003
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:33:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?
Message-ID: <3FCEAAED.D4916707@mindspring.com>

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3256228.stm >

Last Updated: Tuesday, 2 December, 2003, 12:21 GMT

Neanderthal 'face' found in Loire
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff

A flint object with a striking likeness to a human face may be one of the
best examples of art by Neanderthal man ever found, the journal Antiquity
reports.

The "mask", which is dated to be about 35,000 years old, was recovered on
the banks of the Loire at La Roche-Cotard.

It is about 10 cm tall and wide and has a bone splinter rammed through a
hole, making the rock look as if it has eyes.

Commentators say the object shows the Neanderthals were more sophisticated
than their caveman image suggests.

"It should finally nail the lie that Neanderthals had no art," Paul Bahn,
the British rock art expert, told BBC News Online. "It is an enormously
important object."

Nose and cheeks

It is described in Antiquity by Jean-Claude Marquet, curator of the Museum
of Prehistory of Grand-Pressigny, and Michel Lorblanchet, a director of
research in the French National Centre of Scientific Research, Roc des
Monges, at Saint-Sozy.

The mask was found during an excavation of old river sediments in front of a
Palaeolithic cave encampment. Tool and bone discoveries suggest Neanderthals
used the location to light a fire and prepare food.

Triangular in shape, the object shows clear evidence, the researchers say,
of having been worked - flakes have been chipped off the block to make it
more face-like.

The 7.5-cm-long bone has also been wedged in position purposely by flint
fragments.

Marquet and Lorblanchet tell Antiquity: "We think that this is indeed a
'proto-figurine'; that is, a small flint block whose natural shape evokes a
crudely triangular human face - or a mask if one notes that it is primarily
the upper part of the face that is concerned, like a carnival mask, or,
rather less clearly, an animal face, perhaps a feline?

"It was not only picked up and brought into the habitation, but was also
modified in various ways to perfect its resemblance to a face: the forehead,
the eyes underlined by the bone splinter, the nose stopped at its extremity
by an intentional flake-removal, and the rectified cheeks."

Over and over

The standard view of Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) is that they
lacked the thought processes capable of producing art - certainly to any
real level of sophistication produced by modern humans (Homo sapiens).

Clive Gamble, an expert from Southampton University on the early occupation
of Europe by human species, says science has been reluctant to see
Neanderthals as great conceptual thinkers.

"The great problem with all the Neanderthal art is that they are one-offs.
What is different about the art of modern humans when it appears 35,000
years ago is that there is repetition - animal sculptures and paintings done
over and over again in a recognisable style.

"With Neanderthals, there may have been the odd da Vinci-like genius, but
their talents died with them."

Bahn, on the other hand, believes the Roche-Cotard mask should set the
record straight on Neanderthals' artistic capabilities.

"There are now a great many Neanderthal art objects. They have been found
for decades and always they are dismissed as the exception that proves the
rule."

"This is not just a fortuitous bone shoved into a hole in a rock. Whether
the Neanderthal artist saw a rock that looked like a face and modified it,
or conceived the thing from the start - who knows? Either way it is pretty
sophisticated."

Abstract thought

Perhaps the oldest example of modern human art generally accepted by the
scientific community would be the 77,000-year-old engraved ochre pieces
found in the Blombos Cave in South Africa.

There are claims for even older items, dating back 200,000 years or more,
that comprise mainly rock objects apparently sculpted to look like the human
form.

But many sceptical researchers believe these objects are merely accidents of
geological processes, and doubt they have been intentionally modified in any
way by a human hand.

However, earlier this year, scientists announced the discovery of the oldest
Homo sapiens skulls. These 160,000-year-old fossil bones had been polished
after death.

This mortuary practice suggests at least these early people were abstract
thinkers, capable of analysing ideas of life and death.


-- 
?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Dec  4 03:35:47 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:35:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline
In-Reply-To: <200312040251.hB42pw420688@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203221744.05506008@mail.comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031203/ea3f3214/attachment.html>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Dec  4 03:39:10 2003
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:39:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Physicist Explains String Theory
Message-ID: <3FCEAC5E.B89CC25E@mindspring.com>

Source: Daily Nexus - UC Santa Barbara's Student Newspaper

< http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2003/6192.html >

Physicist Explains String Theory to SB
By Ben Krasnow - Staff Writer

Monday, November 24, 2003 


Physicist Brian Greene taught audience members how to see in 10 
dimensions at the Lobero Theatre Sunday night.

A leading string theorist and a member of UCSB's Kavli Institute 
for Theoretical Physics, Greene recounted the highlights of his 
book, The Elegant Universe. After going over the physics 
background necessary to understand string theory, Greene drew 
audible "wows" from the audience when he explained the core 
underpinnings of string theory, and how our understanding of the 
universe could subsequently change.

Greene was introduced by Chris Carter, producer and writer of 
the TV show, 'The X-Files'. Carter recalled reading Greene's 
book and thinking about the implications of these new ideas in 
physics. Sometimes the reality of what theoretical physics 
predicts is hard to grasp, even for a science fiction writer.

"As strange as 'The X-Files' could be, we never got as far out 
as this guy," Carter said.

Theoretical physics describes a branch of science that tries to 
explain physical phenomena by using mathematics and careful 
thought instead of empirical measurements. Greene hailed Albert 
Einstein as the most influential theoretical physicist in 
history.

"He changed the ideas of space and time," Greene said.

Einstein's first major contribution to the modern understanding 
of physics was the introduction of the ultimate speed limit -
 the speed of light, Greene said. Before this maximum speed 
limit was introduced, scientists thought some things could 
happen instantaneously, like gravity. Newton's law of 
gravitation states that the attraction felt between two objects 
is instantaneous. Einstein stated that this is not possible. 
Nothing - no signal, no information, no influence - can travel 
faster than the speed of light.

Light has been measured to travel at 186,000 miles per second. 
The sun is so far away that even at that tremendous speed, it 
takes nearly eight minutes for the its light to reach the Earth. 
If the sun disappeared right now, we could not possibly know 
until eight minutes had passed. Earth's gravitational attraction 
to the sun holds the planet in orbit. If gravity acted 
instantaneously and light did not, the earth would leave its 
orbit before the darkness accompanying the sun's disappearance 
reached it.

"The fact that there is a speed limit is a problem for Newton's 
Law," Greene said.

Greene said that Einstein's second major contribution was his 
theory of general relativity. This theory provides a way to 
understand how gravity works while still obeying the maximum 
speed limit. In fact, Einstein's calculations proved that the 
speed of gravity should be exactly the same as the speed of 
light. Greene said the reason Einstein has been praised so much 
is because his ideas unified two things - the speed of light and 
the speed of gravity. Physical theories that unify separate 
phenomena are always desirable because they approach the idea 
that there is one singular theory that could explain everything 
in the universe, Greene said.

To explain general relativity, Greene used the analogy of a thin 
horizontal rubber sheet. If the sheet was perfectly flat, a 
marble placed on the sheet would have no tendency to roll in any 
direction. If a bowling ball was placed on the sheet, it would 
form a large depression. The marble would roll down into the 
depression, toward the bowling ball. The heavier the bowling 
ball, the bigger the depression, and the faster the marble will 
would roll toward it. If the bowling ball were removed very 
quickly, the rubber sheet would take a short time to return to 
its flat shape. That amount of time is analogous to the speed of 
gravity.

"Gravity is the fabric of space and time," Greene said. 
"Einstein's theory works just a little better than Newton's."

In the case of the sun disappearing, general relativity states 
that the earth would remain in orbit for eight minutes after the 
sun is gone. This is the time it would take for the gravity wave 
to reach earth and release it from the depression in space that 
is currently holding it the sun's orbit.

Besides relativity, there is another area of physics that has 
changed markedly in the last century. This field is called 
quantum theory, and it describes how physics works on a very 
small scale. Greene said that on a macro scale, the warping of 
space is very smooth, like a smooth depression in a rubber 
sheet. On the micro scale, space is not smooth. It is constantly 
churning and moving, like the surface of boiling water. Quantum 
theory describes this rapid and chaotic motion, and has some 
startling physical conclusions.

"If you fire a particle like an electron at a barrier that 
classically it could not penetrate, quantum theory says there is 
a small chance it can," Greene said.

Greene went on to say that there is even a chance that he could 
walk into a solid stone column and come out on the other side. 
The probability is extremely low, but it is not zero according 
to quantum theory.

String theory provides a way to unify the smoothness of macro 
space and the roughness and chaos of micro space, Greene said. 
The basic concept of string theory is that every piece of matter 
in the universe is composed of very small vibrating loops of 
string. The pattern of vibrations, much like the pattern of 
vibrations on the string of a musical instrument, determines the 
properties of the particle it composes, Greene said.

The dilemma is that the mathematics behind string theory require 
the tiny loops of string to vibrate in 10 dimensions. This is a 
problem because no person has ever seen more than three 
dimensions. This conclusion does not daunt string theorists like 
Greene. He explained one way in which the other seven dimensions 
could be hidden to observers by rolling up a sheet of paper. If 
the flat plane of paper represented space, it has two 
dimensions: top to bottom, and left to right. If the paper is 
rolled up into a cylinder, the left to right [[left-to-right]] 
dimension is unchanged, but the top to bottom [[top-to-bottom]] 
dimension is changed into clockwise or counterclockwise. If the 
paper is rolled tighter, the cylinder will be come very thin, 
and from afar it may look like a simple line with no rolled-up 
clockwise dimension. This may be how the seven other dimensions 
of string theory are hidden.

Greene said that string theory could be strengthened by 
observational data from space. When the universe was young, the 
strings that made up all matter were very energetic. As the 
universe cooled down and expanded, the imprint left from the 
energetic strings may have remained. Thus, there could be large, 
string-shaped artifacts in space waiting be found that would 
provide evidence for string theory.

"Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more 
graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the 
ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetimea and matter by turning our 
giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars," Greene said.


All content, photographs, graphics and design Copyright ? 2000-
2003 Daily Nexus.


-- 
?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 04:18:34 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:18:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312032220120.-276771@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <00a001c3ba1d$af139560$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> 
> --- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came
> from?"
> 

The most important lessons in libertarianism came from 
elementary school, where it was more convenient for the 
teacher to have the entire class advance together, even if
at the pace of a glacier.

For the students who could actually read, the result
was excruciating boredom most of the time, a criminal
waste of precious time in a young life.  I have never
questioned Eliezer's decision to give up entirely on
mass education as useless.  At an early age, many of
us learned that the gazelles should not be yoked with
the oxen but should be set free to run.  The same rules
simply do not apply to everyone.  All my most important
learning came about in my home with my own books and
those I could borrow from the library.

Governments take over where the elementary school
teachers left off.  Many of us are for limiting government's
influence to common defense, road building and the public 
education which I just got finished disrespecting.

spike



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 04:20:59 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
In-Reply-To: <bqm87b$269h$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <20031204042059.35021.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> > >There are actually federal laws prohibiting intentionally
> > > making yourself medically unfit for military service. Ostensibly
> it is
> > > an act of sabotage that aids and abets the enemy.
> > 
> > THAT is interesting! I had no idea. How would this law effect 
> people who
> > wanted to upload at an early age? Hmmm. Something to
> ponder.........
> 
> Are you serious?  Presumably these laws apply to intentional actions
> directly aimed at avoiding military service, say, chopping off your
> foot after receiving your draft notification or later when in the
> trenches.
> 
> They don't apply if you tattoo yourself in day-glo or chop off your
> foot for personal preferences and it later happens to turn out that
> you are unfit for military service due to these body modifications.

Actually, they only really apply if a draft is in effect, something
that I don't think is likely even given todays situation. 

However, if one were enacted, a local draft board will interview those
claiming unfitness. Accidents are obviously excused. Intentional
disfigurement is not. Doing so after receiving a draft notice only
makes it easier for them to prosecute you. If you are dumb enough to
tell a draft board you got your genes altered so you glowed in the dark
specifically to make you unfit for service, I'll bet they'll draft you
anyways and the military would stick you in some hellhole peeling
potatos or slopping out latrines for the duration.

As for uploading at an early age, the military would probably find good
military uses for uploaded minds...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Dec  4 04:51:36 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:51:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <20031204022007.35427.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000801c3b9ff$7c3a4b20$0200a8c0@etheric>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203230653.02bb4008@mail.comcast.net>


>--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?"

Three people have now posted replies to my question in a way that suggests 
a misattribution.  We all need to be more careful in source attribution for 
the sake of archaeologists and historians in millennia to come....

At 06:20 PM 12/3/2003 -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Culmination of many things, but the biggest contributors were:
>
>a) reading Heinlein SF

It's ironic that in the message where I posed the question I did not 
mention Heinlein, since I've made the point here and in fiction that 
writers often have a more profound impact on one's life than one's 
acquaintances and experiences.

I credit Heinlein for a large chunk of my interests, attitudes, and 
character.  His direct contribution is immense; when I try to add up the 
ripple effects from those influenced by him -- well, I'm not sure I can 
count that high.  Seems like behind every extropian topic are pioneers who 
grew up on his writing.  I think I met all of the people I care most about 
as a consequence.  My daughter would not exist otherwise, and perhaps nor 
would I.

I suppose if he hadn't been, someone else would have been -- but in our 
reality, he was, and so deserves the credit.

And, of course, as he noted, we can't pay him back; we have to pay it forward.


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Dec  4 05:15:56 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:15:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203114551.05beab00@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000401c3ba25$b616a700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Max More wrote,
> At 10:10 AM 12/3/2003, Harvey wrote:
> 
> >I also just realized that I am a professional pessimist.
> 
> I shouldn't encourage you, but...
> 
> Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives' 
> Decisions by Dan Lovallo; Daniel Kahneman Harvard Business 
> Review, Editor reviewed on 07/07/03, originally published 
> on 07/01/03 http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO77031947495

Excellent article!  This is exactly what I am seeing when I audit.  Some
managers have rose-colored glasses and assume the best about their
organization, in the absence of knowledge.  Just like the pointy-haired boss
in Dilbert, they assume what they don't know about must be easy, what they
haven't verified must be OK, and what they haven't followed up on probably
turned out OK.  When they plan projects, they shrink every task down to the
minimum time they think they can squeeze it to, parallel as many tasks as
could ever be done simultaneously, and predict the lowest cost at every step
of the way.  In the end, they end up with a gigantic project with thousands
of items underestimated.  A single delay or cost overrun on any single item
will destroy the whole project plan, and they always are surprised when it
happens.

I don't run my bank account that way.  I can't spend every single penny at
the beginning of the month and assume that I won't have any unforeseen
expenses.  I don't leave for an appointment at the last possible second and
assume I will make every green traffic light between here and there.  It is
not pessimism, but realism, to predict average-case scenarios instead of
best-case scenarios for everything.  Statistically speaking, the average
scenario is most likely, while the best-case scenario is least likely.
Multiplying all the best-case scenarios together usually give an infinitely
impossible chance that the boss's predictions can all come true and the
project turn out as planned.

P.S.  I also finished David Allen's book _Getting_Things_Done_.  It was as
helpful as you suggested, Max.  It is basic straight-forward organizational
skills for keeping track of a million to-do's, appointments, priorities,
projects, sequences, etc.  My own system is very close to his already, but I
picked up quite a few pointers.  I love checklists and reminders!  I don't
*want* an expert of any kind trying to do everything off the top of their
head by what they can remember.  If they reference a complete
industry-approved standard list, and then show how they meet every point,
then I am much more impressed that simply having a genius-expert say "It
looks alright to me."  Having external checklists, reminders, PDA's,
software, and standard references will make anybody function beyond their
natural human ability.  It is the first step toward transhumanism!

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Dec  4 05:39:08 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:39:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: More on the Glofish: When Fish Fluoresce,
	Can Teenagers Be Far Behind?
In-Reply-To: <20031204042059.35021.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031204053908.93157.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, they only really apply if a draft is in
> effect, something
> that I don't think is likely even given todays
> situation. 
> 
> However, if one were enacted, a local draft board
> will interview those
> claiming unfitness. Accidents are obviously excused.
> Intentional
> disfigurement is not. Doing so after receiving a
> draft notice only
> makes it easier for them to prosecute you. If you
> are dumb enough to
> tell a draft board you got your genes altered so you
> glowed in the dark
> specifically to make you unfit for service, I'll bet
> they'll draft you
> anyways and the military would stick you in some
> hellhole peeling
> potatos or slopping out latrines for the duration.

Nah.  There are times when you want to be seen, say
if you're going to be drawing fire away from the
enemy...or inspiring terror if the enemy is
uber-luddite.

> As for uploading at an early age, the military would
> probably find good
> military uses for uploaded minds...

"When you wake up, there will be ten of you.  One will
be kept safe here.  The rest will be loaded into drone
aircraft being sent on suicide missions.  When all is
done, the you that survives will be as you are now,
and the enemy will have nine well-placed holes."


From thespike at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  4 06:51:27 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:51:27 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] the slope and speed of some changes
References: <000401c3ba25$b616a700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <027201c3ba33$1cd18f20$d5994a43@texas.net>

No big surprises, but:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351651543.html

< Electronics price cuts jolt buyers
By Lorna Edwards


If you forked out for a swish new DVD player when they first hit the market
six years ago, you would have paid up to $1400.

These days, you can buy what has become one of the fastest-selling consumer
items in history from about $80.

Falling prices such as this have fuelled an electronics spending spree, with
DVD players and digital cameras topping Christmas shopping lists.

It took nine years for VCR players to make their way into 47 per cent of
Australian homes after their 1978 introduction to this country but the DVD
has reached the same popularity in only six years. [etc] >




From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 07:09:52 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:09:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] the slope and speed of some changes
In-Reply-To: <027201c3ba33$1cd18f20$d5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <001901c3ba35$9d04b3f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick
> Subject: [extropy-chat] the slope and speed of some changes
> 
> 
> No big surprises, but:
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351651543.html
> 
> < Electronics price cuts jolt buyers
> By Lorna Edwards...

Is this a way cool time to be living, or what?  {8-]

Of course I am still high from the new record prime,
but even after that wears off, this will *still* be
a way cool time to be alive.  Even poor people can
have rad stuff.  I bought an MP3 player for 70 bucks,
holds about 4 CDs of tunes, sounds great, fits in a
shirt pocket, runs on one aaa battery, hell of a deal.  
You can take out an insert, place it in a USB port on 
the PC and it looks just like another 128 MB drive.  
Remember how big and expensive a 128 was only a few 
years ago?  Kewall!  {8^D  

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 07:23:06 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:23:06 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] slain by one finger
In-Reply-To: <200312031840.hB3IeNn18771@finney.org>
Message-ID: <001b01c3ba37$7687e150$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


Doctors kill men.

There was an article in the Merc about how men live 
shorter than women because they won't go to the doctor.
Well, they won't go to the doctor because they don't 
want a finger up the old kazoo.  Duh!  A most distasteful
sensation is this, it feels like getting raped.  

If all doctors would *promise* not to do that, then
more guys might get yearly checkups, thus saving lives.  
Of course men would still perish from prostate cancer,
but the doctors might notice other symptoms in
time to save more guys.  So doctors kill men.

spike

  



From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Dec  4 07:26:33 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] slain by one finger
In-Reply-To: <001b01c3ba37$7687e150$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312032325390.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Spike wrote:

> There was an article in the Merc about how men live shorter than women
> because they won't go to the doctor. Well, they won't go to the doctor
> because they don't want a finger up the old kazoo.  Duh!  A most
> distasteful sensation is this, it feels like getting raped.

Yes, it's rather unpleasant having a doctor do this.  Men should be 
encouraged to self-examine just like women do for breast cancer.

:)



From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Dec  4 07:31:14 2003
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312032220120.-276771@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312031936050.9234-100000@hplx.net>

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, David Lubkin wrote:

> Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?

>From the discovery that the drug laws, designed to prevent people from
doing what they want in the first place, have frightened doctors into not
prescribing proper pain medication for treatment of chronic pain even when
it is very obviously warranted, for fear of becoming another casualty in
the War on Drugs.

That was what got me started, at least, and motivated me to register as a
Libertarian.  Lately, though, I've drifted away somewhat, because I've
realized that I'm not a complete libertarian like many of the other
libertarians whose articles I read seem to be.  For instance, I have yet
to be convinced that private ownership of roads would be better than our
current system.

Somewhat similar to Larry Niven's whole "Why I Am Not a Libertarian" thing
that he wrote a story about ... what was it ... oh yeah, "Cloak of
Anarchy."  But in any case, I still consider myself to be more libertarian
than anything else.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 07:39:14 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:39:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
In-Reply-To: <200312031840.hB3IeNn18771@finney.org>
Message-ID: <000001c3ba39$b75acfb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


King Heiron asked Archimedes if he could determine if 
his new crown were pure gold.  While bathing, he realized
that the water he displaced would have the same mass as 
his body; therefore, he could measure the water displaced 
by the crown against that displaced by an equal amount 
of gold, determined that the king had indeed been 
defrauded by his jeweler, streaked, shouting eureka! 
and you know the story.

But it occurred to me that a number of small, nearly invisible
air bubbles may have adhered to the irregular surfaces of
the crown, plus it likely had greater surface area than the 
pure lump of gold, thus making the crown displace more water
than it would otherwise.  Archimedes might have been
responsible for getting a possibly honest man executed.

Akerue!

spike



From scerir at libero.it  Thu Dec  4 09:25:36 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:25:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <20031201140907.49595.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com><184DD522-240A-11D8-9B19-000A95B18568@antipope.org>
	<01b801c3b823$ce7276c0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <001801c3ba48$9a2b5a90$84bf1b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" 
I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. 
The first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems 
to be stalled. 

-----------

"And despite putting in billions and billions and billions of dollars, 
the net return to owners from being in the entire airline industry, 
if you owned it all, and if you put up all this money, is less than 
zero. If there had been a capitalist down there [at Kitty Hawk the day 
the Wright brothers made their first flight] the guy should have shot 
down Wilbur! I mean . [audience laughter]. You know. one small step 
for mankind, and one huge step backwards for capitalism!"
- Warren Buffett 
http://www.geocities.com/peopleplanes/Carrier/WB.html 

What's wrong with this?
For sure the expression 
"one small step for mankind" :-)
s.  




From dirk at neopax.com  Thu Dec  4 09:29:09 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:29:09 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312031936050.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <000501c3ba49$12597f60$2bb26bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Dartfield" <twodeel at jornada.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor


> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, David Lubkin wrote:
>
> > Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?
>
> >From the discovery that the drug laws, designed to prevent people from
> doing what they want in the first place, have frightened doctors into not
> prescribing proper pain medication for treatment of chronic pain even when
> it is very obviously warranted, for fear of becoming another casualty in
> the War on Drugs.
>
> That was what got me started, at least, and motivated me to register as a
> Libertarian.  Lately, though, I've drifted away somewhat, because I've
> realized that I'm not a complete libertarian like many of the other
> libertarians whose articles I read seem to be.  For instance, I have yet
> to be convinced that private ownership of roads would be better than our
> current system.
>
> Somewhat similar to Larry Niven's whole "Why I Am Not a Libertarian" thing
> that he wrote a story about ... what was it ... oh yeah, "Cloak of
> Anarchy."  But in any case, I still consider myself to be more libertarian
> than anything else.

Ticket to Tranai

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Thu Dec  4 09:41:33 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:41:33 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
References: <00c501c3b9c4$217e4dc0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <005f01c3ba4a$cd8a3940$2bb26bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
> > I wish I knew what I was doing right that everyone else seems
> > to be doing so wrong.  The problem is that trying to follow
> > my lead doesn't seem to > help people, either - or helps only
> > insofar as they are moved to study tractable interesting subjects.
>
> You're young and naive.  Wait until you are middle-aged, pot-bellied and
> balding, and there is still no singularity or general AI.  How will you
feel
> then?


Well, I'm a bored exception then.
I'm 50, in very good physical condition and still no singularity or AI.
Stiil, I'm an optimist who believes that there will be BIG breakthroughs in
anti-ageing treatments within the next ten yrs.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Thu Dec  4 09:44:09 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:44:09 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
References: <E1ARYqS-0001zc-MI@fetch-bak.runbox.com>
Message-ID: <007a01c3ba4b$2af308f0$2bb26bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <gpmap at runbox.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> I think when the physical problems of old age (including hormonal and
neurochemical changes) are solved, the rest will follow. There is no reason
why you cannot keep a fresh and interested outlook on life while gaining
experience. Many people in their 70s would be happy to do sometimes the same
stupid things they did in their teens. The bad side of aging is a phisical
thing.


I disagree.
I am easily as capable physically now (at 50) as I was at 20.
And certainly a lot stronger.
It's not a physical thing.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Thu Dec  4 09:46:10 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:10 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <008f01c3ba4b$72dbb220$2bb26bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Max M" <maxm at mail.tele.dk>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> BillK wrote:
>
> > On the mental side, the 'seen it all before' syndrome is also very real.
> > Computer techies will have seen the 'burn-out' effect on whiz-kids who
> > just can't do it any more. The people who are the big achievers are all
> > 'driven' by their own various demons.
>
>
> Oh yeah, that is so true. I can allready feel it myself at the tender
> age of 38. I have allways been an "extreme" techie. But computers are
> getting more and more boring every day. Solving the same old problems in
> slightly different ways.
>
> On the other side, I find quality in my life increasingly important, and
> there are many examples of people living good lives at a high age.
> People at the age of 50 usually tell that they are living out the best
> part of their life. Free of the stresses of homebuilding and kids.
>
> We can also hope that a exponential growth in technology can make up for
> the "seen it all before" feeling.

The problem though seems to be that exponetial tech is required to maintain
a linear change.

> Or perhaps side-effect-free recreational drugs will make it all moot.

LSD gave me a big boost in my 30s.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Dec  4 12:37:09 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 04:37:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] parallel universes
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020904200.9234-100000@hplx.net><3FCE9321.48980E79@mindspring.com>
	<015801c3ba0a$3f4f3260$d5994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE30zAfquTT7u000028b7@hotmail.com>

Why not coin an entirely new word like "Lomgakwoos" or maybe
"smearniverses"? I a similar problem recently while referring to the event
where you bite into a sandwich, pizza, or other multi-layered food and a
pickel, pepperoni, or something slides out of the food, but is still between
your teeth and it slops down onto your chin. In my household, this is now
known as slerbeling. I slerbeled a pickel just today!
Come to think of it, maybe "slerbelverse" would suffice.? :-)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] parallel universes


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:51 PM
>
> > > It might be handy to have a single word term for an alternate
> > > universe in my writing, rather than always having to use "parallel
> > > universe" or "alternate universe" or "from anooooooother
> > > dimEEEENSSSSSSSion..."
> >
> > How about "stringworlds."
>
> No, because it's inaccurate.
>
> How about `D-branes'? or just Branes?
>
> I know, it causes sniggers from those who think you're saying `brains'.
Um,
> how about `alloworlds'? Too much like `hello'. How about `xenoworlds'?
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Dec  4 12:44:44 2003
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 04:44:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?
References: <3FCEAAED.D4916707@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE529jtcEko8P000028b9@hotmail.com>

Hooray! Once again we see they were smarter than we give them credit for!
It's crazy how our perception that they didn't have artistic abilities
relies on the fact that most of their art didn;t survive for tens of
thousands of years. I wonder how many original Dali paintings will be around
in 50,000 years.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
To: <Extropy-chat at extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:33 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?


> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3256228.stm >
>
> Last Updated: Tuesday, 2 December, 2003, 12:21 GMT
>
> Neanderthal 'face' found in Loire
> By Jonathan Amos
> BBC News Online science staff
>
> A flint object with a striking likeness to a human face may be one of the
> best examples of art by Neanderthal man ever found, the journal Antiquity
> reports.
>
> The "mask", which is dated to be about 35,000 years old, was recovered on
> the banks of the Loire at La Roche-Cotard.
>
> It is about 10 cm tall and wide and has a bone splinter rammed through a
> hole, making the rock look as if it has eyes.
>
> Commentators say the object shows the Neanderthals were more sophisticated
> than their caveman image suggests.
>
> "It should finally nail the lie that Neanderthals had no art," Paul Bahn,
> the British rock art expert, told BBC News Online. "It is an enormously
> important object."
>
> Nose and cheeks
>
> It is described in Antiquity by Jean-Claude Marquet, curator of the Museum
> of Prehistory of Grand-Pressigny, and Michel Lorblanchet, a director of
> research in the French National Centre of Scientific Research, Roc des
> Monges, at Saint-Sozy.
>
> The mask was found during an excavation of old river sediments in front of
a
> Palaeolithic cave encampment. Tool and bone discoveries suggest
Neanderthals
> used the location to light a fire and prepare food.
>
> Triangular in shape, the object shows clear evidence, the researchers say,
> of having been worked - flakes have been chipped off the block to make it
> more face-like.
>
> The 7.5-cm-long bone has also been wedged in position purposely by flint
> fragments.
>
> Marquet and Lorblanchet tell Antiquity: "We think that this is indeed a
> 'proto-figurine'; that is, a small flint block whose natural shape evokes
a
> crudely triangular human face - or a mask if one notes that it is
primarily
> the upper part of the face that is concerned, like a carnival mask, or,
> rather less clearly, an animal face, perhaps a feline?
>
> "It was not only picked up and brought into the habitation, but was also
> modified in various ways to perfect its resemblance to a face: the
forehead,
> the eyes underlined by the bone splinter, the nose stopped at its
extremity
> by an intentional flake-removal, and the rectified cheeks."
>
> Over and over
>
> The standard view of Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) is that they
> lacked the thought processes capable of producing art - certainly to any
> real level of sophistication produced by modern humans (Homo sapiens).
>
> Clive Gamble, an expert from Southampton University on the early
occupation
> of Europe by human species, says science has been reluctant to see
> Neanderthals as great conceptual thinkers.
>
> "The great problem with all the Neanderthal art is that they are one-offs.
> What is different about the art of modern humans when it appears 35,000
> years ago is that there is repetition - animal sculptures and paintings
done
> over and over again in a recognisable style.
>
> "With Neanderthals, there may have been the odd da Vinci-like genius, but
> their talents died with them."
>
> Bahn, on the other hand, believes the Roche-Cotard mask should set the
> record straight on Neanderthals' artistic capabilities.
>
> "There are now a great many Neanderthal art objects. They have been found
> for decades and always they are dismissed as the exception that proves the
> rule."
>
> "This is not just a fortuitous bone shoved into a hole in a rock. Whether
> the Neanderthal artist saw a rock that looked like a face and modified it,
> or conceived the thing from the start - who knows? Either way it is pretty
> sophisticated."
>
> Abstract thought
>
> Perhaps the oldest example of modern human art generally accepted by the
> scientific community would be the 77,000-year-old engraved ochre pieces
> found in the Blombos Cave in South Africa.
>
> There are claims for even older items, dating back 200,000 years or more,
> that comprise mainly rock objects apparently sculpted to look like the
human
> form.
>
> But many sceptical researchers believe these objects are merely accidents
of
> geological processes, and doubt they have been intentionally modified in
any
> way by a human hand.
>
> However, earlier this year, scientists announced the discovery of the
oldest
> Homo sapiens skulls. These 160,000-year-old fossil bones had been polished
> after death.
>
> This mortuary practice suggests at least these early people were abstract
> thinkers, capable of analysing ideas of life and death.
>
>
> -- 
> "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank
Rice
>
>
> Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
>      Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
> Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
> Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
>       U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
> ------------
> Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
>    TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
> Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From jacques at dtext.com  Thu Dec  4 10:51:30 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:51:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203221744.05506008@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203221744.05506008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3FCF11B2.1000308@dtext.com>

David Lubkin wrote:
>
> The nevers surprise me, particularly for "Two Century Biological Lifespans."

Apparently what they meant is we would go straight from lifespans 
shorter than two centuries to indefinite lifespans. (Drexler even gives 
1967 for indefinite lifespan.)

Thanks Hal for providing this!

Jacques



From jacques at dtext.com  Thu Dec  4 11:09:30 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:09:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
In-Reply-To: <008f01c3ba4b$72dbb220$2bb26bd5@artemis>
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>	<3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
	<008f01c3ba4b$72dbb220$2bb26bd5@artemis>
Message-ID: <3FCF15EA.8070508@dtext.com>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> LSD gave me a big boost in my 30s.

Can you say a bit more?

Jacques




From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Dec  4 11:50:08 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:50:08 -0500
Subject: POL: Re: [extropy-chat] libertarian fervor
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312031936050.9234-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <003c01c3ba5c$c552c780$0dcd5cd1@neptune>

On Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:31 AM Don Dartfield twodeel at jornada.org
wrote:
> That was what got me started, at least, and
> motivated me to register as a Libertarian.
> Lately, though, I've drifted away somewhat,
> because I've realized that I'm not a complete
> libertarian like many of the other libertarians
> whose articles I read seem to be.  For
> instance, I have yet to be convinced that
> private ownership of roads would be better
> than our current system.

I have yet to be convinced the current system is worth keeping.:)  A
better approach to this, though, might not be the typical rationalistic
one of arguing from first principles.  Instead, look at the work Daniel
Klein has done on private roads and mixed systems.  See his papers at:

http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/default.htm

> Somewhat similar to Larry Niven's whole "Why
> I Am Not a Libertarian" thing that he wrote a
> story about ... what was it ... oh yeah, "Cloak of
> Anarchy."  But in any case, I still consider
> myself to be more libertarian than anything else.

"Cloak of Anarchy" was a neat little tale, but there are three problems
with it.  One, not all libertarians are anarchists.  I am both, but many
libertarians are not.  Two, Niven really stacks cards in it.  All the
things that happen when the power goes out -- and I've been in a number
of such outages and not seen anything remotely like that:) -- still
exist under governments now and, no doubt, will still exist under
governments in the future.  (I'm not only talking about unorganized
crime, which will probably exist in any society, but also organized
crime -- some of which is the direct result of government intervention
(drug laws, gambling laws, etc.) and some of which is the government
(taxation, conscription, etc.).)  Three, the actual history of anarchic
societies -- such as those of Ancient Iceland, Medieval England, the Old
West in the US, etc. -- shows something quite different.

No on this list point, one might say that that's all ancient history and
it could never work in today's world.  That's a matter for debate, I
admit.  (My opinion is that terrestrial societies, as long as there's no
large frontier, will continue to be archic ones and that government
intervention will, from here on, oscillate inside the ambit of the
centralized welfare states.  There will be times of reform in the
direction of freedom, but there will also be periods of government
expansion.  If humans or posthumans, however, begin the settle space, I
believe the political, economic, and military conditions will spell the
end of centralized government -- at least on a civilization encompassing
scale as we see it now.  (I mean there will, undoubtedly, be localized
central governments, but the social forces will not allow for anything
much larger than loose confederations above that.))

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From james at lab6.com  Thu Dec  4 11:43:29 2003
From: james at lab6.com (James)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:43:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Word coinage (was: parallel universes)
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE30zAfquTT7u000028b7@hotmail.com>
References: <015801c3ba0a$3f4f3260$d5994a43@texas.net>
	<Law10-OE30zAfquTT7u000028b7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031204114329.GA1405@pc174.deh.man.ac.uk>

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:37:09AM -0800, Kevin Freels wrote:
> Why not coin an entirely new word like "Lomgakwoos" or maybe
> "smearniverses"? I a similar problem recently while referring to the event
> where you bite into a sandwich, pizza, or other multi-layered food and a
> pickel, pepperoni, or something slides out of the food, but is still between
> your teeth and it slops down onto your chin. In my household, this is now
> known as slerbeling. I slerbeled a pickel just today!
> Come to think of it, maybe "slerbelverse" would suffice.? :-)

Can I recommend /The Meaning of Liff/ by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd?
The premise is:

"In Life, there are many hundreds of common experiences, feelings,
situations and even objects which we all know and recognize, but for
which no words exist. 

On the other hand, the world is littered with thousands of spare words
which spend their time doing nothing but loafing about on signposts
pointing at places. 

Our job, as we see it, is to get these words down off the signposts and
into the mouths of babes and sucklings and so on, where they can start
earning their keep in everyday conversation and make a more positive
contribution to society."

I'm sure there's a synonym of slerbeling in there somewhere.
Particularly appropriate to mailing list culture is

"Sittingbourne (n.)

One of those conversations where both people are waiting for the other
one to shut up so they can get on with their bit"

:)

-- 
James <james at lab6.com> <http://james.lab6.com>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 13:19:56 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 05:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <001801c3ba48$9a2b5a90$84bf1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20031204131956.58653.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" 
> I've been reflecting lately on communication versus transportation. 
> The first is developing faster than ever, while the former seems 
> to be stalled. 
> 
> -----------
> 
> "And despite putting in billions and billions and billions of
> dollars, 
> the net return to owners from being in the entire airline industry, 
> if you owned it all, and if you put up all this money, is less than 
> zero. If there had been a capitalist down there [at Kitty Hawk the
> day 
> the Wright brothers made their first flight] the guy should have shot
> down Wilbur! I mean . [audience laughter]. You know. one small step 
> for mankind, and one huge step backwards for capitalism!"
> - Warren Buffett 
> http://www.geocities.com/peopleplanes/Carrier/WB.html 
> 
> What's wrong with this?
> For sure the expression 
> "one small step for mankind" 

Well, Warren, like any democrat, is counting net return averaged among
all owners, past and present, and not individual fortunes made.
Investors owning stock when an airline goes bankrupt have the same
amount in losses that those they bought from had in gains if these
original owners invested from the IPO forwards. Actually the losses
would be greater than the gains, since IPOs usually sell for a
significant dollar value and a bankrupt stock is worth pennies on the
dollar.

This does not mean that all that value disappeared. It is often picked
up at bankruptcy auction at bargain prices by new ventures.

Another error Buffet is committing is only counting airline companies
specifically. Any fool who knows anything about the business know that
the people that make the real profits are the aircraft makers and the
companies that actually own the airliners that lease them to the
airlines...

However, plenty of individuals have made fortunes in the airline
business. I happen to have known several such people, one who was
involved in the Boeing/United marriage for many years, cashed out to
help found a major Seattle bank. Another involved in the same venture,
a fellow name of Gleed, his descendants I've known for years.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 13:27:36 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 05:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE529jtcEko8P000028b9@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031204132736.96628.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hooray! Once again we see they were smarter than we give them credit
> for!

Have you SEEN the rock doll they are talking about? It has about as
much artistic expression as a stick man. Whoopeedoo. Even if you
continue to think it is artistic (I think you are assuming a degree of
capacity for abstract expressionism mixed with dadaism that even most
of todays humans can't handle), it IS dated only 35,000 years ago, when
neanderthal was very old, was ending its tenure on earth and likely was
making a few desperate stabs at attaining higher reasoning, perhaps
with a little interbreeding help.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Dec  4 14:32:19 2003
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:32:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203221744.05506008@mail.comcast.net>
	<3FCF11B2.1000308@dtext.com>
Message-ID: <3FCF4572.E51831F9@sasktel.net>

Might that be for people born in 1967 who make it to 2007 in good shape that
nutrition  and technology will slow the 40-50 span from 2007-2017 say by 50%; then
the 2017-2027 span will be slowed by say 70% and the 2027-2037 span by
80% yielding a body with the wear and tear of a 50 years @ 70.  By 2037
regenerative technology may reapair or replace the degeneration much more
effectively and say if the efficiency of repair and regeneration increases to 90%
for
30 years to 2067 then you have a 60 year old body with 100 chronological years.
At 2067 If technology can replace and regenerate 100% then chronological age
no longer matters.  So 1967 as a start of the AGELESS GENERATION may not be so far
off?

Morris

JDP wrote:

> David Lubkin wrote:
> >
> > The nevers surprise me, particularly for "Two Century Biological Lifespans."
>
> Apparently what they meant is we would go straight from lifespans
> shorter than two centuries to indefinite lifespans. (Drexler even gives
> 1967 for indefinite lifespan.)
>
> Thanks Hal for providing this!
>
> Jacques
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Thu Dec  4 15:21:53 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:21:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?
Message-ID: <LAW9-F13hkeTxtfkdpc00001755@hotmail.com>

>From: "Kevin Freels" <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
>Hooray! Once again we see they were smarter than we give them credit for!
>It's crazy how our perception that they didn't have artistic abilities
>relies on the fact that most of their art didn;t survive for tens of
>thousands of years. I wonder how many original Dali paintings will be 
>around
>in 50,000 years.

No originals, but there will be 75 billion of his posters that survive from 
excavated college dorms.

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year ? six months 
@$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Thu Dec  4 15:18:04 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:18:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
Message-ID: <Law9-F44WnCRd3qix8x0000b5b0@hotmail.com>

Surface area should not affect water displacement. If both the crown and the 
lump were pure gold, it wouldn't matter the shape. I think it's more a 
matter of density and mass or something. Surface area comes into affect when 
dissolving solids into liquids but this wouldn't happen.

As for the air bubbles, I hope that Archimedes presented the king with some 
sort of margin of error (after he calmed down of course).

BAL

>From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
>Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:39:14 -0800
>
>
>King Heiron asked Archimedes if he could determine if
>his new crown were pure gold.  While bathing, he realized
>that the water he displaced would have the same mass as
>his body; therefore, he could measure the water displaced
>by the crown against that displaced by an equal amount
>of gold, determined that the king had indeed been
>defrauded by his jeweler, streaked, shouting eureka!
>and you know the story.
>
>But it occurred to me that a number of small, nearly invisible
>air bubbles may have adhered to the irregular surfaces of
>the crown, plus it likely had greater surface area than the
>pure lump of gold, thus making the crown displace more water
>than it would otherwise.  Archimedes might have been
>responsible for getting a possibly honest man executed.
>
>Akerue!
>
>spike
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.  
Get MSN Extra Storage!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  4 15:30:55 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:30:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Neanderthal art?
Message-ID: <54360-220031244153055597@M2W048.mail2web.com>


-----------------
From: Brian Lee brian

>From: "Kevin Freels" <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
>Hooray! Once again we see they were smarter than we give them credit for!
>It's crazy how our perception that they didn't have artistic abilities
>relies on the fact that most of their art didn;t survive for tens of
>thousands of years. I wonder how many original Dali paintings will be 
>around
>in 50,000 years.

>No originals, but there will be 75 billion of his posters that survive
>from excavated college dorms.

The graffite paintings on the bathroom walls may last longer -  Digitized
prints have a life-span that degenerated before 50,000 years.  Same for
photographic copies.  Unless the Dalii prints are preserved in air-tight
frames and mountings, the Neanderthal may still outlive them.

Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Dec  4 16:01:46 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:01:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
Message-ID: <3FCF5A6A.9070809@pobox.com>

http://www.nebraskaatheists.org/article1.htm

Some samples:

Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina's State Constitution
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified 
for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina's State Constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the 
existence of the Supreme Being; ..."

I checked and yes, this is accurate.

The states whose constitutions discriminate against atheists are 
Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Texas.  Maryland gets bonus points for apparently requiring 
belief in an afterlife, hell, and a male God.

I think it's time for another federal Constitutional amendment.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence




From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Thu Dec  4 16:14:48 2003
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:14:48 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age : libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <20031204022007.35427.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000801c3b9ff$7c3a4b20$0200a8c0@etheric>
	<20031204022007.35427.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <n9nusvksr852ck8d7d1952hscs39hjnjfe@4ax.com>

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:20:06 -0800 (PST), Lorrey wrote

>
>--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?"

>e) being treated as a threat to national security by one of the major
>political parties and its last presidential administration...

Do tell?



>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



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



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 16:29:57 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:29:57 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F44WnCRd3qix8x0000b5b0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c3ba83$db240980$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

The reason I mentioned surface area is that the bubbles
would stick on the surfaces of the gold.  A crown has
more surface than a lump of pure gold, so it has more
places for the bubbles to stick.  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:18 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] akerue
> 
> 
> Surface area should not affect water displacement. If both 
> the crown and the 
> lump were pure gold, it wouldn't matter the shape. I think 
> it's more a 
> matter of density and mass or something. Surface area comes 
> into affect when 
> dissolving solids into liquids but this wouldn't happen.
> 
> As for the air bubbles, I hope that Archimedes presented the 
> king with some 
> sort of margin of error (after he calmed down of course).
> 
> BAL
> 
> >From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> >To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
> >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:39:14 -0800
> >
> >
> >King Heiron asked Archimedes if he could determine if
> >his new crown were pure gold.  While bathing, he realized
> >that the water he displaced would have the same mass as
> >his body; therefore, he could measure the water displaced
> >by the crown against that displaced by an equal amount
> >of gold, determined that the king had indeed been
> >defrauded by his jeweler, streaked, shouting eureka!
> >and you know the story.
> >
> >But it occurred to me that a number of small, nearly invisible
> >air bubbles may have adhered to the irregular surfaces of
> >the crown, plus it likely had greater surface area than the
> >pure lump of gold, thus making the crown displace more water
> >than it would otherwise.  Archimedes might have been
> >responsible for getting a possibly honest man executed.
> >
> >Akerue!
> >
> >spike
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying 
> the holidays.  
> Get MSN Extra Storage!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Dec  4 16:42:38 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:42:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F44WnCRd3qix8x0000b5b0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c3ba85$a0a12d40$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> As for the air bubbles, I hope that Archimedes presented the 
> king with some sort of margin of error (after he calmed down of
course).
> 
> BAL

I would hope so Brian.  The measurement of density of a crown
would be extremely tricky with the technology available
at the time.  It wouldn't be a slam dunk even today, if
water displacement methods are used to find volume.  You
would have surface tension affects, possibly allowing the
water level in the tub to be slightly higher than the
drain hole for instance, as can be seen with a reversed
meniscus in an overfilled water glass.  Since the diameter
of the tub would need to be sufficient to fit the crown,
the possible error from surface tension alone would be
enough to swamp the signal from a little bit of silver
mixed with the gold.

I would like someone to loan me a crown to play with, 
so that I might see if I could replicate Archimedes'
measurement.  Anyone have a spare gold crown lying about?

spike







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 17:23:37 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:23:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age : libertarian fervor
In-Reply-To: <n9nusvksr852ck8d7d1952hscs39hjnjfe@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20031204172337.62087.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- randy <cryofan at mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:20:06 -0800 (PST), Lorrey wrote
> 
> >
> >--- "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "Would others speak to where their libertarian fervor came from?"
> 
> >e) being treated as a threat to national security by one of the
> major
> >political parties and its last presidential administration...
> 
> Do tell?

Being a gun owner, and one who owned automatic weapons, numerous
pronouncements by leaders of the DNC have stated that people like
myself are domestic terrorists, threats to national security.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 17:43:41 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:43:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
In-Reply-To: <000b01c3ba83$db240980$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031204174341.1347.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The reason I mentioned surface area is that the bubbles
> would stick on the surfaces of the gold.  A crown has
> more surface than a lump of pure gold, so it has more
> places for the bubbles to stick.  

But have you actually sunk a crown in water to see what sticks? How
about oil???

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From hal at finney.org  Thu Dec  4 18:04:40 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:04:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Brad DeLong on the economics of nanotech
Message-ID: <200312041804.hB4I4eL23677@finney.org>

Slashdot points this morning to an article by Berkeley economist Brad
DeLong on the economic implications of nanotech,
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002838.html.

DeLong is good writer and seems to be a sharp economist.  He's got
a bloggish site with frequent updates and lots of links to economic
resources.  It's not a bad place to learn some economics from.

In this case, though, I was disappointed by his article.  It starts
off promisingly enough; he identies four questions which can guide an
analysis of the economics impact of any new technology:

 - What commodities--what goods and services--become extraordinarily
   cheap as a result of the technological revolution?

 - What human activities--what jobs and skills--become key bottlenecks,
   and thus become remarkably valuable and well-paid?

 - What risks blindside the society as the technology spreads?

 - What risks do people guard against that turn out not to be risks
   at all?

He then shows an example of how these questions could work by looking at
the early industrial revolution, specifically the impact of automation on
the textile industry:  1. Clothing became amazingly cheap.  2. Engineers
and technicians became increasingly valuable.  3. Increased demand
for cotton extended the institution of slavery another 50 years.  4.
Unfounded fears of inequality prompted the creation of communism as
an ideology.

One point missed by his list is the people who lose out, at least in
the short term; in this case the textile workers.  I think his second
item should be extended to list both winners and losers.

With regard to communism, DeLong makes a point which I will reference
below: "In retrospect, however, we can see that they sought to guard
against a danger that wasn't there: the share of total production paid
to workers has been remarkably constant over the past two centuries--the
predictions of the immiserization of the working class were completely
wrong."

Now we turn to nanotech.  DeLong "speculates" about three phases
of impact: first, improved materials; second, a "biological" wave;
and third, Drexlerian nanotech.  I'm not sure what these last two are,
but it doesn't matter, because he doesn't know, either, so he doesn't
discuss them.  All he looks at is the impact of improved materials.

And even there, his comments are limited to the prediction that increased
durability and "smartness" of materials will halve the size of the
manufacturing work force, and eliminate much of the service sector
dealing with repair and maintenance.

Winners, in his view, will be the programmers and technicians who can
manipulate and "program" the smart materials.  He then goes off on a
tangent about how American society is supposedly under-investing in
education and so we won't have a smart enough labor force to deal with
these new challenges.  He also is concerned that these changes will
increase income inequality as relatively unskilled jobs are replaced by
ones requiring more education.

This is a disappointingly shallow and unsupported analysis.  Just taking
that last point first, the industrial revolution replaced dumb jobs with
smart ones, but as he emphasized, it did not have the income inequality
effects that Marx predicted.  DeLong appears to be forgetting the very
historical lesson that he presented a few paragraphs earlier.

But going to his main predictions, why would better materials inherently
halve the size of the work force?  Wouldn't demand increase for these
materials, since they will have more uses than the ones we have today?
The textile revolution was a change in *how* things are made; many
fewer people could produce the same goods.  But this early pre-nanotech
revolution is a change in *what* things are made.  We don't have self
reproducing factories or home assemblers at this stage.  You're still
going to need a manufacturing work force.

It's possible that increased durability will eventually decrease demand
for goods, because they're not wearing out as quickly.  But I think people
are going to want new goods anyway, because due to continued progress
and innovation, the new goods will be of much higher quality than the
old ones.  The result will be that used and second-hand merchandise will
be widely and cheaply available and still be of good quality.

Overall, I thought DeLong got off to a good start and that his framework
was useful.  But it will take someone with more imagination and a better
understanding of the technology to apply these ideas to the real impact
of nanotech.

Hal


From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Thu Dec  4 18:20:38 2003
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:20:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est exclusioalterius
In-Reply-To: <00a101c3b6b9$323b7bf0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311280748500.15427-100000@server.aeiveos.com><00a201c3b5cc$f477beb0$3bb5ff3e@artemis><000f01c3b5e4$0c2f4020$0200a8c0@etheric><01bc01c3b5e8$a6f96c30$3bb5ff3e@artemis><006801c3b60f$42d8e060$0200a8c0@etheric><028601c3b612$a1527c70$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
	<010601c3b631$4044a880$0200a8c0@etheric>
	<00a101c3b6b9$323b7bf0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
Message-ID: <uupusv8tn9pesisud0kac7d508apnukh2s@4ax.com>

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:41:42 -0000, Dirk wrote
>
>The Consensus:-
>The political party for the new millennium
>http://www.theconsensus.org


I really like your new political party. It aligns fairly well with my
own political beliefs.  However, since there probably only about a
dozen people in the entire world who adhere to these same political
beliefs, I doubt it will take the world by storm, and the chances of
it making any dent here in the USA is of course nil.

But how do you feel about the European welfare states? You wrote:

"From the Right we believe in individual responsibility to balance
individual rights and that less government is best government ? that
governments should regulate, but not act as an employer or wealth
producer. "

This would seem to cast the European welfare states in a less
favorable light?

You also wrote:
"We are nationalists in that we believe that every major cultural
group should have its own homeland and live under laws of its own
choosing and in its own way. Also that the independent nation state is
the last line of defence for the common people against exploitation by
unrestrained Global Capitalism. We are 'inclusive nationalists' in
that we believe that all of our citizens have equal rights and are
equally welcome irrespective of race. So if you are looking for
nationalists who are not racists, sexists or into euphemisms such as
'traditional values', here we are. Our nationalism is a celebration of
our future, not the past."

I completely agree about having homelands and nation as small and as
homogeneous as possible.  This increases the available amount of
Social Capital, which gives more leverage to the citizens over those
entities and persons who have more financial leverage.




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



From thespike at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  4 22:15:28 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:15:28 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanogen's new patents in nanotech
	andnanomanufacturing
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203122201.06059b40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <004001c3bab4$21ad7000$f2994a43@texas.net>

This has more detail:

Nanogen Issued Key Nanotechnology Patent

Newly Issued Patent Broadens Proprietary Position in Nanomanufacturing and
Nanotechnology

December 3, 2003; San Diego, CA (PRNewswire-FirstCall) -- Nanogen, Inc.
(Nasdaq:NGEN)
today announced that it has been issued U.S. Patent No. 6,652,808, "Methods
for the Electronic
Assembly and Fabrication of Devices," ("the '808 patent") by the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office.
This patent is the parent of a series of pending patent applications that
significantly broaden
Nanogen's proprietary position in the nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing
areas.  The Company
has now been issued nine patents during 2003, bringing the total number of
patents issued in the
U.S. to 56.

    "One of the challenges in producing new electronic and photonic devices
using nanoscale
components is the integration of these components into viable higher order
devices.  The new
Nanogen patent describes a unique electric field 'pick and place' process
that facilitates the
bringing together or integration of diverse DNA nanocomponents, thereby
helping solve difficult
scaling issues.  Combining the top-down electric field process with the
bottom-up DNA self-assembly
process enables more selective and higher precision incorporation of
nanoscale components
into higher order devices and structures," said Dr. Michael J. Heller,
co-founder of Nanogen,
one of the inventors, and currently a Professor in the Departments of
Bioengineering and
Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, San
Diego.

   "The technology described by Nanogen's new patent may provide a
technological foundation
for the effective use of nanocomponents in many diverse applications," said
Howard Birndorf,
Nanogen chairman and CEO.  "As we continue to increase and broaden our
intellectual property
portfolio, we intend to realize value from our nanotechnology patents
through licensing or partnering
opportunities.  Congress' recent commitment to nanotechnology research and
development
underscores the potential our technologies may have for impacting several
industries, including medicine."

    The new nanotechnology patent relates to a nanofabrication technology
that combines an electric
field assisted manufacturing platform and programmable self-assembling
nanostructures (for example,
DNA building blocks) for the fabrication of a wide range of unique
higher-order nano and microscale
devices, structures, and materials.  The nanofabrication platform and
process would be used for:
(1) producing new nanoscale electronic and photonic devices and structures,
including high-density
2D and 3D data storage materials, 2D and 3D photonic crystal structures,
hybrid electronic/photonic
devices such as large area light emitting flat panel arrays and displays,
and for the fabrication of highly
integrated medical diagnostic and biosensor devices;
(2) organization, assembly and interconnection of nanostructures and
submicron components onto
silicon wafers and other materials;
(3) integration of nanostructures within preformed microelectronic and
optoelectronic structures;
(4) production of precision modified nanoparticles (for example, photonic
crystals, nanospheres and
quantum dots) which can then more efficiently self-assemble into 2D and 3D
structures and materials
(photonic band gap structures, nanocomposite materials and so forth); and
(5) fabrication of selectively
addressable DNA nanoarray substrates and materials.

    The patent represents a unique nanofabrication technology which combines
the best aspects of
top-down microfabrication   processes with bottom-up biological type
self-assembly processes for
producing novel nanodevices and nanostructures.  The process is highly
parallel and has an inherent
hierarchical logic allowing one to control the organization, assembly and
communication of components
from the molecular and nanoscale into macroscale devices and structures.

    The '808 patent is jointly owned by Nanotronics, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nanogen,
and the Regents of the University of California. Nanogen has exclusively
licensed the interests of the
University of California where there is joint inventorship.  Additionally,
Nanogen disclosed the issuance
over the last several months of three patents relating to electronic
microarray technology.  The three
additional issued patents are U.S. Patent No. 6,582,660 "Control System for
Active Programmable
Electronic Microbiology System," U.S. Patent No. 6,589,742 "Multiplex
Amplification and Separation
of Nucleic Acid Sequences on a Bioelectronic Microchip Using Asymmetric
Structures," and U.S.
Patent No. 6,638,482 "Reconfigurable Detection and Analysis Apparatus and
Method."

For additional
information please visit Nanogen's website at www.nanogen.com.


SOURCE  Nanogen, Inc.
CO:  Nanogen, Inc.
ST:  California
SU:  PDT
Web site:  http://www.nanogen.com
http://www.prnewswire.com
12/03/2003 08:01 EST




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Dec  4 23:47:22 2003
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:47:22 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
Message-ID: <013101c3bac0$f9b40e80$3f80e40c@NANOGIRL>

The Nanogirl News
December 4, 2003

President Bush Signs Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Today
(Dec.3) at the White House, the President signed into law the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which authorizes funding for
nanotechnology research and development (R&D) over four years, starting in
FY 2005. This legislation puts into law programs and activities supported by
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), one of the President's highest
multi-agency R&D priorities. (THE WHITEHOUSE 12/3/03)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031203-7.html
-Here is the Presidents statement on this action (The White House 12/03):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031203-12.html
-Also see: Signed, Sealed, Delivered: Nano is President's Prefix of the day.
Here you can download the PDF file of the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act. (12/3/03 SmallTimes)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7035

(News related to the above Act.) The government says "no" to federally
funded nanobots... Perhaps most interesting, though, is what the bill
apparently does not fund: research into so-called molecular nanotechnology,
a theoretical approach to nanotech that proposes the creation of "molecular
assemblers," which could build complex products from molecular level up. It
is this version of nanotech, promoted by nanotech guru Eric Drexler that
often appears in science fiction, where trillions of tiny, self-replicating
nanorobots can transform matter into just about anything. But most nanotech
researchers-including Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, co-discoverer of
carbon buckeyball molecules-are skeptical of this vision. The bill does
allow a "one-time study to determine the technical feasibility of molecular
self-assembly for the manufacture of materials and devices at the molecular
scale." But self-assembly is not the same thing as self-replication, with
the former being a proven chemical process being developed in nanotech labs.
The original House version of the bill did contain an explicit passage that
unmistakably referred to Drexlerian molecular manufacturing, including use
of the phrase "self-replication." It appears that in substituting the word
"assembly" for "replication," some savvy bill writer performed a bit of
legislative jujitsu to leave Drexler's approach out in the cold. After all,
why investigate the feasibility of self-assembly when it's already been
proved possible? (USNews 12/2/03)
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/nycu/tech/nextnews/nexthome.htm

Experts debate the future of nanotechnology. Two giants in the field of
nanotechnology face off in an exclusive point-counterpoint debate about the
future of this burgeoning field of science in the Dec. 1 issue of Chemical &
Engineering News (available online here:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html), the weekly
newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest
scientific society. K. Eric Drexler, Ph.D., cofounder of the Foresight
Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and the person who coined the term
"nanotechnology," and Richard E. Smalley, Ph.D., a professor at Rice
University and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, debate a
fundamental question of nanotechnology: Are "molecular assemblers" - devices
capable of positioning atoms and molecules for precisely defined reactions
in almost any environment - physically possible? (Eurekalert 12/2/03)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/acs-dt120203.php

Also see an Analysis of the above exchange written by Chris Phoenix,
Director of Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN).
http://crnano.org/Debate.htm

Nanoguitar Promises New Sensor And Electronics Applications. Six years ago
Cornell University researchers built the world's smallest guitar - about the
size of a red blood cell - to demonstrate the possibility of manufacturing
tiny mechanical devices using techniques originally designed for building
microelectronic circuits. Now, by "playing" a new, streamlined nanoguitar,
Cornell physicists are demonstrating how such devices could substitute for
electronic circuit components to make circuits smaller, cheaper and more
energy-efficient. (SpaceDaily 11/19/03)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-03zzk.html

The Architecture of the Very Small (210 KB PDF). For nanostructured solids,
it's not just the chemistry, it's the way they're put together.
(Today's Chemist at Work Nov. 2003)
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/12/i11/pdf/1103mcguire.pdf

Nano research eyes ink jet-printed 'sheets' of circuits. NanoProducts Corp.
lab researchers have begun work on nanoscale devices that may lead to the
formation of "plastic" circuit elements and circuit "sheets" fabricated with
ink jet printers within three years. The company's researchers have started
the evolution toward such products by integrating nanoscale materials with
existing micron-sized devices and composites, enhancing their performance
and lowering their cost. (EETimes 11/20/03)
http://www.eet.com/at/n/news/OEG20031120S0017

Nanotech instruments allow first direct observations of RNA 'proofreading'.
When Ralph Waldo Emerson said that nature pardons no mistakes, he wasn't
thinking about RNA polymerase (RNAP) - the versatile enzyme that copies
genes from DNA onto strands of RNA, which then serve as templates for all of
the proteins that make life possible. Emerson's comment notwithstanding,
RNAP makes plenty of mistakes but also proofreads and corrects them before
they have a chance to create abnormal proteins. (Eurekalert 11/25/03)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-11/su-nia112503.php

"Nano" in firm's name fuels stock's hefty gain. A growing fascination with
nanotechnology seems to be doing wonders for the stock price of Nanometrics.
Too bad the company's only connection with the hot field of molecular-scale
machinery is the first four letters of its name and a stock ticker, NANO.
But that, apparently, is enough to confuse some investors.
(USAToday 12/4/03)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/techcorporatenews/2003-12-04-nano-
nono_x.htm

DuPont-led Scientists Unveil Key Nanotechnology Discovery with Use of DNA.
Sorting Carbon Nanotubes Provides Significant Step in Advancing
Nano-Electronics Applications. A collaborative group of DuPont-led
scientists have discovered an innovative way to advance electronics
applications through the use of DNA that sorts carbon nanotubes. This
research in the emerging field of nanotechnology appears in the current
issue of the journal Science, which is published by the AAAS - the world's
largest general scientific organization. The research paper is titled "
Structure-Based Carbon Nanotube Sorting by Sequence-Dependent DNA Assembly."
(DuPont 12/2/03)
http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/e
n_US/news/releases/2003/nr12_02_03a.html

Shares of Nanogen Inc. skyrocketed 61 percent after the company received a
"Methods for the Electronic Assembly and Fabrication of Devices" patent from
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the lead patent in a series of pending
applications that will strengthen Nanogen's proprietary position in the
nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing fields, the company said.
(Pharmexec 12/4/03)
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=77969

TNT Weekly: deletion of MNT study from nano bill is "a farce". Issue #13 of
TNT Weekly (which will be archived here), the leading nanotech industry
e-newsletter, covers the recent deletion of a molecular manufacturing study
from the new U.S. nanotech legislation: " --The plot thickens and the
nanotech bill gets sillier--Last week we had some fun with the recent
nanotech bill in the US, especially the plan for a one-time study to
determine the feasibility of making things using molecular self-assembly,
which makes about as much sense as conducting a one-time study into the
feasibility of sharpening a stick with a sharp knife. With a combination of
cynicism and naivet?, we assumed that the bill had got away from those who
actually understood nanotech and ended up in the hands of politicians who
didn't understand the difference between self-assembly and molecular
assemblers, the result being a terminological boo-boo in the part that was
meant to direct figuring out whether Drexlerian-style molecular
nanotechnology (MNT) and molecular manufacturing are actually feasible. We
were not alone. Quite a few people, it seemed, thought that the MNT crowd
had been given the chance to make their case or forever hold their peace.
Even the skeptics seemed to think this was fair dinkum." (Nanodot 12/3/03)
http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/04/0216244

Scientists grow carbon nanofibres straight onto plastic. Researchers from
the University of Cambridge, UK, have deposited carbon nanofibres directly
onto plastic substrates using plasma-enhanced chemical vapour deposition.
The arrays of fibres could have applications as field emitters in displays.
(Nanotechweb 12/4/03) http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/news/2/12/2/1

Kettering University Researchers Discover New Way to Produce Nanotubes.
Nanotubes have thermal conductivity better than diamonds,
electro-conductivity better than copper, and can withstand very high
temperatures. Researchers at Kettering University have discovered a
different method for producing nanotubes, which is one of the U.S.
government's best-funded technology areas...The Kettering team's procedure
for creating nanotubes is "actually a simpler way of doing it than had
previously been done," said Bahram Roughani, associate professor of Applied
Physics. Established methods include arc discharge, laser ablation or pulsed
laser vaporization (PLV), chemical vapor deposition and gas phase processes,
such as high-pressure carbon monoxide (HiPCO).
(Kettering University 12/4/03)
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_vie
w&newsId=20031204005092&newsLang=en

Major nanotechnology hurdle not so worrisome, thanks to Indiana University
chemistry discovery. According to the classic rules of physics, substances
melt at a lower temperature when their sizes decrease. But scientists at
Indiana University Bloomington have found that at least one substance,
gallium, breaks the rules, remaining stable as a solid at temperatures as
much as 400 degrees Fahrenheit above the element's normal melting point.
Their report will be published in an upcoming issue of Physical Review
Letters. The discovery gives hope to some nanotechnologists and
"nanocomputer" engineers, who have been worried that components will behave
unpredictably at smaller sizes, possibly even melting at room temperature.
(innovations report 12/3/03)
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-23865.ht
ml

'Stuffed' nanotubes could enable high-density storage. Researchers here have
succeeded in loading carbon nanotubes with magnetic materials, an advance
that could enable the use of the tiny cylinders for making extremely
high-density data storage devices. (EETimes 11/25/03)
http://www.eet.com/at/n/news/OEG20031125S0035

Robot Nation? A couple of columns ago, I wrote a piece called Kent Brockman
on Unemployment, describing the impact of robots and automation on
employment. In the comments section, someone posted a link to some things
that the writer and founder of HowStuffWorks Marshall Brain has written.
Brain thinks that we'll be losing jobs wholesale to robots in the very near
future, long before things like nanotechnology have a chance to change the
world: (TCS: Tech Central Station 12/3/03)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/120303B.html

Nanosensor smells the faintest scent. Nanostructures could detect a few
molecules of perfume, says a Japanese researcher working on a cheaper way to
make these structures using ultra thin films. Professor Toyoki Kunitake from
the Japan Science and Technology Agency presented his research at an
Australian nanotechnology conference at the University of Melbourne
yesterday. The structures are very small, "one millionth of one millionth of
a metre",
Kunitake told ABC Science Online. (ABC Science Australia 12/3/03)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1001890.htm

(Gaming) Codemasters Announce Perimeter. Codemasters today announced that it
has picked up worldwide publishing rights to a groundbreaking new Real-Time
Strategy (RTS), currently in development at 1C for the PC...Through
nanotechnology players can transform units on the battlefield, giving scope
for tactical opportunities to adapt combat units to a particular situation
and keep up with any changes that occur during the battle.
(TotalVideoGames 12/2/03)
http://www.totalvideogames.com/?section=Read%20News&id=4207&gameid=3524&form
at=000007

Nanotechnology center causing controversy. Nanotechnology has emerged as a
controversial issue at UAlbany. A heated meeting by the UAlbany senate on
the hot-button issue took place Monday night. All the controversy centers
around Professor Richard Collier, because he presented a resolution
questioning the development of the School of Nanosciences and
Nanoengineering at the university. (Capital News 9 12/2/03)
http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?ArID=49847&SecID=33

(Movie-Review) Nanotechnology is one of the current hot topics in various
fields of science and medicine. Essentially, the idea is that small machines
can be made and programmed to perform a host of different tasks, sight
unseen, with endless possibilities. Recent television shows, including
Andromeda and Jake 2.0 explore some applications of such technology, albeit
by greatly advancing what we can do today. A newly released OVA anime
series, Zaion: I Wish You Were Here 1: Epidemic, explores the idea in
another way, this time as a means to combat an alien virus. (DVD Talk
11/30/03) http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=8501

Technique allows scientists to fine-tune strength and conductivity of
nanotube-laced materials. University of Pennsylvania researchers have
developed a technique to customize nanotube-laced materials. While
notoriously difficult to manipulate, nanotubes can provide added strength or
conductivity to materials, depending on how the nanotubes are oriented. The
Penn engineers have developed a production technique that permits a finer
and more precise dispersion of nanotubes within a material. (Eurekalert
12/2/03) http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=565

(Japan) How safe is nanotechnology? Although nanotechnology is said to have
the potential to drastically alter 21st-century society, there must be a
thorough assessment of the risks nanomaterials could pose to human health
and the ecosystem. In October, expectations surged in the academic world
that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry might be awarded to a Japanese researcher
for the fourth consecutive year. Meijo University Prof. Sumio Iijima was
considered the strongest among the Japanese candidates for the prize. This
is because Iijima is known for his 1991 discovery of the carbon nanotube, an
ultrafine carbon material measuring several thousandths of a human hair in
diameter. Iijima's discovery sparked nanotechnology studies worldwide.
(The Daily Yomiuri)
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20031128wo71.htm

Intern makes huge impact on nanotechnology. Rob Sobelman thought researching
the technique of creating carbon nanotubes would be boring. He ended up
making a major scientific discovery...For his part, Rob discovered that
heating to 1,000 degrees Celsius during the process of making carbon
nanotubes not only produced significantly more of them, but it also made
them longer and straighter - a major benefit in using the structures, such
as in computers and transistors. (The Advocate 11/27/03)
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-27121224.apds.m0382.bc-c
t-fea--nov27,0,7857307.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

Seasons greetings,

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."





From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Fri Dec  5 01:01:51 2003
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:31:51 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217BBFE12C@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>

The difference in water displacement would have to have been pretty
significant to prove the point. I doubt that bubbles would have affected it
significantly.

Emlyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 2:00 AM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] akerue
> 
> 
> The reason I mentioned surface area is that the bubbles
> would stick on the surfaces of the gold.  A crown has
> more surface than a lump of pure gold, so it has more
> places for the bubbles to stick.  spike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf 
> Of Brian Lee
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:18 AM
> > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] akerue
> > 
> > 
> > Surface area should not affect water displacement. If both 
> > the crown and the 
> > lump were pure gold, it wouldn't matter the shape. I think 
> > it's more a 
> > matter of density and mass or something. Surface area comes 
> > into affect when 
> > dissolving solids into liquids but this wouldn't happen.
> > 
> > As for the air bubbles, I hope that Archimedes presented the 
> > king with some 
> > sort of margin of error (after he calmed down of course).
> > 
> > BAL
> > 
> > >From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> > >To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > >Subject: [extropy-chat] akerue
> > >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:39:14 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >King Heiron asked Archimedes if he could determine if
> > >his new crown were pure gold.  While bathing, he realized
> > >that the water he displaced would have the same mass as
> > >his body; therefore, he could measure the water displaced
> > >by the crown against that displaced by an equal amount
> > >of gold, determined that the king had indeed been
> > >defrauded by his jeweler, streaked, shouting eureka!
> > >and you know the story.
> > >
> > >But it occurred to me that a number of small, nearly invisible
> > >air bubbles may have adhered to the irregular surfaces of
> > >the crown, plus it likely had greater surface area than the
> > >pure lump of gold, thus making the crown displace more water
> > >than it would otherwise.  Archimedes might have been
> > >responsible for getting a possibly honest man executed.
> > >
> > >Akerue!
> > >
> > >spike
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >extropy-chat mailing list
> > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying 
> > the holidays.  
> > Get MSN Extra Storage!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Dec  5 01:16:35 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <3FCF5A6A.9070809@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
wrote:
> Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina's State
> Constitution
> "Disqualifications of office. The following persons
> shall be disqualified 
> for office: First, any person who shall deny the
> being of Almighty God."
> 
> Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina's State
> Constitution
> "No person shall be eligible to the office of
> Governor who denies the 
> existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
> 
> I checked and yes, this is accurate.
> 
> The states whose constitutions discriminate against
> atheists are 
> Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
> Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
> Tennessee, and Texas.  Maryland gets bonus points
> for apparently requiring 
> belief in an afterlife, hell, and a male God.
> 
> I think it's time for another federal Constitutional
> amendment.

Nope.  This was prohibited even before the First
Amendment came along - see Article VI of the
Constitution:

> no religious Test shall ever be required as a
> Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
> the United States.  

This applies at all levels of government - federal,
state, local, any any other.  See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=459&invol=116
for an example of state laws promoting religion
getting struck down for that reason.  Or see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488
for a more direct example of this kind of religious
requirement for public office being disqualified.

Someone needs to argue this in the courts.  See the
current case over the Pledge of Allegiance...which is
so legally open-and-shut, it's being won by a single
person representing himself despite massive
opposition.  There are times when the law is extremely
clear, and this is one of them.


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  5 03:14:40 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:14:40 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>

And rightly so! Atheists will never understand the true nature of the world,
as revealed for example at

http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html

Damien Broderick
[I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Dec  5 03:41:51 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:41:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
	<013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312042234310.-447703@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>



Yes, IMHO that's a prank. Why? Check out the store -
http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin/
most particularly the "Ruby Matrimony Thong"
http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin.3749749

That's just *gotta* be a joke! :)))

Regards,
MB



On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Damien Broderick wrote:


> http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html
>
> Damien Broderick
> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Dec  5 03:50:42 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:50:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
	<013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <007e01c3bae2$f4eb1c50$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>

> And rightly so! Atheists will never understand the true nature of the world,
> as revealed for example at
> 
> http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html
> 
> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]

It's a very good prank, indeed.  Go to the link just below ("Ministries Online Store").  "Ruby *Matrimony Thong*?"  "Hopsiah the Kanga-Jew Jr. Raglan?" "Mr. Gruff Atheist Witnessing Shirt?" 

http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin/

Then go here (now search for "Skeet" (the "Abstinence Czar!!!?))":  

http://objective.jesussave.us/members.html#PALEY

The tipoff is there's no method of contacting them (that I could decipher). 

Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031204/07cf5d07/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Dec  5 04:05:51 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:05:51 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
	<013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <00de01c3bae5$12c6c740$6400a8c0@brainiac>

One so-funny-it's-sad (or is it the other way around?) case was Herb
Silverman's, who was barred from becoming a *notary public* (perhaps the
lowest government position imaginable.  Sheesh...):

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w100396b.html

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/september95/notary.html

Olga








From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  5 04:35:51 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:35:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
	<013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
	<007e01c3bae2$f4eb1c50$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <017a01c3bae9$44b402a0$f2994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Olga Bourlin" <fauxever at sprynet.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:50 PM

>It's a very good prank, indeed.  Go to the link just below ("Ministries
Online Store").
http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin/

I especially like the

Irreducibly Complex Mousepad
$11.50

Damien Broderick



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Dec  5 05:17:46 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:17:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <007e01c3bae2$f4eb1c50$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <00bb01c3baef$21b92e00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Damien Broderick wrote,
> http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html
> 
> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]

This site is owned by "NOK NOK" of "IdeaFlood, Inc.", PO Box 11289, Zepher
Cove, NV 89448.  Their contact is noc at ideaflood.com.  Their phone number is
7755887862.  Their FAX number is 7755887823.   

They also send thousands of pornographic spam advertisements around the
world.  

A list of complaints about pornographic spam from <noc at ideaflood.com> can be
found by Googling newsgroups for "noc at ideaflood.com"
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=noc at ideaflood.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
&btnG=Google+Search>.  

The ideaflood.com site is blocked by most spam blockers.  Information about
the spamming from this site can be found by Googling "ideaflood.com"
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ideaflood.com&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr
=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Dec  5 06:10:52 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:10:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <003801c3baf6$89d16af0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> And rightly so! Atheists will never understand the true 
> nature of the world, as revealed for example at
> 
http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html

Damien Broderick
[I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]


Damien, it isn't a joke.  They are serious, even 
if it is absurd.  Trust me on this one pal, I know 
wherewithal.  spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Dec  5 06:33:00 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:33:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <00bb01c3baef$21b92e00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <003901c3baf9$a15e22f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

This is an interesting one.  The actual material in 
the website identified by Harvey is quoted and used
by creationists.  Now it appears it is a front for
a pornographic distributor.  This is just too good.  

I guess that would be an excellent place to hide
if one is a pornographer.  Clearly they have done
quite a bit of work to disguise themselves, to the
point of generating material that is actually used
by churchmen.  {8-]  

This is evidently satire, so well written it has 
actually been used by creationists.

spike

http://objective.jesussave.us/members.html#PALEY

Dr. Richard Paley

Dr. Richard Paley comes to our movement through his involvement in
fighting other forms of anti-Christian hatecrimes. He has lead
successful boycotts against Sears and Piggly-Wiggly and has spearheaded
the movement to stop Evolutionism from being forced on the children of
Marian County. His experience in dealing with secularism's desperate
grasp on power has proved invaluable as we move into the next phase of
our campaign. Dr. Paley teaches Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship
University.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Harvey Newstrom
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:18 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in 
> seven states
> 
> 
> Damien Broderick wrote,
> > http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html
> > 
> > [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]
> 
> This site is owned by "NOK NOK" of "IdeaFlood, Inc.", PO Box 
> 11289, Zepher
> Cove, NV 89448.  Their contact is noc at ideaflood.com.  Their 
> phone number is
> 7755887862.  Their FAX number is 7755887823.   
> 
> They also send thousands of pornographic spam advertisements 
> around the
> world.



From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Dec  5 12:15:42 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:15:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
Message-ID: <00d801c3bb29$81eaae40$4fcd5cd1@neptune>

I thought this might be relevant to the recent discussion of democracy
on this list.

Dan

'Demokratie. Der Gott, Der Keiner Ist'
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Translation of the preface to the just-published German edition
[Leipzig: Manuscriptum] of Democracy. The God That Failed.

****

It gives me great satisfaction and confidence to see my most recent book
published in Germany.

That is not quite as obvious as it may appear, for Germany is not a free
country. Not even freedom of speech exists in Germany. Here, whoever
publicly contradicts certain governmentally approved pronouncements will
be jailed, and whoever expresses "politically incorrect" ideas will be
neutralized and silenced.

For the rest of this story, see
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe9.html



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Dec  5 15:22:52 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:22:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
References: <20031205011635.25476.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
	<013e01c3bade$182cc880$f2994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031205152252.GY5783@leitl.org>

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:14:40PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> And rightly so! Atheists will never understand the true nature of the world,
> as revealed for example at
> 
> http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html

Is the site still up? I'm getting only a redirect to http://www.web1000.com/
It's either been pulled, or does geographically-aware redirect.

 
> Damien Broderick
> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]


-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/3e77c251/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 15:34:37 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
In-Reply-To: <00d801c3bb29$81eaae40$4fcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20031205153437.71663.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 'Demokratie. Der Gott, Der Keiner Ist'
> by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
> 
> Translation of the preface to the just-published German edition
> [Leipzig: Manuscriptum] of Democracy. The God That Failed.

"and the American mistreatment of German prisoners of war,"

I cannot speak for all POW camps here in the US, but can speak of one,
located in Stark, NH, an area with terrain very similar to southern
Germany. Prisoners spent the war logging, and were able to get to know
local residents well, so much so that after the war there were several
marriages between former prisoners and local girls. Former prisoners
still travel to NH from Germany to visit and have reunions, and a few
have immigrated to live in this area. I know of no similar experiences
by Americans held prisoner by Germans.

I also know that prisoners travelling by train were greeted at
trainstops across the US with lunches and refreshments made by locals,
while Americans held prisoner were starved as cattle by their German
captors, and only treated decently when the Red Cross showed up.

If all of Hans-Herman's writing is as inaccurate as this, then it is no
wonder that those who know the truth have little tolerance for him. He
is nothing but a neo-nazi revisionist, IMHO.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Dec  5 16:54:49 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:54:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eye implant may reverse blindness
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEALCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From BBC News: Scientists have described their first complete design of an
implant that will take the place of light-sensitive cells in the retina of a
damaged eye. Current implants use chips that convert light into electrical
impulses that are fed to the brain via the optic nerve. The new device will
work differently. It will be placed on a damaged retina and convert light
into chemicals that will stimulate nerve cells. The prototype is being
constructed at Stanford University in California. Dr Stacey Bent of Stanford
University calls the device "the holy grail of prostheses". It takes a new
approach to replacing a damaged retina, the layer of cells at the back of
the eye that detect light and send signals to the brain. Instead of using
electrical stimulation from a chip that converts light into electric
impulses, we are using an implant that releases neurotransmitters just as
the retina does naturally.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/139ebe74/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Dec  5 16:56:09 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:56:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parallel worlds
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEALCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Delaware Online: You could either feel awe-inspired or small, listening
to Max Tegmark's lecture at the University of Delaware on Wednesday
afternoon on the probability of the existence of parallel universes
mimicking or diverging from our own. Tegmark, a professor of physics and
astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania, discussed the multiverse (more
than one "uni-" verse) with a standing-room-only group of more than 50
budding physicists and assorted philosophy, biology and science majors at a
UD Department of Physics and Astronomy lecture. Of course, your reaction
depends upon your point of view.
Tegmark has published many articles about the subject in academic
periodicals and more mainstream magazines, including "Scientific American."
Born in Sweden, he earned a doctorate from the University of California at
Berkeley and post-doctorate degrees in Europe and at Princeton. According to
Tegmark, the most popular and simplest cosmological model today predicts
that there is another you not a short distance from us doing - exactly or
approximately, depending on those unpre- dictable quantum mechanics - what
you're doing now: eating breakfast, riding in a carpool, or wrinkling your
brow and rolling your eyes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/478c2bd3/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Dec  5 17:30:10 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:30:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Treating Cancer with Beams of Anti-Matter
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEAMCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Slashdot: According to this Economist article scientists at CERN are
using beams of antimatter to destroy cancer cells. The basic idea is that
you make some anti-protons, whizz them round in a accelerator to get them
moving at a decent rate then fire them at living tissue. They burrow down to
the desired depth, find a friendly proton and do a spot of mutual
anihilation, releasing sufficient energy in the process to kill a cell or
two. The trick is that matter/anti-matter anihilation is a bit like nuclear
fission, it does not work if the particles are moving too fast. The
anti-proton has to be moving slowly enough to get pulled into the orbit of
some atomic nucleus and actually collide. This allows the treatment to be
fine tuned so it only affects the tissues at a very specific depth - unlike
traditional therapies which zap everything in the line of fire.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/ad5fb13b/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 17:35:40 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
In-Reply-To: <20031205153437.71663.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031205173540.12627.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> If all of Hans-Herman's writing is as inaccurate as this, then it is
> no wonder that those who know the truth have little tolerance for
him.
> He is nothing but a neo-nazi revisionist, IMHO.

I need to revise this. ;)

Reading a bit more into Hoppes writing, I see that he is espousing
views in a manner that I see all too often amongst my libertarian
colleagues these days: a willingness to adopt historical disinformation
and propaganda produced by radical left and right groups as fact simply
to discard what is seen as the accepted version of history, without any
application of criticism and cross examination of these unorthodox and
in many cases clearly disprovable claims.

Just because history as written by the center may be inaccurate or
self-serving to the powers that be does not mean that claims by
holocaust deniers or neo-nazi sympathyzers, or former ACP members or
Maoists are any more accurate.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Dec  5 17:45:54 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:45:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parallel worlds
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEALCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <003501c3bb57$a20102f0$8cb21b97@administxl09yj>

A. J. Leggett, 2003 Nobel laureate, will give his lecture soon
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/2003/leggett-lecture.html

The text is not on-line, but I suppose it will be more or less like
www.nobel.se/physics/symposia/ncs-2001-1/leggett.pdf
after all he gave this lecture right there, in 2001!

He also wrote, i.e., in 'Foundations of Physics'
29 (3) 445-456, March 1999, "Some Thought-Experiments
Involving Macrosystems as Illustrations of Various
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics"
Abstract: 'I consider various experiments related to the so-called
"macroscopic quantum coherence" experiment, which are probably at 
present in the class of "thought" experiment but are likely to become 
realistic in the next few decades. I explore the way in which outcomes 
consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics would be 
interpreted by an adherent of, respectively, the Copenhagen, 
statistical, and Bohmian interpretations of the formalism.'

Now the interesting point (Leggett is not a manyworlder, or an
Everettista, but he likes those interpretations, and the original
statistical-ensemble interpretation by Einstein and Ballentine) 
is that he was able to show that also in this macro-world
there are physical, real, superpositional effects. So in that
very readable lecture (link above he was trying to attack the 
so called 'macro-realism' (if I remenber well).

In a certain sense there are physical parallel worlds, but they
all seem to be 'here'. After all this is the meaning of the word
uni-vers! 




From jonkc at att.net  Fri Dec  5 18:37:56 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:37:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Crippled Poliovirus To Attack Brain Cancer
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEAMCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <023801c3bb5e$ed07b0d0$30fe4d0c@hal2001>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205051621.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/071e79f2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Dec  5 19:56:52 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:56:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <20031205152252.GY5783@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <001301c3bb69$ed787300$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

The site is still coming up for me.  This is the link someone
sent me, a serious creationist.  At the time, reading
just this article, I did not recognize the site as a
parody.  I still cannot call it a joke, since it clearly
shows an intent to slay, as opposed to entertain.

http://objective.jesussave.us/slot.html

What this demonstrates is that creationism is its own parody,
like the world wrassling federation.  It is impossible
to lampoon something that resembles its own parody so
closely as to make the two indistinguishable.  {8^D

Clearly the author of this site put some real effort 
into it.

spike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Eugen Leitl
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:23 AM
> To: Damien Broderick; ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in 
> seven states
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:14:40PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > And rightly so! Atheists will never understand the true 
> nature of the world,
> > as revealed for example at
> > 
> > http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html
> 
> Is the site still up? I'm getting only a redirect to 
http://www.web1000.com/
It's either been pulled, or does geographically-aware redirect.

 
> Damien Broderick
> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be sure]



From hugh.crowther at esoterica.pt  Fri Dec  5 19:58:14 2003
From: hugh.crowther at esoterica.pt (Hugh Crowther)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:58:14 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Crippled Poliovirus To Attack Brain Cancer
In-Reply-To: <023801c3bb5e$ed07b0d0$30fe4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <BBF693D6.185D%hugh.crowther@esoterica.pt>

Set a thief to catch a thief.

To my mind, General Systems Theory, which rules us all, has a central theme
..... What goes around, comes around, figure that out before it surprises
you.

It?s very elegant, use a rhinovirus which has evolved to get across the
brain/blood barrier and caused possibly the most feared global epidemic, to
get where our drugs haven?t evolved to themselves.

Nice thought for the weekend.......
> 
> From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net>
> Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:37:56 -0500
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Crippled Poliovirus To Attack Brain Cancer
> 

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205051621.htm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/d9bd7698/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 20:44:40 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <001301c3bb69$ed787300$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031205204440.77357.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The site is still coming up for me.  

Me too. In fact, the index page gives this warning:
"October 26, 2003 -- We are hearing reports that foreign visitors to
our site are being redirected to electronic bookstores and people
offering to pay to take surveys. We are not affiliated with these sites
and advise you not to deal with them; they may be front organizations
for cults. Although our technical staff is still looking into this
issue, we strongly suspect that anti-Christian and anti-American
governmental agents outside the U.S. are trying to keep our message
from being heard in their lands. If you have suggested our site to a
foreigner and he says he can't get through to it, warn him that he and
his family are living under the scrutiny of an authoritarian regime and
are in immediate spiritual -- and possibly physical -- danger!"

The only signs I can find that this sight may be a parody are the
banner ads appearing at the bottom of the pages. On the slot.htm page
Spike cited, the banner adverstised "Clowns for Christ". Viewing the
index page, at the foot was an ad for Mimeistry, "Reaching the unsaved
through the power of mime." If only all evangelical christians tried to
reach the unsaved through silence, this world would be a much more
enjoyable place.... ;) I highly recommend that the Mimeistry get as
much support as we can give it....

The most entertaining banner ad was one that seemed to advertise a porn
site. Figuring that I might have happened onto the porn-spam that
Harvey claimed the host was involved in, I clicked through to find what
appared to be the entrance page to a porn site. Clicking further
resulted in a page telling me what a sinner I was for looking for porn
on the internet, etc. etc. etc. citing biblical verse and recommending
I see a counselor about my addiction to internet porn... What fun!



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  5 21:05:45 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:05:45 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <001301c3bb69$ed787300$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <011501c3bb73$8ec1bb00$82994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:56 PM

> At the time, reading
> just this article, I did not recognize the site as a
> parody.  I still cannot call it a joke, since it clearly
> shows an intent to slay, as opposed to entertain.

Paley, prof of Theobiology, is pretty obvious. But amazingly, I find this:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalIssue.aspx?pid=171&jiid=116

American Behavioral Scientist

Volume 45 Issue 12 - Publication Date: 08/2002

Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and Other Sciences for Deeper
Understanding

Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and other Sciences for Deeper
Understanding

The Authors

Introduction
Carole A. Rayburn, PhD, Lee J. Richmond

 Theobiology: Interfacing Theology and Science
Carole A. Rayburn, Lee J. Richmond

Nonreductive Physicalism and Soul: Finding Resonance Between Theology and
Neuroscience
Warren S. Brown, PhD

The Pyramids of Sciences and of Humanities: Implications for the Search of
Religious
Richard L. Gorsuch

Is Faith an Emotion? Faith as a Meaning Making Affective Process: An Example
>From Breast Cancer Patients
Johnny Ramirez-Johnson, Carlos Fayard, PhD, Carlos Garberoglio, Clara M.
Jorge Ramirez

Comments on Symposium: Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Psychology, and
Other Sciences for Deeper Understanding
Ralph W. Hood Jr

Beyond Equality
John S. Nixon

Theobiology and Gendered Spirituality
Sharon Kanis

Shamanism as Neurotheology and Evolutionary Psychology
Michael Winkelman

Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale in
India: Spirituality as a Universal Aspect of Human Experience
Ralph L. Peidmont, Mark M. Leach, PhD

When Science Meets Religion
Akira Otani

Matter, Divinity, and Number
Gregory N. Derry

==============

How far does this go? It reminds me of a mock university faculty in Biblical
Accountancy, invented by my friend John Bangsund, which probed such ancient
fiscal riddles as: `How Doth It Profit a Man to Gain the Whole World and
Lose his own Soul?'

Damien Broderick





From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 22:24:14 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poliovirus Attacks Cancer 
In-Reply-To: <00d801c3bb29$81eaae40$4fcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20031205222414.7633.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

While the juggernaut of scientific advance is quite
exciting on its own, the following struck me as
particularly heartening.  Worth a post.

Researchers Use Crippled Poliovirus to Attack Brain
Cancer 

http://dukemednews.org/global/print.php?context=%2Fnews%2Farticle.php&id=7273

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 22:41:35 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poliovirus Attacks Cancer 
In-Reply-To: <20031205222414.7633.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031205224135.75842.qmail@web41210.mail.yahoo.com>

Whoops! Posted without first checking this morning's
latest posts, where I see John Clark beat me to it.

Never mind.

Best, Jeff Davis

  "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!"
                        Louie Armstrong

--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Extropes,
> 
> While the juggernaut of scientific advance is quite
> exciting on its own, the following struck me as
> particularly heartening.  Worth a post.
> 
> Researchers Use Crippled Poliovirus to Attack Brain
> Cancer 
> 
>
http://dukemednews.org/global/print.php?context=%2Fnews%2Farticle.php&id=7273
> 
> Best, Jeff Davis
> 
>    "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
>                            Ray Charles
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 23:04:45 2003
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <011501c3bb73$8ec1bb00$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>

Hate to break it to you Damien but it's no joke. All the people listed on the site are real faculty members and scientists (although some ARE psychologists *wink*). Some of the people listed are actually fairly distinguished having won awards and such. What I want to know is why the rabid atheism on this list? Some of you go so far as to (as contradictory as it sounds) proselytize your atheism. Why? 
 
In my experience there are generally two types of religious folk. The first are the brainwashed sheep that send off their cash to any huckster with enough charisma to wave a 1000 year old book around in front of them and tell them they are doomed if they don't convert.
 
The second kind are very bright skeptical people that have examined the evidence thoroughly and made an informed decision that the universe is governed by a living rational force or entity. Usually these people are deeply spiritual although they tend to hold no stock in the traditional organized religions as they recognize these to be scams and tools of power on major scale. 
 
Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the second type: Newton,  Einstein, Bohr, Pascal, etc. This is because when you have a very high IQ you are good at seeing patterns of information. When you see so much pattern in the universe, so little of which can be explained by mere science, it engenders faith that there is SOMETHING out there calling the shots. 
 
The latest generations of cosmologists are trying to save our beloved theories of gravity from damning observations. They explain the inconsistencies in the motions of galaxies by invoking the deus ex machina of dark matter and dark energy which together are supposed to comprise some 95% of the mass of the universe. So if you are willing to BELIEVE that every tangible bit of matter and energy in the the universe that you can see with our best telescopes and detection equipment comprise a mere 5% of what's actually out there, then why can't you admit there might be room in the 95% of the universe you can't see for PROVIDENCE? Or do you prefer the deus ex machina to the DEUS VERITAS?     

Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spike" 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:56 PM

> At the time, reading
> just this article, I did not recognize the site as a
> parody. I still cannot call it a joke, since it clearly
> shows an intent to slay, as opposed to entertain.

Paley, prof of Theobiology, is pretty obvious. But amazingly, I find this:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalIssue.aspx?pid=171&jiid=116

American Behavioral Scientist

Volume 45 Issue 12 - Publication Date: 08/2002

Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and Other Sciences for Deeper
Understanding

Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and other Sciences for Deeper
Understanding

The Authors

Introduction
Carole A. Rayburn, PhD, Lee J. Richmond

Theobiology: Interfacing Theology and Science
Carole A. Rayburn, Lee J. Richmond

Nonreductive Physicalism and Soul: Finding Resonance Between Theology and
Neuroscience
Warren S. Brown, PhD

The Pyramids of Sciences and of Humanities: Implications for the Search of
Religious
Richard L. Gorsuch

Is Faith an Emotion? Faith as a Meaning Making Affective Process: An Example
>From Breast Cancer Patients
Johnny Ramirez-Johnson, Carlos Fayard, PhD, Carlos Garberoglio, Clara M.
Jorge Ramirez

Comments on Symposium: Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Psychology, and
Other Sciences for Deeper Understanding
Ralph W. Hood Jr

Beyond Equality
John S. Nixon

Theobiology and Gendered Spirituality
Sharon Kanis

Shamanism as Neurotheology and Evolutionary Psychology
Michael Winkelman

Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale in
India: Spirituality as a Universal Aspect of Human Experience
Ralph L. Peidmont, Mark M. Leach, PhD

When Science Meets Religion
Akira Otani

Matter, Divinity, and Number
Gregory N. Derry

==============

How far does this go? It reminds me of a mock university faculty in Biblical
Accountancy, invented by my friend John Bangsund, which probed such ancient
fiscal riddles as: `How Doth It Profit a Man to Gain the Whole World and
Lose his own Soul?'

Damien Broderick



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/e94e714a/attachment.html>

From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  5 23:34:18 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:34:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:04 PM

> Hate to break it to you Damien but it's no joke. All the people listed on
the site are real faculty members and scientists (although some ARE
psychologists *wink*).

`Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.

> Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the second
type: Newton,  Einstein, Bohr, Pascal, etc.

Bohr deplored religion, saying it was bad for people to believe lies.

Damien Broderick



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Dec  5 23:34:59 2003
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:34:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e201c3bb88$6da19c00$1602650a@int.veeco.com>

A very impressive set of pages, but sure looks like a (meta)joke to me.  The
clarity and consistency of the text speaks louder than the words themselves.

Here's a fun excerpt, found at
http://objective.jesussave.us/pastorscorner.html.


"Some have criticized my stance on triclavianism as being counterproductive,
arguing that making a point of doctrinal contention over not making a point
of doctrinal contention over adiaphora is itself non-salvific. However, my
critics are overlooking the dangers of triclavianistic doctrines: allowing
adiaphora to creep into our credenda -- while possibly pushing the
theologoumenic envelope and providing exciting new opportunities for
supererogative works -- will most often serve to muddy the soteriological
foundation of Faith, leading in general to ultramontane excesses and, in
extreme cases, ebaptization (which is unacceptable pastoral malpractice,
however rare it may be.) Doctrinal integrity, and hence salvific
effectiveness, is best served by working to end triclavianism and similar
erroneous, or simply adiaphoric, doctrines."

- Jef



---- Original Message ----
From: The Avantguardian

> Hate to break it to you Damien but it's no joke. All the people
> listed on the site are real faculty members and scientists (although
> some ARE psychologists *wink*). Some of the people listed are
> actually fairly distinguished having won awards and such. What I want
> to know is why the rabid atheism on this list? Some of you go so far
> as to (as contradictory as it sounds) proselytize your atheism. Why?
>
> In my experience there are generally two types of religious folk. The
> first are the brainwashed sheep that send off their cash to any
> huckster with enough charisma to wave a 1000 year old book around in
> front of them and tell them they are doomed if they don't convert.
>
> The second kind are very bright skeptical people that have examined
> the evidence thoroughly and made an informed decision that the
> universe is governed by a living rational force or entity. Usually
> these people are deeply spiritual although they tend to hold no stock
> in the traditional organized religions as they recognize these to be
> scams and tools of power on major scale.
>
> Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the
> second type: Newton,  Einstein, Bohr, Pascal, etc. This is because
> when you have a very high IQ you are good at seeing patterns of
> information. When you see so much pattern in the universe, so little
> of which can be explained by mere science, it engenders faith that
> there is SOMETHING out there calling the shots.
>
> The latest generations of cosmologists are trying to save our beloved
> theories of gravity from damning observations. They explain the
> inconsistencies in the motions of galaxies by invoking the deus ex
> machina of dark matter and dark energy which together are supposed to
> comprise some 95% of the mass of the universe. So if you are willing
> to BELIEVE that every tangible bit of matter and energy in the the
> universe that you can see with our best telescopes and detection
> equipment comprise a mere 5% of what's actually out there, then why
> can't you admit there might be room in the 95% of the universe you
> can't see for PROVIDENCE? Or do you prefer the deus ex machina to the
> DEUS VERITAS?
>
> Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Spike"
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:56 PM
>
>> At the time, reading
>> just this article, I did not recognize the site as a
>> parody. I still cannot call it a joke, since it clearly
>> shows an intent to slay, as opposed to entertain.
>
> Paley, prof of Theobiology, is pretty obvious. But amazingly, I find
> this:
>
> http://www.sagepub.com/journalIssue.aspx?pid=171&jiid=116
>
> American Behavioral Scientist
>
> Volume 45 Issue 12 - Publication Date: 08/2002
>
> Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and Other Sciences for
> Deeper Understanding
>
> Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Biology, and other Sciences for
> Deeper Understanding
>
> The Authors
>
> Introduction
> Carole A. Rayburn, PhD, Lee J. Richmond
>
> Theobiology: Interfacing Theol! ogy and Science
> Carole A. Rayburn, Lee J. Richmond
>
> Nonreductive Physicalism and Soul: Finding Resonance Between Theology
> and Neuroscience
> Warren S. Brown, PhD
>
> The Pyramids of Sciences and of Humanities: Implications for the
> Search of Religious
> Richard L. Gorsuch
>
> Is Faith an Emotion? Faith as a Meaning Making Affective Process: An
> Example
>> From Breast Cancer Patients
> Johnny Ramirez-Johnson, Carlos Fayard, PhD, Carlos Garberoglio, Clara
> M. Jorge Ramirez
>
> Comments on Symposium: Theobiology: Interfacing Theology, Psychology,
> and Other Sciences for Deeper Understanding
> Ralph W. Hood Jr
>
> Beyond Equality
> John S. Nixon
>
> Theobiology and Gendered Spirituality
> Sharon Kanis
>
> Shamanism as Neurotheology and Evolutionary Psychology
> Michael Winkelman
>
> Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale
> in India: Spirituality as a Universal Aspect of Human Experience
> Ralph L. Peidmont! , Mark M. Leach, PhD
>
> When Science Meets Religion
> Akira Otani
>
> Matter, Divinity, and Number
> Gregory N. Derry
>
> ==============
>
> How far does this go? It reminds me of a mock university faculty in
> Biblical Accountancy, invented by my friend John Bangsund, which
> probed such ancient fiscal riddles as: `How Doth It Profit a Man to
> Gain the Whole World and Lose his own Soul?'
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
> The Avantguardian
>
>
> "He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out
> over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident
> just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his
> mind."
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From thespike at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  5 23:54:10 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:54:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
	<00e201c3bb88$6da19c00$1602650a@int.veeco.com>
Message-ID: <01ce01c3bb8b$16a3fd00$82994a43@texas.net>

> Here's a fun excerpt, found at
> http://objective.jesussave.us/pastorscorner.html.
>
>
> "Some have criticized my stance on triclavianism as being
counterproductive,
> arguing that making a point of doctrinal contention over not making a
point
> of doctrinal contention over adiaphora is itself non-salvific. However, my
> critics are overlooking the dangers of triclavianistic doctrines: allowing
> adiaphora to creep into our credenda -- while possibly pushing the
> theologoumenic envelope

Do I scent a lapsed Seventh Day Adventist? This must be what Spike detected
in the parody site.

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 00:34:27 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031206003427.88715.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:04 PM
> 
> > Hate to break it to you Damien but it's no joke. All the people
> listed on
> the site are real faculty members and scientists (although some ARE
> psychologists *wink*).
> 
> `Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.
> 
> > Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the
> second
> type: Newton,  Einstein, Bohr, Pascal, etc.
> 
> Bohr deplored religion, saying it was bad for people to believe lies.

And Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." You can
say that makes him wrong twice... but it does not mean he was not
religious. I think Avant meant Bohm, who was also a believer and
advanced such concepts as the holographic mind. Even Sagan intimated a
belief of some sort in his novel Contact, of course I've never thought
much of Sagan in any event.

Now, Newton also believed in astrology, and many men who advanced
paradigm shattering theories were still very much prisoners of the
superstitions of their time in many ways, including Focault and
Descartes, Galileo and da Vinci. Just because they believed something
does not make it so or lend extra credence to such belief if they did
not demonstrate any supporting theory or objective evidence to explain
their belief.

However, Hawking has given some lectures that indicate that any
universe in which singularities exist are entirely capable of
supporting the existence of any deity under or beyond the sun.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Dec  6 00:54:00 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:54:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031205153437.71663.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <018301c3bb93$709f98c0$05ca5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, December 05, 2003 10:34 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
wrote:
>> 'Demokratie. Der Gott, Der Keiner Ist'
>> by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>>
>> Translation of the preface to the just-published German edition
>> [Leipzig: Manuscriptum] of Democracy. The God That Failed.
>
> "and the American mistreatment of
> German prisoners of war,"
>
> I cannot speak for all POW camps here
> in the US, but can speak of one, located
> in Stark, NH, an area with terrain very
>similar to southern Germany. Prisoners
> spent the war logging, and were able to
> get to know local residents well, so much
> so that after the war there were several
> marriages between former prisoners
> and local girls. Former prisoners still
> travel to NH from Germany to visit and
> have reunions, and a few have immigrated
> to live in this area. I know of no similar
> experiences by Americans held prisoner
> by Germans.

While I'm unfamiliar with this example, I do know of a few others who
had pretty good POW experiences, including the economist Hans Sennholz.
IIRC, Sennholz was a German fighter pilot and he was captured and
eventually came to see the US as perhaps the greatest country on the
planet because of its freedom.

I'm not so sure what Hoppe is getting at, though his preceding and
following statements in that paragraph ring true to me.

> I also know that prisoners travelling by train
> were greeted at trainstops across the US
> with lunches and refreshments made by
> locals, while Americans held prisoner were
> starved as cattle by their German captors,
> and only treated decently when the Red
> Cross showed up.

I don't think he mentioned anything about the German treatment of Allied
POWs.  I would suspect that Western Allied prisoner were treated much
better than those taken from the Soviets.

> If all of Hans-Herman's writing is as inaccurate
> as this, then it is no wonder that those who
> know the truth have little tolerance for him.

This is the usual tack you've taken with writings you disagree with.
(Not an insult but an observation.  You did the same with the article I
sent on privatizing fire departments.  You dismissed it because of one
thing you disagreed with in the abstract.  If I did likewise, my reading
list would be narrowed to nothing.:)  It might be better to read his
whole book -- which I have -- and see if any of it makes sense to you.
I've read it.  I don't agree with all of what he says and he does strike
me as a cultural conservative though a strict political anarchist and
also as a person who looks for shocking things to say.

> He is nothing but a neo-nazi revisionist, IMHO.

I disagree.  At least from what I've read of his work -- his book on
democracy and many published articles -- he's not pro-Nazi or neo-Nazi.
If anything, he's anti-Nazi.  He is, after all, anarcho-capitalist.
Though he only mentions Naziism one sentence of the English language
version of his book, he does not praise it.  (He blames WW1 and
democratization of Germany for putting the Nazis in power.)

Regards,

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html

"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never
want you to share yours with them." -- Dave Barry



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 00:50:32 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <20031205152252.GY5783@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031206005032.65022.qmail@web41201.mail.yahoo.com>

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:14:40PM -0600, Damien
> Broderick wrote:

> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be
> sure]

As distinguished from you *believe" it's a prank?

Greetings and best wishes to you and Barbara this
holiday season.  I hope youse guys are together again.

Jeff

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 01:09:25 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings;
	was Re: Atheists barred from office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <20031205152252.GY5783@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031206010925.70022.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com>

Whoops!  I wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:14:40PM -0600, Damien
> Broderick wrote:

> [I *think* it's a prank, but you can never be
> sure]

As distinguished from you *believe" it's a prank?

Greetings and best wishes to you and Barbara this
holiday season.  I hope youse guys are together again.

Jeff

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

The above was not meant for the list.  Forgot to paste
Damien's address into the "To:" line.  

Anyway, let me take this opportunity to wish all of
you on the list the beast this holiday season.  And
may we all enjoy ten thousand* more. 

*YMMV

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

Here's a little something for your amusement, which I
thought hilarious, and found at Ye Olde Rad Blog

http://radified.com/blog/archives/000051.html

"To work at some 'sensitive' industrial facilities,
you often have to take a psych test. I remember one
question on such a test. It asked: "If you could sneak
into a movie theater and knew for certain you wouldn't
get caught, would you do it?" I answered 'No' ..
thinking this was the obvious right answer. Not! 

They didn't like my answer and called me into the
office, where they told me they thought I was lying on
the test, specifically citing this question, saying
that a 'normal' person would answer 'Yes'. I said,
"Oh, I meant to say, 'Yes'". They said, "That's
better," and gave me the job."

Best, Jeff Davis

  Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
                          
                          Groucho Marx


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Dec  6 01:20:34 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:20:34 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
Message-ID: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

For some reason the exchange between Smalley and Drexler
reminded me of a story I read when studying research methods
in psychology years ago. I found the text book _Research Methods
In Psychology_ (1985. Shaughnessy and Zechmeisser) and include
the story below:

"Can The Null Hypothesis Ever Be Accepted As True?

When we take a strict approach to null hypothesis testing - that the
only acceptable decisions are to reject H0 or to fail to reject H0 -
we are essentially acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to
prove that something does not exist. For example -

if we were to propose that there was a monster in Lake Michigan,
you would be unable to prove to us that this was not so. Putting
ecological conditions aside for the moment, you might drain Lake
Michigan and show that no monster is there. We could simply assert
that the monster dug into the bed of the lake. You might then begin to
dredge the lake and still come up with no monster; we could argue
that our monster is digging faster than you are dredging. Becoming
more desperate, you might fill the lake with explosives, and after
detonating them, find no remains of the monster. We could calmly
propose that our monster is impervious to explosives. So long as
we were free to add characteristics to our monster, there is no test
that you could perform that would convincingly show that the monster
does not exist."

I disagree with those who think that Drexler is ahead on points in the
debate with Smalley unless points are awarded to Drexler because the
debate is now at least happening with more earnestness and engagement
than previously. I think it is encouraging that Smalley is inviting chemists
to challenge the molecular nanotechnology views and nightmares of
Drexler (as he Smalley claims to see them). Let the truth out, and more
to the point as it is politics that matters more than philosophy let more
of the voting public see more of the truth outed.

I suspect that I am not alone in not quite grasping all that Drexler has
said yet and possibly for similar reasons. I simply haven't had (or made)
the time to tease out the facts yet and I don't get impressed with what
MAY BE numerology however eruditely it is expressed - there are plenty
of other things to divert me. I own a hardcopy of Nanosystems and have
read several chapters of it. I'll confess my prejudice that I would be in a
minority
even on this list in having gone that far. I wonder how many others would
see
(accurately or otherwise - and POLITICALLY that DOES NOT MATTER
as the default is no or very little action in either case) Drexlerian
notions of
self replicating nanomachines as like the assertion that there is a monster
in
Lake Michigan in the story above. I wonder if others like me see the switch
from talking about enzymes in a biological paradigm (for which there are
existence proofs but limited ones) to taking about factories a mechanical
paradigm (for which we have no fully self-replicating existence proofs that
I
can see - human - biological intervention is necessary still for factories
to
replicate factories to my knowledge). I can't help wonder, even as I keep
an open mind, and am aware of my emotional bias towards molecular
manufacturing whether something isn't being dropped in the switch between
the two paradigms.

Regards,
Brett







From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 01:33:44 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Intelligence corellations was RE: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from
	office in seven states
In-Reply-To: <003901c3baf9$a15e22f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031206013344.26906.qmail@web41204.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> This is an interesting one.  The actual material in 
> the website identified by Harvey is quoted and used
> by creationists.  Now it appears it is a front for
> a pornographic distributor.  This is just too good. 

I have been wondering for some time now whether there
is any research to correlate 'intelligence' with
'various cultural parameters'.  For example religious
belief, with sub correlations to specific religions
and degrees of fundamentalism.  Or along political
lines: Repub, Dem, Liber, Green, Indep, Commie,
non-voter.  Or say, liberal vs conservative.  Or gay
vs straight.  Not to mention along gender lines.

I've googled in search of this data, but so far no
luck.  Any of y'all got any tips for me?

Clearly, such 'data' is controversial and subject to 
a high bogosity coefficient (cf The Bell Curve). 
Never the less, inquiring minds want to know.

Personally, I want this information for evil purposes.

Bwah, hah hah!
  
Best, Jeff Davis
 
"We call someone insane who does not believe as we do 
          to an outrageous extent."
                     Charles McCabe


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Dec  6 01:42:38 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:42:38 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <022301c3bb9a$3b5e4f60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Avantguardian wrote:

> when you have a very high IQ you are good at seeing patterns
> of information. When you see so much pattern in the universe,
> so little of which can be explained by mere science, it engenders
> faith that there is SOMETHING out there calling the shots. 

I don't think its high IQ that engenders that but low psychology. 

Intellectually little is gained by positing a something out there calling the
shots and then treating that something as a great unknowable black box
outside of and separate to the many other things that intelligent people
also don't know. 

I like Sagan's question on this point best. When considering arguments
of uncaused causes and positioning that the universe had or needed a
creator but that the creator didn't need a creator - "why not save a step"?

I think the low psychology rather than high IQ is the real cause. I think 
(and this is speculation I admit) that humans are simply wired with a very
strong propensity to anthropomorphise. Much of what we do and what
matters to homo saps happens in a social and political context and our
brains have developed to reflect that strong preoccupation. Seeing design
and intention and athropomorphising all over the place is easier and offers
the possibility of appeal when circumstances may otherwise seem hopeless.

I do not think the high IQ types were immune because of that from 
existential angst. Nor do see any reason why their existential angst should
be resolvable any better in the universe than that of the lowest meanest 
brute.

if you are willing to BELIEVE that every tangible bit of matter and 
energy in the the universe that you can see with our best telescopes
and detection equipment comprise a mere 5% of what's actually out
there, then why can't you admit there might be room in the 95% of 
the universe you can't see for PROVIDENCE? 
 
I can admit it but I am not interested in dwelling on it as the time is wasted
and there are better more useful things for good minds to be communicating
about. I see the turning toward religion and providence as quite natural, as 
natural as panic in the face of near certain oblivion and about as helpful.

Regards,
Brett






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031206/264dc79f/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Dec  6 01:53:12 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:53:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] think this will catch on?
In-Reply-To: <3FCCC059.7080701@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3FCCC059.7080701@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312052028320.-327413@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>


Ha. Here is something else I've not seen before. I
particularly enjoyed the description - it reminded me of the
Vespas in Italy during the 1950s. :))) They certainly
traveled in - not packs, but swarms!

http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/009696.php

I sure wish some of these new vehicles would make it into
the US - in a price range I could deal with! ;)

Regards,
MB



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 02:11:15 2003
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20031206021115.27700.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>



Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Avantguardian" 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:04 PM

`Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22fellowship+university%22&btnG=Google+Search

actually Google found 25,600 references to the phrase "fellowship university"

 

 

> Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the second
type: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Pascal, etc.

Bohr deplored religion, saying it was bad for people to believe lies.

Yeah he deplored "organized religion" just as I do. Don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating Christianity, Jehovah's Witness, Judaism, Islam or any other so called "religion". I am talking about a nameless spirtuality. A sense of oneness with the Universe. Besides if he didn't believe in SOMETHING then why did he have the "Yin and Yang" put on his family coat of arms when he was knighted by the queen of England? Yin and Yang are a several thousand year old Taoist religious symbol.



The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/1292b4c1/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Dec  6 02:18:00 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:18:00 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
	<01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312052104560.-327413@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>


Google doesn't know triclavianism either, except WRT these
pages we're discussing. Or others who are discussing them
too.

Neither does my Webster's dictionary know triclavianism. Nor
my Oxford, which is old.

I'll ask the priest I used to work for, maybe she would
know. :/ I kinda doubt it, though.

Regards,
MB

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Damien Broderick wrote:


>
> `Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  6 02:57:25 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:57:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031205153437.71663.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007401c3bba4$adf374b0$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

> I cannot speak for all POW camps here in the US, but can speak of one,
> located in Stark, NH, an area with terrain very similar to southern
> Germany. Prisoners spent the war logging, and were able to get to know
> local residents well, so much so that after the war there were several
> marriages between former prisoners and local girls. Former prisoners
> still travel to NH from Germany to visit and have reunions, and a few
> have immigrated to live in this area. I know of no similar experiences
> by Americans held prisoner by Germans.

Well, how sweet.  But how sad and ironic that in the United States at that
time we had a segregated army, and black men (particularly) risked their
lives sometimes even looking at "local girls" (... if those girls happened
to be white).

> I also know that prisoners travelling by train were greeted at
> trainstops across the US with lunches and refreshments made by locals ...

How very sweet.  But how sad that black citizens in many parts of the United
States couldn't go to restaurants (hotels, etc.).  And speaking of
refreshments - in veteran civil rights activist James Forman's book "The
Making of Black Revolutionaries," he details how he rather unwittingly found
out that the U.S. Army was more than simply segregated.  He was assigned to
the "white" Army for a time (because of a special duty he was asked to
perform), and in the "white" Army, much to his surprise, he was served ...
real eggs (whereas in the "black" Army he was used to being served powdered
eggs).

Just want to keep certain things in perspective, here ...

An aside on James Forman (who just turned 75, and is living in Washington,
D.C.) was that for a time his mother-in-law was Jessica Mitford (author, and
one of the famous "Mitford" sisters, one of whom - Diana - was a pal of none
other than Adolf Hitler's)
:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588457054.html).  Until
Jessica Mitford died, Forman would visit her whenever he got to Oakland,
California.  During a visit to Seattle in the mid 1990s my husband and I
were having breakfast with Forman, when he mentioned that he had just
visited his ex-mother-in-law.  I asked him "Who was she?  What does she do?"
(just the usual curious-type social questions)  Between mouthfuls of eggs
Forman said, "Jessica Mitford."  And continued eating.  (I had read "The
American Way of Death" as a teenager, and stopped eating my own eggs just
long enough to look around the restaurant and remember this little moment -
I took a "mental snapshot," you know?)

Forman was married to Jessica Mitford's daughter, Constancia Romilly, whose
father was Esmond Romilly, a nephew of Winston Churchill.

Churchill and Adolf Hitler and democracy and civil rights all in one little
uniquely American family.  Interesting, huh? (end of aside)

Olga








From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 03:00:25 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312052104560.-327413@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <20031206030025.97734.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

How about asking the host or the writer what these terms mean?

A google search turns up:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/021969.htm

Which says that triclavianism is the belief that christ was nailed to
the cross with just three nails, which for some reason is considered to
be some sort of heresy....

Urban legends also claims the site is a spoof with an extremely deadpan
sense of humor. What is also interesting is that the "Landover Baptist"
site that the Objective: Ministries site attacks is run by the same
spoofers. The Landover site is just a bit more of an obvious spoof.

Upon further research, apparently "First-century archeological evidence
points to three nails being the norm for crucifixion at the time (New
Bible Dictionary, Tyndale, 1982, page 253-254) although early church
art used four nails, switching to three nails around the 13th century."
http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/2003/06/a_quick_survey_.html

So it seems to be a very Swiftian sort of satire (note the Lilliputians
and their war over which side of the egg to crack open) to make an
issue out of how many nails a guy was nailed to a tree with.

Now, for those who are really atheist, you can further evangelize
atheism by promoting the triclavian debate. The more absurd you make
the christian theological world, the more people will give up on
religion and become atheists.

--- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> 
> Google doesn't know triclavianism either, except WRT these
> pages we're discussing. Or others who are discussing them
> too.
> 
> Neither does my Webster's dictionary know triclavianism. Nor
> my Oxford, which is old.
> 
> I'll ask the priest I used to work for, maybe she would
> know. :/ I kinda doubt it, though.
> 
> Regards,
> MB
> 
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > `Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 03:08:33 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
In-Reply-To: <007401c3bba4$adf374b0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20031206030833.70379.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote, continuing to prove she
is the queen of moral equivalency:
> 
> How very sweet.  But how sad that black citizens in many parts of the
> United
> States couldn't go to restaurants (hotels, etc.).  And speaking of
> refreshments - in veteran civil rights activist James Forman's book
> "The Making of Black Revolutionaries," he details how he rather
> unwittingly found out that the U.S. Army was more than simply
> segregated.  He was assigned to the "white" Army for a time
> (because of a special duty he was asked to perform), and in
> the "white" Army, much to his surprise, he was served ...
> real eggs (whereas in the "black" Army he was used to being served
> powdered eggs).
> 
> Just want to keep certain things in perspective, here ...

Oh WHAAAAAAAA  While black soldiers had to whine about getting powdered
eggs, Jews in Germany were getting exterminated, so put that
"perspective" in your pipe and smoke it. While blacks were getting
stuck in logistics jobs instead of being sent to the front to die (oh,
the horror), jewish prisoners were being worked to death building V-2
rockets in cave factories. While black soldiers were risking court
martial for refusing to load or unload dangerous munition cargoes from
ships, jews refusing to work were summarily shot. By the time several
dozen black airmen became subjects in the Tuskegee syphyllis
experiments, millions of jews had been exterminated in a national
experiment in racial engineering. Got enough apples for THAT perspective?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  6 03:28:00 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:28:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031206030833.70379.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <013701c3bba8$f3be4a20$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> --- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote, continuing to prove she
> is the queen of moral equivalency:

Nope.  I am not in any sense a monarchist.

> > How very sweet.  But how sad that black citizens in many parts of the
> > United> > States couldn't go to restaurants (hotels, etc.).  And
speaking of
> > refreshments - in veteran civil rights activist James Forman's book
> > "The Making of Black Revolutionaries," he details how he rather
> > unwittingly found out that the U.S. Army was more than simply
> > segregated.  He was assigned to the "white" Army for a time
> > (because of a special duty he was asked to perform), and in
> > the "white" Army, much to his surprise, he was served ...
> > real eggs (whereas in the "black" Army he was used to being served
> > powdered eggs).
> >
> > Just want to keep certain things in perspective, here ...
>
> Oh WHAAAAAAAA  While black soldiers had to whine about getting powdered
> eggs, Jews in Germany were getting exterminated, so put that
> "perspective" in your pipe and smoke it. While blacks were getting
> stuck in logistics jobs instead of being sent to the front to die (oh,
> the horror), jewish prisoners were being worked to death building V-2
> rockets in cave factories. While black soldiers were risking court
> martial for refusing to load or unload dangerous munition cargoes from
> ships, jews refusing to work were summarily shot. By the time several
> dozen black airmen became subjects in the Tuskegee syphyllis
> experiments, millions of jews had been exterminated in a national
> experiment in racial engineering. Got enough apples for THAT perspective?

I was comparing the way *German soldiers* were supposedly being treated vs.
the way some *"black" American citizens* (and "black" military personnel)
were being treated here.  But you are talking about how Jews were treated -
in Europe.  Speaking of apples (since you conveniently brought them up) -
why have have sidled over into the "oranges" perspective?  The way Jews were
treated in Europe in no way justified the way American citizens were treated
right here.  That is not to say Jews weren't treated horribly.  They were
(somewhat less horribly in the United States, and about as nighmarish
horribly as can be imagined during the reign of the Nazis in Europe).
That's another subject, and another (added) perspective.

Mike, why do you seem so hostile?  Can't we talk?

Olga




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  6 03:50:20 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:50:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheists barred from office in seven states
References: <00bb01c3baef$21b92e00$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <023901c3bbac$125dc4d0$6400a8c0@brainiac>


From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>

> This site is owned by "NOK NOK" of "IdeaFlood, Inc.", PO Box 11289, Zepher
> Cove, NV 89448.  Their contact is noc at ideaflood.com.  Their phone number
is
> 7755887862.  Their FAX number is 7755887823.
>
> They also send thousands of pornographic spam advertisements around the
> world.
>
> A list of complaints about pornographic spam from <noc at ideaflood.com> can
be
> found by Googling newsgroups for "noc at ideaflood.com"
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=noc at ideaflood.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
> &btnG=Google+Search>.
>
> The ideaflood.com site is blocked by most spam blockers.  Information
about
> the spamming from this site can be found by Googling "ideaflood.com"
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ideaflood.com&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr
> =&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.

Great detective work, Harvey!  (In other words, this is a booby trap!)

Here is another cousin, "for gifts that say 'I have much better taste than
you, dear.'"

http://www.cafeshops.com/bettybowers

Olga




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 03:57:55 2003
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <022301c3bb9a$3b5e4f60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20031206035755.32722.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com>



Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: 
Intellectually little is gained by positing a something out there calling the
shots and then treating that something as a great unknowable black box
outside of and separate to the many other things that intelligent people
also don't know. 
 
True I don't think anything intellectual is gained by the exercise. Although 
I don't think anything is lost either. Moreover, I wouldn't choose to treat it as a black box but rather a field open to exploration. There is an entire discipline called Theosophy which is dedicated to trying to understand the mind of that something.
 
I like Sagan's question on this point best. When considering arguments
of uncaused causes and positioning that the universe had or needed a
creator but that the creator didn't need a creator - "why not save a step"?
 
In my view the universe didn't need a creator because the universe IS the creator. Of course this view gets me in a lot of trouble with christian theologists (although not so much with the jewish ones) because it violates their dogma that heaven and God are separate from and and outside of the universe. Call me a heretic. *shrug* 
 
I think the low psychology rather than high IQ is the real cause. I think 
(and this is speculation I admit) that humans are simply wired with a very
strong propensity to anthropomorphise. Much of what we do and what
matters to homo saps happens in a social and political context and our
brains have developed to reflect that strong preoccupation. Seeing design
and intention and athropomorphising all over the place is easier and offers
the possibility of appeal when circumstances may otherwise seem hopeless.
 
This is actually a very good point. The question of whether the Universe created us in its image, or we interperate the Universe in ours is the Big Question after all. I choose the former out of simple humility. After all, if both life and consiousness are emergent properties of complex states of matter, how could I assume that I am more complex than the infinite Universe in which I am but the merest speck? And if the Universe is more complex than me, it would be sheer hubris on my part to assume that I am either more alive or intelligent than It is.
 
I do not think the high IQ types were immune because of that from 
existential angst. Nor do see any reason why their existential angst should
be resolvable any better in the universe than that of the lowest meanest 
brute.
 
I would posit that the high IQ types would be MORE prone to existensial angst since the lowest meanest brutes are too busy eating, boozing, and breeding to care.
 
 I see the turning toward religion and providence as quite natural, as 
natural as panic in the face of near certain oblivion and about as helpful.
 
I find it actually prevents panic allowing me to face life and death situations with calmness and serenity. That in turn usually allows me to successfully survive those situations (so far at least).
 
Cheers, :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/99508b6a/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 04:00:36 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:00:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
In-Reply-To: <013701c3bba8$f3be4a20$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20031206040036.66481.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Oh WHAAAAAAAA  While black soldiers had to whine about getting
> powdered
> > eggs, Jews in Germany were getting exterminated, so put that
> > "perspective" in your pipe and smoke it. While blacks were getting
> > stuck in logistics jobs instead of being sent to the front to die
> (oh,
> > the horror), jewish prisoners were being worked to death building
> V-2
> > rockets in cave factories. While black soldiers were risking court
> > martial for refusing to load or unload dangerous munition cargoes
> from
> > ships, jews refusing to work were summarily shot. By the time
> several
> > dozen black airmen became subjects in the Tuskegee syphyllis
> > experiments, millions of jews had been exterminated in a national
> > experiment in racial engineering. Got enough apples for THAT
> perspective?
> 
> I was comparing the way *German soldiers* were supposedly being
> treated vs.
> the way some *"black" American citizens* (and "black" military
> personnel)
> were being treated here.  But you are talking about how Jews were
> treated -
> in Europe.  Speaking of apples (since you conveniently brought them
> up) -
> why have have sidled over into the "oranges" perspective?  

I was comparing how one oppressed minority was treated in Germany with
how another was treated in the US. Apples and apples, dear.

> The way Jews were treated in Europe in no way justified the way
> American citizens were treated
> right here.  That is not to say Jews weren't treated horribly.  They
> were
> (somewhat less horribly in the United States, and about as nighmarish
> horribly as can be imagined during the reign of the Nazis in Europe).
> That's another subject, and another (added) perspective.

Dead is a bit more than 'being treated horribly'. Being treated
horribly is having your credit card refused or sitting in the back of
the bus.

> 
> Mike, why do you seem so hostile?  Can't we talk?

Sorry, its late, I've been very tired from nursing mom, and you know
that moral equivilancy arguments always tick me off, and of course part
of my family is jewish. I am reminded of an editorial cartoon I saw
last year depicting two al Qaeda/Taliban hiding in an afghani cave
highin the Hindu Kush, freezing their asses off and reading the al
Qaeda Times with a review of conditions for prisoners in the tropical
paradise of Guantanamo Bay, the reviewer says, "Too Breezy, no pillow
mints." To which the talibanis respond, "Barbarians!!!"

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Dec  6 04:07:36 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:07:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Intelligence correlations
In-Reply-To: <20031206013344.26906.qmail@web41204.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <003901c3baf9$a15e22f0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031205215941.025c6008@mail.comcast.net>

At 05:33 PM 12/5/2003 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

>I have been wondering for some time now whether there
>is any research to correlate 'intelligence' with
>'various cultural parameters'.  For example religious
>belief, with sub correlations to specific religions
>and degrees of fundamentalism.  Or along political
>lines: Repub, Dem, Liber, Green, Indep, Commie,
>non-voter.  Or say, liberal vs conservative.  Or gay
>vs straight.  Not to mention along gender lines.
>
>I've googled in search of this data, but so far no
>luck.  Any of y'all got any tips for me?

As you might expect, the higher the intelligence level, the harder it is to 
get a decent sample.

Myers-Briggs personality --

Overall population is (75% E,  25% I), (75% S, 25% N), (55% T, 45% F), (50% 
J, 50% P).

Mensa (1:50 IQ) came out at (27% E, 73% I), (10% S, 90% N), (75% T, 25% F), 
(75% J, 25% P) in a 1993 study.

The Triple Nine Society (1:1000) only had a couple dozen data points in an 
on-line poll.  Almost everyone was NT.  More I than E and slightly more J 
than P.

Triple Nine seems to be largely agnostics who are either libertarian or 
conservative but there are notable exceptions.  I suspect the connection is 
between personality and politics (libertarians usually being NT's) and 
between personality and intelligence, rather than directly between 
intelligence and politics.

By the way, it appears that people in the extropian community are pretty 
similar to Triple Nine in politics, intelligence, and personality.

Intelligence distribution of men vs. women *has* been extensively studied, 
and you should be able to find a lot of links.  You might start with Kevin 
Langdon, "Sex Differences in the Distribution of Mental Ability" ( 
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html ).

I'm not aware of any studies of gay vs. straight.  I would be skeptical, 
though, of how representative any gay sample would be of the overall gay 
population.

>Clearly, such 'data' is controversial and subject to
>a high bogosity coefficient (cf The Bell Curve).
>Never the less, inquiring minds want to know.

Have you actually read _The Bell Curve_?  I'm finally getting around to 
it.  The level of documentation and rigor for its assertions is far greater 
than its critics would have you believe.  It seems roughly on par with 
Thomas Sowell's best although not as much fun to read.  I do know that it 
is considered a credible work by people who are both skilled in 
psychometrics and members of high-IQ communities with 3 to 5 S.D. entrance 
requirements (that is, one-in-a-thousand to one-in-a-million).

The bogosity seems to be mostly in criticism by people who haven't actually 
read the book.  Much like what _More Guns, Less Crime_ received, for 
similar reasons.


-- David Lubkin.




From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  6 04:31:39 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:31:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com><01c301c3bb88$506a5c80$82994a43@texas.net>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312052104560.-327413@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <02a801c3bbb1$d989d440$82994a43@texas.net>

> `Fellowship University'? Google finds it not, not surprisingly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22fellowship+univ
ersity%22&btnG=Google+Search
>
> actually Google found 25,600 references to the phrase "fellowship
university"

Yes, endless references to Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship, University of
Florida, or InterVarsity Christian Fellowship - University of Delaware, or
Vaclav Havel Fellowship, University of Michigan. So? Not what I was talking
about. If you think it is, please post its location, address and url. (I
might be wrong, would like to know if I am.)

Damien Broderick




From thespike at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  6 05:11:52 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:11:52 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings
References: <20031206010925.70022.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02c701c3bbb7$78b457c0$82994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:09 PM

> Whoops!  I wrote:

> Greetings and best wishes to you and Barbara this
> holiday season.  I hope youse guys are together again.

Luckily the INS guys at the LAX gate kindly allowed me in once more, yes,
and this time I hope to be allowed to stay in my San Antonio home with my
Texan missus for a bit longer than previously.

And best wishes to youse-all extropes, too.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 05:37:19 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:37:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <01ce01c3bb8b$16a3fd00$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3bbbb$045f0380$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Do I scent a lapsed Seventh Day Adventist? This must be what 
> Spike detected in the parody site.
> 
> Damien Broderick

I see no hints of SDA, but rather many indications
of a Baptist who has become unborn again.

I have sold all my old theology text books so I will wing
this from memory.  I scanned several of the pages of the
site in question, and I must say it is an impressive 
piece of parody, not something that was put together in
two or three evenings.  The author demonstrates familiarity
with christian apologetics in several places.  She knows
the lingo and the lines of reasoning.

One of the clearest clues is found in the following comment:


...The Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God; everything that
He wanted us to know about Faith can be found in its pages. If He
remains silent on the issue of the number of nails used in the sacrifice
of His only begotten Son, then it is not for us to presume to make it a
point of contention...

The concept is very much a Baptist notion, that the
bible contains everything we *really need to know*
in order to be decent people.  This concept eventually
led to the absurd and reprehensible conclusion that 
slavery is evidently not a sin under all circumstances, 
since the bible mentions it in several places and 
doesn't actually say it is a sin.  In the
short new testament letter to Philemon (a christian 
leader and slave owner), Paul never clearly
spells out "Philemon, thou stupid twit!  
Slavery is a SIN!  Let Onesimus go!"

The Baptists were forced by their own assumption
about biblical ethical completeness to defend slavery,
which they shamelessly did until ninteeeeen niiiinty
fiiiiive, yes my friends, 1995.  Up to that time they 
actually published literature attempting to explain why 
slavery really wasn't a crime against humanity.  They 
weasled it around by saying that one of the Christ twins, 
either Jesus or Hoerkheimer, said "...render unto Caesar
that which is Caesar's..." which means we are morally 
obligated to obey the laws of the land.  Slavery wasn't 
actually illegal and therefore not a sin until Lincoln's 
emancipation proclamation of 1863.

The Baptists eventually acknowledged the utter absurdity
of the position and caved in, which actually introduced
a logical inconsistency into their own philosophical
foundations.  Of course they are not the first group to 
succumb to philosophical pressure.  Recall that poor 
Galileo was in hell by direct order from the pope
until quite recently.

Before we gloat to loudly, we must acknowledge that
even extropian philosophy contains logical tension.
For instance, it seems to me we have never fully come
to grips with the inherent contradictions of libertarianism,
such as the fact that there are three very different
breeds that all fall under the same banner: those that 
arrived at libertarianism from the left, those that arrived
from the right, and Amara, who arrived at libertarianism
from above.  {8-]

spike
 




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  6 05:41:37 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:41:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031206040036.66481.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c3bbbb$9def9af0$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
>
> --- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> > > Oh WHAAAAAAAA  While black soldiers had to whine about getting
> > powdered> > > eggs, Jews in Germany were getting exterminated, so put
that
> > > "perspective" in your pipe and smoke it. While blacks were getting
> > > stuck in logistics jobs instead of being sent to the front to die
> > (oh,> > > the horror), jewish prisoners were being worked to death
building
> > V-2> > > rockets in cave factories. While black soldiers were risking
court
> > > martial for refusing to load or unload dangerous munition cargoes
> > from> > > ships, jews refusing to work were summarily shot. By the time
> > several> > > dozen black airmen became subjects in the Tuskegee
syphyllis
> > > experiments, millions of jews had been exterminated in a national
> > > experiment in racial engineering. Got enough apples for THAT
> > perspective?
> >
> > I was comparing the way *German soldiers* were supposedly being
> > treated vs. > > the way some *"black" American citizens* (and "black"
military
> > personnel) > were being treated here.  But you are talking about how
Jews were
> > treated -> > in Europe.  Speaking of apples (since you conveniently
brought them
> > up) -> > why have have sidled over into the "oranges" perspective?
>
> I was comparing how one oppressed minority was treated in Germany with
> how another was treated in the US. Apples and apples, dear.

Wrong.  *You* started comparing the oppressed in Germany with the oppressed
in America, but (again) that was *not* my point.  The United States was
fighting *against* Germany.  Germany (here's the crucial difference) didn't
pretend to be the "land of the free."  U.S./democracy:  apples.
Germany/fascism:  oranges.

Of course, there was that incident with the ship St Louis, where the U.S.
wouldn't allow Jews fleeing the Nazis to disembark on our shores, but, again
... another interesting aside to the whole sorry saga:
http://www.ushmm.org/stlouis/story/voyage/

> > The way Jews were treated in Europe in no way justified the way
> > American citizens were treated > > right here.  That is not to say Jews
weren't treated horribly.  They > > were > > (somewhat less horribly in the
United States, and about as nighmarish > > horribly as can be imagined
during the reign of the Nazis in Europe).> > That's another subject, and
another (added) perspective.
>
> Dead is a bit more than 'being treated horribly'. Being treated
> horribly is having your credit card refused or sitting in the back of
> the bus.

You mean dead is worse than ...?  No kidding?  Well, thank you for this
eye-opening revelation.  (Who knows?  One of these days we may even hear you
come to the conclusion:  "Better red than dead."  On second thought
........... naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.)

But seriously, you are being naive, simplistic and intellectually dishonest
if you are implying (using your example) that "sitting [at] the back of the
bus" was about as bad as things got for "blacks" in America.  You know
better than that.  You don't score points for your case by soft peddling
cruelly real issues like the history of racism in America.

> > Mike, why do you seem so hostile?  Can't we talk?

> Sorry, it's late, I've been very tired from nursing mom, and you know
> that moral equivilancy arguments always tick me off, and of course part
> of my family is jewish.

Whether your family is part Jewish (or not) should have no bearing on your
empathy for people who are treated unfairly.   Or - am I the one who's
confused? - because I just can't help but think:  *Why* should that matter?

Good night, Sweet Prince ...

Olga





From hal at finney.org  Sat Dec  6 05:43:52 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:43:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
Message-ID: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>

Brett Paatsch writes:

> For some reason the exchange between Smalley and Drexler
> reminded me of a story I read when studying research methods
> in psychology years ago. I found the text book _Research Methods
> In Psychology_ (1985. Shaughnessy and Zechmeisser) and include
> the story below:

> "Can The Null Hypothesis Ever Be Accepted As True?

> When we take a strict approach to null hypothesis testing - that the
> only acceptable decisions are to reject H0 or to fail to reject H0 -
> we are essentially acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to
> prove that something does not exist.

I had a similar reaction.  Here is a posting I was working on about the
debate at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html:

One of the problems I often see in debates about nanotechnology is an
attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the other side.  (This is
actually a widespread problem in debates on all topics, but I think
it is particularly inappropriate with nanotech.)  In the online debate
between Drexler and Smalley, it seems sometimes that the issue is, "Are
the fat-finger and/or sticky-finger problems inherent to all possible
nanotech assembler designs?"  This puts the burden on the critic to show
that there are no possible designs which could evade a particular problem,
a virtually impossible task.

But that's not fair.  The big issue here is obvious: will Drexlerian
nanotech work?  Will we have the kind of revolutionary developments
described in Engines of Creation and Drexler's other books?  Will we
have self-replicating machines which can replace most of the world's
industrial capacity in a manner of, what, a few years? months? days?

These are extraordinary claims, and many experts in physics and chemistry
say that they are not credible.  The burden of proof here is obvious.
It is on the nanotech supporter, not the critic.  He is the one making
amazing predictions.  He is the one who must support his claims by
providing evidence in the form of technological plans and designs
sufficient to make a strong case that this will all be possible.

He can't just wave his hands and say, if one thing doesn't work, we'll
try something else.  He can't point to living things as an existence
proof (because Drexlerian nanotech's revolutionary properties go far
beyond anything possible with biology).  He needs to come up with
enough specifics to make his case.  The burden of proof is on him.
Supporters of Drexlerian nanotech must take on this burden squarely and
refrain from demands that critics prove that the technology is impossible.

Along these lines, let me ask a question.  In his open letter, Drexler
complains about Smalley's statement that assemblers will suffer from
the "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems.  He writes, "I find this
puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither
have nor need these 'Smalley fingers'."

So I will ask, what "proposed assemblers"?  What is Drexler referring
to, a proposal for an assembler that doesn't have these problems?
My understanding is that we lack any designs for self-replicating
assemblers that would be sufficiently detailed to know that they will
work and not need "fingers".  If Drexler has an assembler proposal that
answers this question, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

Hal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 05:50:07 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:50:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings
In-Reply-To: <02c701c3bbb7$78b457c0$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3bbbc$ce0cffb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> And best wishes to youse-all extropes, too.
> 
> Damien Broderick

We really must fix the flaw in English that the word 
meaning you is the same for singular and plural.
Various dialects have attempted patches, such as 
y'all, youse, you guys, you-uns, youse-all, youay, 
all yall, youse guys, and even the disrespectful-
sounding "you people."  We need a standard patch. 

Suggestions?

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 06:02:02 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:02:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ramano's bad luck with rotorcraft
In-Reply-To: <02c701c3bbb7$78b457c0$82994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000201c3bbbe$784c6a00$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


I propose a massive email campaign to michael Chrichton
to explain to him what *should* to happen to likeable
grinches.  They are supposed to have their heart grow
three sizes then get the strength of ten griches plus 
two, not have a flaming helicopter land upon them like 
Wile E. Coyote.  Good bad-guys aren't supposed to
meet with a hapless demise.  What is the matter with
that guy?

spike



From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Dec  6 08:28:29 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:28:29 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans and computers compete in virtual creature game
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEAMCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New Scientist: An online game that lets contestants build and race
virtual beasts is being used to pit humans against a variety of artificial
intelligence algorithms. The objective of Sodarace, which started at the end
of November, is to construct a two dimensional creature that can travel over
a certain type of terrain in the shortest possible time. Each creature is
constructed of "mass", muscles", "limbs" and "joints" which control the way
it moves. These creations can then be raced over a piece of terrain.
Creatures can have many limbs or none at all and can walk, wriggle or even
jump along.
It is relatively simple to construct a creature by hand. But the game has
been written so that a creature's key parameters can easily be fed into
another computer program and artificial intelligence (AI) programmers are
being invited to take part. So far, Sodarace has attracted thousands of
contestants from around the world. These include hobbyists and professional
AI researchers. In the first round, a human player was able to outwit
competing computer algorithms to develop the fastest creature.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031206/4c9269af/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Dec  6 08:52:53 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:52:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] White House is hoping to renew space intrigue
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEAMCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the International Herald Tribune: The Bush administration is developing
a new strategy for the U.S. space program that would send American
astronauts back to the moon for the first time in more than 30 years,
according to administration and congressional officials who said the plan
also included a manned mission to Mars. A lunar mission - possibly
establishing a permanent base there - is the focus of high-level White House
discussions on how to reinvigorate the space program following the space
shuttle Columbia accident this year, said the officials, who spoke on
condition of anonymity. NASA, along with other agencies, has been providing
the administration with information about these long-term objectives," said
Robert Jacobs, a spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
NASA officials met in Washington this week as part of a national space
policy review prompted by the Columbia disaster, which killed all seven
astronauts aboard. While officials stressed that the White House had yet to
sign off on a specific plan, they said President George W. Bush was expected
soon to unveil a strategy that would include manned missions to the moon and
to Mars. The idea is to motivate NASA engineers and researchers by aiming to
explore deeper reaches of space than the current shuttle fleet is capable of
visiting. Vice President Dick Cheney recently met with members of Congress
to discuss the proposals, the officials said.
NASA officials and space specialists increasingly believe that recent
American human space flight activities - particularly the delayed and costly
construction of the International Space Station - do not push the envelope
enough to motivate researchers and engineers or spark the kind of public
fascination with space that was generated by the first missions to the moon.
A challenge to go back to the moon and reinvigorate the space flight program
would be welcomed by the public.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031206/41366813/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Dec  6 12:20:08 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:20:08 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings
References: <000001c3bbbc$ce0cffb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <039e01c3bbf3$49eb24a0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Spike wrote:
> 
> > And best wishes to youse-all extropes, too.
> > 
> > Damien Broderick
> 
> We really must fix the flaw in English that the word 
> meaning you is the same for singular and plural.
> Various dialects have attempted patches, such as 
> y'all, youse, you guys, you-uns, youse-all, youay, 
> all yall, youse guys, and even the disrespectful-
> sounding "you people."  We need a standard patch. 
> 
> Suggestions?

Use ewes?

Brett Paatsch (surname "patch" in standard 'Australian')



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 15:12:57 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DRUG: Coke/X cause mutations
Message-ID: <20031206151257.46875.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031205/sc_nm/health_cocaine_dna_dc_4

Italian researchers have concluded a three year study with results
showing that use of drugs like cocaine and excstasy cause mutations in
subjects DNA.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 15:57:57 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings
In-Reply-To: <039e01c3bbf3$49eb24a0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20031206155757.47656.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> > 
> > > And best wishes to youse-all extropes, too.
> > > 
> > > Damien Broderick
> > 
> > We really must fix the flaw in English that the word 
> > meaning you is the same for singular and plural.
> > Various dialects have attempted patches, such as 
> > y'all, youse, you guys, you-uns, youse-all, youay, 
> > all yall, youse guys, and even the disrespectful-
> > sounding "you people."  We need a standard patch. 
> > 
> > Suggestions?
> 
> Use ewes?

Yoots (also useful in referring to youths in inner city settings).

I'll note that the French have 'tu' for the singular and 'vous' for the
plural (as best I recall). Y'all does seem to be spreading with the
popularity of country music, so it may wind up becoming the default
choice, especially as it is most phonetically efficient. I hear it more
often with the folks in northern new england these days, and yankees
love phonetic efficiency, as evinced by our lack of 'r's.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Dec  6 16:15:22 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:15:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031206040036.66481.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<004b01c3bbbb$9def9af0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <00be01c3bc14$276f9de0$07ce5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:41 AM Olga Bourlin
fauxever at sprynet.com wrote:
> Wrong.  *You* started comparing the oppressed
> in Germany with the oppressed in America, but
> (again) that was *not* my point.  The United
> States was fighting *against* Germany.
> Germany (here's the crucial difference) didn't
> pretend to be the "land of the free."  U.S./
> democracy:  apples. Germany/fascism:  oranges.

While this is correct, one should also remember that the Nazi period was
only 12 years.  Before the Nazis, Jews were a considerable large
minority in Germany, Austria, and many other Central and Eastern
European countries.  (Of course, many Jews did migrate to the West and
to Israel, but, IIRC, a large percentage were killed by the Nazis and
their henchmen -- among other groups they tried to wipe out, such as
White Russians, and Poles.)

> Of course, there was that incident with the ship
> St Louis, where the U.S. wouldn't allow Jews
> fleeing the Nazis to disembark on our shores,
> but, again ... another interesting aside to the
> whole sorry saga:
> http://www.ushmm.org/stlouis/story/voyage/

A shameful episode.

> But seriously, you are being naive, simplistic
> and intellectually dishonest if you are implying
> (using your example) that "sitting [at] the back
> of the bus" was about as bad as things got
> for "blacks" in America.  You know better
> than that.  You don't score points for your
> case by soft peddling cruelly real issues like
> the history of racism in America.

As long as you're alive, you can live to fight or be free another day.
However, many Blacks were lynched.  However, this was nothing like the
mass killings of Jews and other groups by the Nazis and their allies.

> Whether your family is part Jewish (or not) should
> have no bearing on your empathy for people who
> are treated unfairly.   Or - am I the one who's
> confused? - because I just can't help but think:
> *Why* should that matter?

It should NOT matter in the moral or cognitive sense, but it does matter
emotionally.  Humans naturally band together into groups and show more
empathy for those they can identify with.  I'm not saying this is right
or wrong, but it is what happens.

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorks.html

"You will never find anybody who can give you a clear and compelling
reason why we observe daylight savings time." -- Dave Barry



From scerir at libero.it  Sat Dec  6 17:50:45 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:50:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! and holiday greetings
References: <20031206155757.47656.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir>

"Mike Lorrey" 
> I'll note that the French have 'tu' for the singular and 'vous' for the
> plural (as best I recall)

We also use "tu" for the singular,
and "voi" for the plural. But,
during fascism they used "voi" plural, 
instead of "tu", for the singular too,
because it was more robust, solemn. 
Still now you can find somebody saying
"voi", for the singular. For the
same reason "voi", for the singular,
was/is strongly forbidden, among
leftists. But we also use, instead
of "tu" (singular), "lei" or "ella"
(singular) when the situation is formal
(in theory "lei" and "ella" is a third
person, singular) and you want to put
some distance between you and the other.

Less difficult to understand is 
questo = this (close to me)
quello = that (far from me)
codesto = ??? (far from me, close to you)

Sanin
s.

    



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 17:55:29 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:55:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir>
Message-ID: <001001c3bc22$23044c20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mills/index.h
tml


Why didnt we think of this before?

spike



From jonkc at att.net  Sat Dec  6 18:17:06 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:17:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>

"Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>

>  it is impossible to  prove that something does not exist.

That's not quite true; you can prove that the largest prime number does not
exist for example. A perpetual motion machine can not exist either if the
law of conservation of energy is true and to deny that would put one
squarely in the junk science camp. Likewise if it could be shown that for
Drexler's assemblers to work you'd need to move faster than light, violate
the conservation of momentum law,  place things with more precision than
Heisenberg allows, or violate the second law of thermodynamics then it would
be safe to dismiss the entire idea as nonsense; but nobody has come close to
doing that.  I also disagree that life is not a pretty good existence proof
of the idea, it's true Drexler's machines can do more but that's what you'd
expect, all else being equal intelligent design will always beat random
mutation and natural selection. Of course we will not know with absolute
certainty that Drexler was correct until an assembler is actually built, and
that should be about 20 minutes before the singularity.

  John K Clark     jonkc at att.net






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 18:24:24 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <001001c3bc22$23044c20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031206182424.53474.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mills/index.h
> tml
> 
> 
> Why didnt we think of this before?

Actually, I think Rachel started the project on the Free State forums.
She's a great gal, and expect more coming.

In June, we will be having the "Porc-Fest", a festival in the Free
State, for Porcupines (FSP members) and prospective members from
elsewhere in the country to visit, get to know NH, attend libertarian
seminars, take bus and car tours of the state, focusing on real estate
and communities of particular note to libertarians planning to move
here, and get to know a lot more fellow members. We will have
entertainment as well, which may include some well known libertarian
entertainers. Recreational opportunities include hiking, fishing,
kayaking, shooting, rock climbing, boating, biking, and much more.
Planning is currently underway, so expect more details in a few months.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  6 19:13:51 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:13:51 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Trouble With Democracy
References: <20031206040036.66481.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com><004b01c3bbbb$9def9af0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
	<00be01c3bc14$276f9de0$07ce5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <003201c3bc2d$16929040$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
> On Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:41 AM Olga Bourlin
> fauxever at sprynet.com wrote:

> > Of course, there was that incident with the ship
> > St Louis, where the U.S. wouldn't allow Jews
> > fleeing the Nazis to disembark on our shores,
> > but, again ... another interesting aside to the
> > whole sorry saga:
> > http://www.ushmm.org/stlouis/story/voyage/
>
> A shameful episode.

But not all that surprising, was it?  Gregory Peck starred in a movie (mid
1940s if memory serves) called "Gentlemen's Agreement" (a Jewish variation
on the "Black Like Me" plot of the late 1950s/early 1960s) where the plot
involved pretending to be Jewish, for the sake of journalistic research.
Ooooh ... and the nasty goings on he discovered,  tsk, tsk, tsk.  That
movie - almost a decade *after* this St Louis incident - was about as
provocative as pabulum, but it was supposed to be groundbreaking for its
time (just as the namby-pamby "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" was considered
oh-so-controversial in the late 1960s).

> > But seriously, you are being naive, simplistic
> > and intellectually dishonest if you are implying
> > (using your example) that "sitting [at] the back
> > of the bus" was about as bad as things got
> > for "blacks" in America.  You know better
> > than that.  You don't score points for your
> > case by soft peddling cruelly real issues like
> > the history of racism in America.
>
> As long as you're alive, you can live to fight or be free another day.
> However, many Blacks were lynched.

Yes.

 However, this was nothing like the
> mass killings of Jews and other groups by the Nazis and their allies.

We cannot justify slapping kids around in America by saying, "However, this
is nothing like the mass limb amputations by machetes performed on thousands
of children in Sierra Leone ..."

We cannot condone spousal abuse here by saying, "However, this is nothing
like the public floggings of Iranians prescribed by Shari'a (an Islamic law)
..."

We cannot excuse religious intolerance in our country by saying, "However,
this is nothing like the suffering people have undergone under the Taliban
..."

I never intimated that Jews who were caught by the Nazis suffered any more
or less than American "blacks."  Whether they did or not is irrelevant and
immaterial, as I was pointing out the racism in America during and after
WWII for this discussion.  My comment was fostered when the discussion
turned to a comparison about how well some German prisoners during WWII in
America were treated by some of our good-hearted citizens.

Of course, an apples-to-apples comparison could be made insofar as Jews in
America at that time.  Jews, like "blacks" in America, also experienced some
housing discrimination, job discrimination, being barred from "exclusive"
WASP golf club memberships and the like, but at least they could drink out
of "white" drinking fountains, marry other "whites," be "movie stars," and
generally be a part of  whatever was American society at that time (you
know, those years so many white Americans remember nostalgically as "the
good old days").

> > Whether your family is part Jewish (or not) should
> > have no bearing on your empathy for people who
> > are treated unfairly.   Or - am I the one who's
> > confused? - because I just can't help but think:
> > *Why* should that matter?
>
> It should NOT matter in the moral or cognitive sense, but it does matter
> emotionally.  Humans naturally band together into groups and show more
> empathy for those they can identify with.  I'm not saying this is right
> or wrong, but it is what happens.

Another aside:  it seems like if given half a chance, those once
discriminated against can turn out to be the oppressors (look at Israel).

Due to my upbringing (too many countries in so little time), I must have
lost out on the lessons of my tribe.  I can distinguish between people I
personally like and don't like (yet feel a compassion for  humans in general
because, after all, we are doomed to die ...).  I can try to distinguish
between just and unjust laws.  But I've not had any particularly special
feeling about my ancestral "group."  I do have a fondness for Russian
cuisine, but my palate - just as my current ethnic "grouping" - has broken
out of the boundaries of Slavdom (slavedom? - interesting ...).   Vive le
difference, I say.

Olga




From scerir at libero.it  Sat Dec  6 19:44:20 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:44:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] old toys for N-mas
References: <001001c3bc22$23044c20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000401c3bc31$779b6d40$f0c7fea9@scerir>

Newtonmas is close.
FAO Schwarz, the 'ultimate' toy store
http://www.faoschwarz.com/default.cfm
isn't in good (financial) shape.
Let us turn to everlasting items.

Hero's Fountain

-reality
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Heros_Fountain/Heros_Fountai
n.html

-theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310039


The Drinking Bird

-reality
http://www.backstreet.demon.co.uk/oddstuff/drinkingbirds/drinkingbirds.htm

-theory
http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did15.pdf
http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did14.pdf


The Cartesian Diver

-reality
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Cartesian_Diver/Cartesian_Di
ver.html

-theory
http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did13.pdf
http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did8.pdf

-philosophy
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/CI241-science-Sp95/resources/philoToy/philoTo
y.html




From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Dec  6 19:58:01 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:58:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20031206195800.GC5783@leitl.org>

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:43:52PM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:

> I had a similar reaction.  Here is a posting I was working on about the
> debate at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html:

I have an unfinished post sitting in my postponed queue, which 
(quite rudely) interleaves in the Drexler/Smalley exchange.
 
> One of the problems I often see in debates about nanotechnology is an
> attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the other side.  (This is
> actually a widespread problem in debates on all topics, but I think
> it is particularly inappropriate with nanotech.)  In the online debate
> between Drexler and Smalley, it seems sometimes that the issue is, "Are
> the fat-finger and/or sticky-finger problems inherent to all possible
> nanotech assembler designs?"  This puts the burden on the critic to show
> that there are no possible designs which could evade a particular problem,
> a virtually impossible task.

The problem with Smalley that his critique is limited to a few off the
cuff statements he's unwilling or unable to expand. We've had heard
these same points before (in fact, I used very similiar points once,
from a pure synthetic chemist's point of view), whereas the machine-phase
approach has meanwhile resulted in considerable number of publications. 
 
> But that's not fair.  The big issue here is obvious: will Drexlerian
> nanotech work?  Will we have the kind of revolutionary developments
> described in Engines of Creation and Drexler's other books?  Will we
> have self-replicating machines which can replace most of the world's
> industrial capacity in a manner of, what, a few years? months? days?
> 
> These are extraordinary claims, and many experts in physics and chemistry
> say that they are not credible.  The burden of proof here is obvious.
> It is on the nanotech supporter, not the critic.  He is the one making
> amazing predictions.  He is the one who must support his claims by
> providing evidence in the form of technological plans and designs
> sufficient to make a strong case that this will all be possible.

The Bush administration has just approved a major spending package
for R&D in nanotechnology, machine-phase being notably exempt from
the plan. Now this is not very nice.

What would be sufficient as a burden of proof? We already have
evidence of machine-phase in manipulative proximal probe. There are
no simulators large and precise enough to contain a full design.

In a sense, the only hard proof will be a working assembler itself,
or something with a self-rep closure so close to unity it doesn't
require a leap of faith to go over unity, and to scale down the
design.

Where will money for this come from? Smalley is blocking R&D
in that development quite efficiently by using essentially arguments
from authority. This is not a laid-back ivory tower discussion.
This is political science, with R&D budget and long-term policy
being at stake.
 
> He can't just wave his hands and say, if one thing doesn't work, we'll
> try something else.  He can't point to living things as an existence

Actually, yes, because there are several approaches in design space.
Just because one aspect has been invalidated (I personally expect
crosslinked polymer as structure bulk, not diamond nor graphenes;
and possibly sorting of precursors from a stochastical synthetic batch,
along with microfluidics functionalization, self-assembly *and* machine
phase as the most viable approach) it doesn't mean the whole thing
is a no-go.

> proof (because Drexlerian nanotech's revolutionary properties go far
> beyond anything possible with biology).  He needs to come up with

Not really, enzymes (and enzyme assemblies) plus active transport
within the cell do fall within mechanosynthesis domain. The reactive
site in an enzyme does resemble processes occuring at the tip, albeit
minus some aspects (substrate recognition and envelopment,
bond weakening before breakage). 

> enough specifics to make his case.  The burden of proof is on him.
> Supporters of Drexlerian nanotech must take on this burden squarely and
> refrain from demands that critics prove that the technology is impossible.

It's still perfectly valid to call bogus arguments that, I hope.
 
> Along these lines, let me ask a question.  In his open letter, Drexler
> complains about Smalley's statement that assemblers will suffer from
> the "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems.  He writes, "I find this

Fat fingers is a perfectly valid point, though stated in dumbed-down
language. There's steric hindrance from the side of plane substrate,
and tool tips coming from other space quadrants (to be stiff, they need to
be bulky). How many tool tips need to be simultaneously present, though?
It's not obvious we need more than one, or two. I don't like cycles,
even if it's driven at resonance, but you don't really need cycles. A SWNT
can continuously extrude an allene strand, and polymerize this linear
monomer with a minimal-amplitude tooltip oscillation. This is a continuous, 
one-tip deposition. Where are the fat fingers here? This is the same
thing as bucky-tipped AFM head, and you know the resolution of that.
You can buy these tools, and they resolve deep crevices at atomic resolution.

Now sticky fingers are a red herring, because no one is proposing
to handle naked reactive monoatomics. It's perfectly possible to drag
and position e.g. Xe on Ni at cryogenic UHV conditions precisely because
Xe sticks to the STM tip. Cycled deposition doesn't deposit atoms
directly, only formally so. You don't need a methyl radical to methylate
Hg with Acetyl CoA. It's a cycle activate-deposit-regenerate, and it's
all perfectly vanilla chemistry in-between, except it's all dry and
extremely controlled.

> puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither
> have nor need these 'Smalley fingers'."
> 
> So I will ask, what "proposed assemblers"?  What is Drexler referring
> to, a proposal for an assembler that doesn't have these problems?

I presume he refers to mechanosynthetic reaction set, and these reactions
indeed do not require Smalley fingers. Apart from Merkle's stuff, you'll 
see interesting hits for mechanosynthesis on Google.

Now these are theoretic cycles, but they do use classic chemistry
assumptions and calculations to back them up. I agree fundamentally
that the set of these reactions the critical part of the proposed
classical (you don't need a true assembler for a number of applications) 
assembler.

> My understanding is that we lack any designs for self-replicating
> assemblers that would be sufficiently detailed to know that they will
> work and not need "fingers".  If Drexler has an assembler proposal that

Self-assembly doesn't need any fingers, and Drexler/Merkle stuff is limited
to a few tooltips, so I wouldn't get too worked up about what Smalley
says.

> answers this question, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

Ultimatively, the best proof is to try designing your own. For the
most part, it's currently all about modelling and software engineering.

The bootstrap issue is not orthogonal to the design, but fund allocation
is critically dependant on a killer demo, and if it's only in the virtual
dry dock.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031206/4dca73b8/attachment.bin>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 21:12:10 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:12:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <000401c3bc31$779b6d40$f0c7fea9@scerir>
Message-ID: <000901c3bc3d$9ce64730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

This is why I read at least two different news sources:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/06/afghan.blast/index.h
tml


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105037,00.html





From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Dec  6 23:28:05 2003
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:28:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ACTION: ERIC DREXLER's Message to ExI
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031206152400.0212d260@pop.earthlink.net>

I am forwarding the below message from Eric Drexler:
_______________________________________________________

"Nobel chemist Richard Smalley has responded to my longstanding
challenge to defend the controversial direction of U.S. policy in
nanotechnology, which excludes work on molecular manufacturing. This
event -- and the press coverage now building -- offer an opportunity to
change the flawed course of the field.

The revolutionary promise of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) has
become a part of society's expectations for the future. This technology
will provide nanomedicine breakthroughs that could cure cancer and
extend lifespace, bring abundance without environmental harm and
provide clean sources of energy. These ideas are part of the vision that
launched the field of nanotechnology.

So the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is, of course,
plotting an aggressive course toward MNT -- isn't it?
Massive research funds are flowing to groups pursing competing approaches,
and researchers are touting their results as steps toward the goal...right?

The reality is starkly different. NNI research programs support a host of
valuable projects yet exclude work explicitly directed toward MNT. In
an effort to distance the field from fears that might threaten funding, the
leading NNI spokesman, Richard Smalley, has declared that molecular
assemblers are impossible. This stance has opened a vast gap between
perception and reality, creating a world in which students interested in
pursuing MNT research lack sponsorship, while lab groups and start-up
companies working toward MNT goals must hide their intentions. By
falsely declaring molecular assembly technology to be impossible,
detractors have associated it with warp drives in official circles and
relegated it to fringe status.

Fortunately, this erroneous situation is beginning to change, in part
because the extended Foresight community refuses to let this important
issue be dismissed. We now have a unique opportunity to seize the
momentum. Richard Smalley has responded to my challenge, and the
ensuing exchange -- the Dec. 1 cover story of the American Chemical
Society's magazine, Chemical & Engineering News -- may mark a
tipping point, but only if it is seen -- and properly understood -- by a
wider audience, and if it is properly translated into action.

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

1)  I urge you to read the Foresight press release
<http://www.foresight.org/press.html> and the full exchange
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html>, and
then consider what part you can play in adding to the momentum. The
detractors of MNT have shown the power of disinformation; it's time
they saw what well-informed people can do. Some suggestions:

2)  Speak up: make others aware of what's going on. Forward the
press release and the exchange. Write a letter to the editor of
your favorite publication, attaching these materials and
requesting coverage of this important issue. Write policy makers
about your concerns. Raise issues and answer naysayers though
message boards and blogs. Show the opposition our numbers and
  knowledge.

3)  Elevate the debate: shift the discussion on molecular assemblers and
molecular manufacturing from rhetoric and metaphors to science and
  research. Demand proof from those dismissing the accomplishments
  to date. Give someone influential a copy of Nanosystems (Chapters
  1 and 2 are on the web  <http://www.foresight.org/Nanosystems/toc.html>).
Refer them to the work of Ralph Merkle, Robert Freitas and others.

4)  Get more active: request seminars and classes on related topics
Transform your next social event or book group to focus on
these issues. Become more engaged with Foresight -- help match
the challenge grant <http://www.foresight.org/challenge>,
tell us about yourself and your skills
<https://marble.he.net/%7Eforesite/long_survey.html>
consider how you can help with plans for Foresight's next phase
<http://www.foresight.org/stage2>.

5)  Above all, take action.

Regardless of what avenues you may choose, make your voice and intentions 
heard.
Our future is counting on you.

  -- Eric

K. Eric Drexler
Chairman, Foresight Institute

_______________________________________


Natasha Vita-More
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031206/93da4a23/attachment.html>

From cphoenix at best.com  Sat Dec  6 21:55:52 2003
From: cphoenix at best.com (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:55:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
Message-ID: <3FD25068.949E23D0@best.com>

This was CC'd to me, so I'll respond.  Remember that I won't see any
answers unless they are also CC'd to me.

The debate is all screwed up.  Each side thinks they have made a strong
case and are obviously right and the other side is obviously wrong. 
Onlookers generally have strong emotional reasons to pick one side or
the other.  The situtation is a lot more symmetrical than it appears to
either side.  It's like a messy divorce: a lot of "he said she said,"
and no one can take a step back to realize that what's really important
is that the lawyers are getting all the money.

If you want to know who's right, you have to strip away the debate and
look at the scientific claims.  Most of the trouble here comes from the
context and structure of the debate, not the scientific claims
themselves.

It's easy to reach an impasse in this discussion.  You see the claims of
cryonics, assemblers, doom-and-gloom scenarios, and you say, "These
claims are extraordinary.  Therefore I won't believe them without very
strong evidence."  But what evidence is possible?  Note that these
claims are not about scientific theory; they're about the projected
consequences of one side's understanding of the theory.  

Drexler says that we have to prepare for MNT and we should be
researching it further.  This assumes there's a reasonable chance of MNT
working.  Which, when you take a step back, is at least plausible;
there's a lot of careful theory that says it should, and no careful
theory that says it can't.  Drexler isn't (or at least shouldn't be)
insisting that all scientists agree with him.  It's just that MNT should
be given a fair study, so that if it does work we won't be caught by
surprise.  

To argue with this, a critic doesn't have to *prove* MNT can't
work--just show that it's so unlikely there's no point in wasting time
on it.  This is a practial, not a theoretical issue.  And it doesn't
seem unfair to me.  It's like an epidemiologist saying, "SARS has killed
eighty people, but reasonable extrapolation shows it could kill ten
million unless we stop it soon."  Is this putting an unfair burden of
proof on the Chinese government to open up unless they can show that
SARS isn't a threat?  No, it's a heavy burden, but it's not unfair.

Hal complains about a lack of specifics on Drexler's side, and asks,
"What 'proposed assemblers'?"  Ironically, the specifics are there, but
they're *too* specific.  There's been a substantial amount of work in
the past decade on mechanochemical systems, both the mechanics and the
chemistry.  But it's buried in a thick book with lots of equations, and
a number of academic papers from several sources.  One would have to
spend substantial effort to find the details, and more effort to
evaluate them.  I've spent a decade doing this, and it turns out that
building a mechanochemical system without "fingers" is not a big deal at
all.  That part of the claim is simply not extraordinary.  

Let me repeat that.  The claim that mechanochemistry can be a useful
manufacturing technique is not extraordinary.  That doesn't mean it's
right.  But it's fairly simple to decide whether it's right or not.  

We already know mechanochemistry works in a few cases.  The question is
whether it can be used to build useful diamondoid shapes.  So far,
there's a significant amount of careful evidence that it can, from basic
theory, chemical simulation, and experiment.  And there's no careful
evidence that it can't.  (Whatever you may think about Smalley's
argument, you must admit that he was not careful; his statements about
enzymes were shockingly wrong.)  Mechanochemistry is no stranger than
surface catalysis or flame chemistry.  It only seems weird and
extraordinary because of its association with weird insect-like
assemblers.  

On this particular claim, there should be no extremism or requirement
for extraordinary proof on either side.  It looks plausible and useful,
but hasn't been demonstrated in detail.  Fine--let's look at it more
closely.

The question may have some urgency, because if it works it may be the
foundation of a very powerful manufacturing capability with lots of
implications.  But why does that imply that Drexler has to provide
extraordinary evidence that it works?  Seems to me just the opposite.  

Actually, I know why.  If I tell you, "Lend me $10 and tomorrow I'll
give you $15," you may do it.  But if I say, "Lend me $10 and tomorrow
I'll give you $100," you know something must be wrong somewhere.  I
think this is one reason why Drexler's claims, taken in aggregate, are
not acceptable.  It probably would've been better if Drexler had cloned
himself, and Eric Drexler only talked about the science (which is pretty
mundane and should have been respectable) while Drew Ericson talked
about the policy implications if Drexler was right.  It also would've
been better if the description of assemblers did not map so closely to
the archetype of bugs (in the sense of both insect and germ).  

But that's hindsight.  The point is, the debate got off to a very
unfortunate start.  But if you want to understand the science, the only
way to do that at this point is to strip away the debate history and
just look at the scientific claims.  Smalley says that precise
positional chemistry can only work underwater.  Is he right?  No. 
Meanwhile, Drexler says NEMS can do carbon deposition on diamond to
build NEMS.  Is he right?  So far, the evidence is on his side.  Let's
go get more evidence.

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Dec  6 22:27:35 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:27:35 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

John K Clark wrote:

> ..if it could be shown that for Drexler's assemblers to work 
> you'd need to move faster than light, violate the conservation
> of momentum law, place things with more precision than
> Heisenberg allows, or violate the second law of thermodynamics
> then it would be safe to dismiss the entire idea as nonsense; but
> nobody has come close to doing that. 

I am not dismissing the idea as nonsense. But I am wary that 
often what we want to be true isn't and I very much include myself 
in that category of we. I am glad that Smalley has engaged with
Drexler, that in itself is a win for Drexler. Whether or not it is a win
for the truth I can't say as I do not yet presume to know the truth
on this matter. But it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof 
lies on Smalley. Its a political mistake.

I think it was David Hume that said that extraordinary claims 
require extraordinary evidence. There is an opportunity cost for 
people to investigate complex ideas requiring understanding in multiple
disciplines like those that are detailed in Nanosystems. And it could
be fairly asserted perhaps if they are true that there is an opportunity
cost in not making the effort to come to terms with those ideas.  But
right now most people, even most intelligent people are not in the 
camp that can see it is true. Anything that can be done to make it 
easier to convince more people and to reduce the amount of effort 
open minded interested folk have to divert from there other tasks
would I think be efforts well spent. 

> I also disagree that life is not a pretty good existence proof
> of the idea, it's true Drexler's machines can do more but that's what
> you'd expect, all else being equal intelligent design will always beat 
> random mutation and natural selection. Of course we will not know
> with absolute certainty that Drexler was correct until an assembler
> is actually built, and that should be about 20 minutes before the 
> singularity.

I think it is possible to set the standard of verification lower than
20 minutes before the singularity, but I think it is prudent to realise
that the task of persuading folk to spend time examining this issue
and thinking about what standards of proof would be adequate or
greatly improve confidence that further investigation into the matter
is not wasted time, is itself a task that falls on either the enlightened
or the true-believers. The open minded undecideds we can tell the
enlightened from the true-believers beforehand. 

I am not looking to join the latest religious crusade I am willing (time
permitting - and it often isn't - that's a problem everyone faces when
they are trying to persuade) to engage in pleasant and interesting 
conversation with folk who know what they are talking about and 
who don't say - just read everything Drexler ever wrote and by the
way here is thirty papers of my musings on partially related matters
as well.  That stuff may be said in good faith but it just doesn't 
persuade. 

Perhaps genuine discussion with those who are interested but not
yet convinced and who will therefore play Socrates to Drexler's 
(and those that already agree with him's) Protogoras, is a good way
 to achieve two worthy things. 1. It allows the arguments aimed at 
persuading open-minded folk to be honed. 2. It brings some clear
thinkers (who are often good persuaders once persuaded themselves)
on-board quicker.  

Regards,
Brett




From max at maxmore.com  Sat Dec  6 21:15:38 2003
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:15:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <001001c3bc22$23044c20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>

At 11:55 AM 12/6/2003, you wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mills/index.h
>tml
>
>Why didnt we think of this before?

Egad!  What a terrible interview.

It confirms the impression of Tucker Carlson as a moron, which I formed 
when I was on crossfire debating cryonics during the Ted Williams furor.

More disappointingly, Rachel Mill's responses could have been much better 
-- even taking into account the rapid fire format.

It doesn't help that the first two words out of her mouth are: "Child 
pornography?"

When asked about marijuana, she replies "Marijuana, I think honest science 
proves that it's harmless just like alcohol". I must have missed the news 
when it was shown that alcohol is *harmless*. Defending the legality of a 
substance on the grounds that it's harmless is a doomed strategy.

When asked, "which free-market economy turns you on most? she replies "You 
know, right now I like Russia, actually, because they just passed a 13 
percent flat tax, and their economy is soaring".  It's staggering that she 
would point to Russia as an exemplar of free markets! State control of the 
media with Putin looking like an old-time Communist, lack of the rule of 
law, and so on...

I've never been a supporter of the LP even though its policies are closer 
to my views than any other party I know of. This display makes it even more 
likely that my non-support will continue.

Spike, what on Earth was it that you liked about this?

Max


_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Dec  6 23:16:02 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:16:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <000901c3bc3d$9ce64730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <002801c3bc4e$eae78be0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Spike wrote,
> This is why I read at least two different news sources:
>
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/06/afghan.blast/index.html
>
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105037,00.html>

I must be missing something.  What is the difference between these two
stories?

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 23:42:20 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:42:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000601c3bc52$976f9bc0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> At 11:55 AM 12/6/2003, you wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mi
> lls/index.html
> 
> Spike, what on Earth was it that you liked about this?
> 
> Max

The calendars.  I thought the interview was dippy too.  The
"promoting libertarianism effectively" was an ironic statement,
which often doesn't work online.  I should have put NOT! afterwards.

Thanks for the reality check Max.  {8-]  spike





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Dec  6 23:45:06 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:45:06 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <002801c3bc4e$eae78be0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000701c3bc52$faa8c310$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Spike wrote,
> > This is why I read at least two different news sources:
> >
> <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/06/afghan.bl
ast/index.html
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105037,00.html>

I must be missing something.  What is the difference between these two
stories?  Harvey

Very different spins.  I scarcely recognize the two stories
as describing the save event.  When all the facts are in,
it will be interesting to see if the Taliban really did
this, and if so why was CNN so hesitant and if not why
was Foxnews so speculative.  spike





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 00:13:41 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <000601c3bc52$976f9bc0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031207001341.86452.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > At 11:55 AM 12/6/2003, you wrote:
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mi
> > lls/index.html
> > 
> > Spike, what on Earth was it that you liked about this?
> > 
> > Max
> 
> The calendars.  I thought the interview was dippy too.  The
> "promoting libertarianism effectively" was an ironic statement,
> which often doesn't work online.  I should have put NOT! afterwards.
> 
> Thanks for the reality check Max.  

On the contrary, anything we do to promote liberty in any way that
doesn't hurt anybody is good. WHy? Because for most average people in
America, when you say "libertarians", they say "whassat? sum kinna
crazy democrat?" 

It is a common comment among many boomer males that the only reason
they went to anti-war rallies as kids was to get laid. Get a clue. Sex
sells. If it becomes common knowledge that supermodels attend
Libertarian Conventions (and I've met quite a number of exotic dancers
at LP events who are libertarians) then penises will follow, at least
long enough to figure out that this is a serious political movement
with rational arguments.

Given the rather dippy arguments that Max was subjected to when he
appeared on Crossfire, it it any wonder the dip factor on that show is
any different today? Is it any surprise that both Carlson and Carville
were left looking like idiots when facing an attractive woman who is
not afraid of her own sexuality? Rachel coulda smacked em both between
the eyes with a two by four and they wouldn't have noticed.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From max at maxmore.com  Sat Dec  6 23:27:42 2003
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:27:42 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <20031207001341.86452.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000601c3bc52$976f9bc0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>

Mike,

I did not object to the calendars. Didn't say a word about them. It was 
everything else that looked weak to me.

However, I disagree that *anything* done to get ideas about liberty out 
there is good. First impressions have a powerful influence on the human 
mind. A poor first impression only increases the work to be done.

Max





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 01:25:07 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20031207012507.21895.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> I did not object to the calendars. Didn't say a word about them. It
> was everything else that looked weak to me.
> 
> However, I disagree that *anything* done to get ideas about liberty
> out there is good. First impressions have a powerful influence on the
> human mind. A poor first impression only increases the work to be
> done.

I agree entirely. I disagree that an underwear calendar of attractive
women is in any way a poor first impression. What do you want? A
calendar of computer dorks with pocket protectors and birth control
glasses??? Now THAT would go over like a lead balloon, and would
certainly reinforce public perception of libertarians as fringe dorks.

I'm not sure that the transcript accurately reflected the emotive
context of Rachels statements. I believe she was expressing incredulity
that Tucker Carlson would imply that her underwear calendar was in some
way associated with child porn. It is a common attack of statists to
try to link the LP with NAMBLA. 

While you and I agree that alcohol is far from 'harmless' from a
physiological standpoint, it is the common opinion of joe sixpack, who
dislikes MADD intensely, that a sixpack after work on friday is just
what the doctor ordered, especially considering that 'moderate'
drinking is supposed to be good for you. 

Recall recently that Howard Dean said that the Dems need to appeal to
southern democrats who "have confederate flags on their pickups" in
order to win the presidency. He was exactly right, but that demographic
is getting more educated that its liberties are best protected by
libertarians, a group that Dean is trying hard to appeal to. That group
is the 'petty bourgoisie' that the Ford Foundation tries to undermine,
that group is the angry white male that the dems treated as a threat to
national security for eight years. They are pretty well sick of
government in its entirety, and most of them don't seem much harm in
smoking a spliff occasionally on the weekend.

These sorts of guys are not Klan material generally speaking. The Klan
finds them fertile ground only because nobody else is listening to
them, because everybody else is treating them as 'the exploiter class'.
To most of them, the confederate flag is only a symbol of sticking it
to the man, just as much as a black gloved raised fist is to a black
male.

Rachel Mills, who is running for office in North Carolina, knows
EXACTLY the sort of demographic she needs to win election. These are
the guys who hang swimsuit and pinup calendars in their place of work:
their garage, the cab of their trucks or construction equipment, their
tool room or factory floor. This is the new demographic for the
libertarian party: the working class stiff who is being economically
exiled from their home towns by environmentalist land restrictions and
growth ordinances that raise the cost of housing far above where it
would be in an unfettered market.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Dec  7 01:28:02 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:28:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <000701c3bc52$faa8c310$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <007601c3bc61$5bd60c70$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Spike wrote,
\
> > Spike wrote,
> > > This is why I read at least two different news sources:
> > >
> > <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/06/afghan.bl
> ast/index.html
> >
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105037,00.html>
> 
> I must be missing something.  What is the difference between 
> these two stories?  Harvey
> 
> Very different spins.  I scarcely recognize the two stories
> as describing the save event.

OK....  But you didn't answer my question.  How are they different?  I know
you said "spin", but specifically what is different between the two stories?
They clearly look like they describe the same event to me.  I see no
contradictions or disagreements between the stories.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Dec  7 01:36:08 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:36:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <007701c3bc62$806a4190$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Max More wrote,
> However, I disagree that *anything* done to get ideas about 
> liberty out there is good. First impressions have a powerful
> influence on the human mind. A poor first impression only
> increases the work to be done.

I have to agree with Max on this one.  There are two ways to market a
product.  If the product is good, you focus on the product.  If the product
is bad, you focus on anything else.  Any advertising that has to resort to
sexual distraction only does so because the product is itself uninteresting.
It is a clear admission that the target audience has to be bribed or tricked
into showing any interest.  People who are looking for sexual appeal are
unlikely to find the other message as interesting anyway.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From support at imminst.org  Sun Dec  7 03:06:35 2003
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:06:35 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update
Message-ID: <3fd2993bd6044@imminst.org>

IMMINST UPDATE

Book Project
********************
Upon completion, the book will represent an important 
achievement and focal point for the organization. 

The book will consist of essays submitted by ImmInst members 
and respected authors. 

Happily, ImmInst has thus far received submissions from such 
notable authors as Max More, Natasha Vita-More, James Halperin 
and Ray Kurzweil. 

Submit an essay, visit: http://www.imminst.org/book


Chat - Cryonics, Immortality & Swayze 
********************
James Swayze joins ImmInst to talk about his 
life, his current projects and the feasibility of 
cryonics as a pathway toward physical immortality.
Dec 7 - Sun 8pm Eastern
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=67&t=1927&st=0


Upcoming Chat - Mike Perry, Alcor & Cryonics
********************
Alcor Patient Care Assistant and author of "Forever for All: 
Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, and the Scientific Prospects for 
Immortality ", Mike Perry chats will ImmInst about his current 
work and the future of Cryonics.
Dec 14 - Sun 8pm Eastern
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=2385&st=0#entry18367


ImmInst Full Member on ABC's 20/20
********************
Shannon Vyff appeared on 20/20 - Dec 5. Her family 
was featured during a 7 minute segment about Caloric 
Restriction (CR), a proven life-extension method. 
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=1432&st=0&#entry19638


Support ImmInst
********************
We now have 53 Full Members!

If you haven't yet, consider joining as an ImmInst 
Full Member. 

You?ll gain access to the Full Member Forums where 
members are working on the ImmInst Book Project 
and other important projects.   
http://imminst.org/amember/member.php





To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Dec  7 03:06:23 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:06:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206220612.02416008@mail.comcast.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>On the contrary, anything we do to promote liberty in any way that
>doesn't hurt anybody is good. WHy? Because for most average people in
>America, when you say "libertarians", they say "whassat? sum kinna
>crazy democrat?"

People I meet usually have heard just enough about libertarians to be 
confused.  Hard-core policy advocates tend to understand where we are, 
particularly if our positions overlap with theirs, like taxpayer, gun 
rights, or motorcycle groups.  But average conservatives hear of our stand 
on drugs, prostitution, and gays, and figure we're some form of 
liberal.  And average liberals hear of our stand on the minimum wage, 
entitlement programs, and school choice, and figure we're some form of 
conservative.

My take is to tailor the message to my audience.  If they bring up an issue 
where we apparently disagree, I try to first get them to see the common 
ground on issues where we do agree.  When we get to a contentious issue, I 
try again to establish common ground by identifying how we want to achieve 
the same goals.  If they perceive me as a fellow traveller, I have a much 
better chance of them listening instead of simply arguing back.

But it sure is easy to get sucked into the Libertarian Macho Flash.  (Or, 
for that matter, the Extropian Macho Flash.  But we can rely on a copy of 
"The Gentle Seduction" to get people thinking.)

Max More wrote:

>However, I disagree that *anything* done to get ideas about liberty out 
>there is good. First impressions have a powerful influence on the human 
>mind. A poor first impression only increases the work to be done.

I'm not sure whether Rachel Mills's project is helping or hurting.  But 
I've definitely met quite a few loons who I wish weren't on my side of an 
issue.  (And then there are the loons that people *think* are on my 
side.  I'm getting tired of explaining that no, Lyndon LaRouche is not a 
Libertarian, he's a Democrat.)

All else being equal, it is true that we'll do better with articulate, 
well-dressed, well-groomed, and attractive.  My fellow paleos may recall 
Perry Metzger's forceful assertion that the farther your idea is from the 
mainstream, the more important it was for you to look and sound clean-cut 
and mainstream?  (While, of course, not coming off as a Mormon missionary 
or insurance salesman.)


-- David Lubkin.




From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 05:02:09 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:02:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: atheists barred from office in several states
Message-ID: <020f01c3bc7f$45b27e60$8bce5cd1@neptune>

This is a cross-post from another list where I forwarded the original
post Eliezer to.

Dan

From: Michael Hardy <hardy at math.mit.edu>
To: atl2 <atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: [atlantis_II] atheists barred from office in several states

 Article 6, Clause 3 of the US Constitution says:

   ... no religious Test shall ever be required as a
   Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
   the United States.

This alludes to a law that existed in England from some time
in the 17th century until the early 19th century, saying that
those not adhering to the right religion were barred from public
employment, including not only what we usually called public
office, but also, if I'm not mistaken, academic appointments
at Oxford and Cambridge.  Thus, Isaac Newton kept his
unitarianism secret for fear of being fired from his position
as professor of mathematics.  I think "under the United States"
means _federal_ rather_ than _state_ office, but the way the
courts have construed the 14th Amendment may have effectively
extended the rule to state office, thus rendering those
provisions of state constitutions void.  But have these clauses
been tested in court?   -- Mike Hardy

--
Michael Hardy
hardy at math.mit.edu



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Dec  7 05:05:19 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:05:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>

"Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>

> it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof  lies on Smalley.

I disagree, I think the burden of proof is on Smalley. Drexler is proposing
a construction machine, lots of such devices have been made; to say it is
imposable even in principle for this particular construction machine to ever
exist you need to identify which law of physics it would violate. Smalley
has not done this and neither has anyone else.

>  Its a political mistake.

Perhaps, but not a scientific mistake.

> I think it was David Hume that said that extraordinary claims
> require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, and the claim that a machine that organizes matter in a certain manner
will always be imposable is extraordinary.

  John K Clark   jonkc at att.net






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 05:14:38 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:14:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AIRCAR: Boeing X-50 offers cheap alternative
Message-ID: <20031207051438.35526.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/crw.html

I think that Boeing's Canard Rotor Wing test aircraft, the X-50
Dragonfly, promises personal air-car capabilities sooner than Moller or
Bell/Augusta. At the page above, note the photo in the lower left part
of the page. The X-50 just began flight tests today with a hover test
to 12 foot altitude. The X-50 is supposed to be capable of high
subsonic flight after transitioning from VTOL configuration. It
eliminates need for a tail rotor, as well as a transmission by venting
turbofan gasses through vents at the tips of the rotor when in VTOL
mode. The canard and tail surfaces generate lift as it picks up speed,
then thrust is directed through tailpipe and the rotor locks into place
as a standard airfoil. This processes reverses to land.

The weight savings and mechanical simplicity of this design concept are
what I think will make aircars a reality.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Dec  7 05:28:36 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:28:36 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312062359490.-329001@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>



How old is that interview? She sold calendars for 2003 to
raise money for the 2002 elections in NC. She's selling new
calendars for 2004 now.

Most of the folk I ran into here who heard of it thought it
was pretty cool, rather than taking a handout from the
government to run a campaign or badgering people for
contributions.

Regards,
MB in North Carolina.



> At 11:55 AM 12/6/2003, you wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/cf.opinionrachel.mills/index.h
> >tml
> >


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 05:44:43 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:44:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Socialism versus Transhumanism
References: <20031123172838.11990.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <025a01c3bc85$53296580$8bce5cd1@neptune>

Missed this one...

On Sunday, November 23, 2003 12:28 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
wrote:
>> The problem is that democracy is not antithetical
>> to statism, especially not government intervention
>> in the economy.  All extant democratic polities
>> are welfare states, some bordering on socialism.
>> You might say this tendency is contingent and in
>> a different setting democracy would not lead to
>> welfare statism or socialism.  However, people like
>> Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue on purely political
>> economic grounds that democracies will always
>> tend in that direction.
>
> The current status of many extant democracies is
> not an indictment of democracy as inherently
> socialist.

Well, I did cover that above.  This is why I wrote, "You might say this
tendency is contingent and in a different setting democracy would not
lead to welfare statism or socialism."  I tend to agree with Hoppe and
others here: once you have a government, then it will increase its
power.  Socialism is just the maximal point of that increase, wherein
the state absorbs all social activity.

Now you may disagree with this point -- which I see below you do -- but
that was the issue I was raising NOT ignoring.

> In fact, socialist tendencies are, according to
> historical commentators, a key indicator that a
> democracy is headed down a slippery slope to
> tyranny, when the majority discovers it can vote
> itself largess from the public treasury, taxed to
> the tab of the minority.

But isn't that the point?  In any democracy, how long will it take for
special interests or even majorities to find out how to work the
system -- in terms of finding ways to take wealth instead of making it?
I believe the learning curve in democracies is not that steep.

> Republican features are intended to prevent,
> halt, or otherwise mitigate this slide, as Max
> has said.

I know that and so other libertarian and anarchist critics of democracy.
Their point and mine is that such features at best only slow this slide
which is inherent in the system.

> They are really needed only so far as the
> degree to which a democratic government is
> empowered to regulate the lives of individuals,
> and how successful statists are over time at
> redefining such powers to encompass greater
> and greater amounts and areas of human
> endeavor.

Agreed, but any empowerment heads toward the same goal.  The real
solution here is to look for systems that are better than democracy or
republics.  I believe this can be found in polycentric legal orders
(i.e., anarchist systems), though even such systems are not invulnerable
to corruption.  They just take longer to decay.  Democracy and republics
tend to be on a fast track to increasing statism because they infect
more individuals and groups with powerlust and give them the means to
act on such.

By this later is meant a point that Hoppe brings up in _Democracy -- The
God That Failed_: class consciousness is blurred in democracies.  Since
the line between rulers and the ruled is everchanging, individuals and
groups become less suspicious of state power, since while it might be
used against them, they, too, might one day use it for their own ends
(viz., against others).  Thus, instead of jealously guarding their
freedoms, they instead look jealously on others' powers.  (A case in
point is antitrust law in the US.  For a long time, so called
Conservatives were critical of it until they saw it could be used
against their enemies and now only a few question it.  Another case is
the New Deal itself.  Still another is Medicare, where Republicans and
Democrats now seem to compete over who can hand out the most loot.  (I'm
speaking specifically of the new prescription drug benefit.))

Put another way, once power is accumulated, it's very hard to dissipate,
since people tend to see it as a opportunity rather than a threat.
Every time you hear, "There ought to be a law" this is just this
tendency manifesting itself -- the tendency to see government as a
workhouse rather than a dangerous beast.

> For example, here in the US, Congress seems
> to have few powers, according to the
> Constitution,

It depends on what you mean.  I tend to think the power to draft, coin
money, tax, and the like are too much.  Plus the Congress can amend the
Constitution as well, meaning it can expand its powers.

But seriously, since the US government faces no competitor -- it's a
monopolist -- it can do whatever it wants for the most part.  The
government even interprets its own limits via the courts.

> yet the greatest power that congress has is
> the power to regulate interstate commerce.

See above.

> The Constitution does not have a glossary to
> define what 'interstate commerce', or even
> 'regulate', means.

See above.  The mechanism is to use the courts.  That doesn't work
because they're government courts.  It mgiht offer more of a check, too,
if the courts were not appointed by the very branches of the government
they're supposed to check.  (Only a bit more, since eventually they
would come to an arrangement even under such a system.  Or there would
be conflict until either the courts took over, making them unchecked and
unlimited, or were subdued, making them no check on others' power.)

> As a result, where it was once accepted to
> mean the overseeing of purely commercial
> traffic between states via channels of
> commerce, as and where it occurs at
> borders, interstate commerce was
> reinterpreted during the FDR administration
> to cover any sort of human activity that has
> any sort of impact on commercial activity
> which might potentially involve, or in the
> future involve, goods and services in traffic
> between the states. The SCOTUS decision
> which was responsible for this reinterpretation
> was, of course, the result of Roosevelt
> threatening to pack the court, but it was still
> responsible for 98% of the domestic statist
> expansion in the US in the 20th century.

I'm not sure about the 98% figure, but even before FDR there was
creeping regulation in this area.  The problem can be traced back to the
Constitution itself and central government expansion began long before
FDR -- first with the Constitutional Convention, though perhaps the next
biggest episode after that was the U.S. Civil War.  Later expansions
were merely elaborations of that.

> This trend was something I described in my
> 2001 essay, "It's About The Trust, Stupid!",
> published in The Libertarian Enterprise. As
> Jose Cordeiro commented the other day,
> redefining the terms of discourse is the most
> heinous way by which statists expand their
> influence.

Something noted long before by others, but still a valid point that
needs to be brought up again and again.

> Politically, they steal labels like 'liberal' and
> 'progressive' to stealthily legitimize their
> subversion. They become involved in the
> legal system and help to rewrite the legal
> dictionaries with expanded definitions of
> terms to fit their needs for statist expansion
> of power.  They engage in promoting their
> new definitions via the press and literature.

I don't think it's all that conscious like some vast plot.  The thing is
meanings do shift over time, driven, as Rand would point out, by changes
in the underlying philosophy.  However, such changings in philosophy are
not immune to influence.  It's basically a dialectical process with
different influences driving the whole system and influencing each
other.  There are counterveiling forces -- or the system would either be
totally free or totally controlled.

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 05:55:47 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:55:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001><04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:05 AM John K Clark jonkc at att.net wrote:
>> it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof
>>  lies on Smalley.
>
> I disagree, I think the burden of proof is on
> Smalley. Drexler is proposing a construction
> machine, lots of such devices have been made;
> to say it is imposable even in principle for this
> particular construction machine to ever exist you
> need to identify which law of physics it would
> violate. Smalley has not done this and neither
> has anyone else.

I agree.  An analogy might prove helpful.  Imagine I were to say, "It's
impossible for humans to live on Mars."  "Impossible" is a pretty tall
order and the burden on proof would be on me to show why.  Even if no
human ever sets foot on Mars, that would NOT constitute a proof of
impossibility.  If even every human that lands on Mars -- assuming some
eventually do -- dies immediately on landing that would also NOT
constitute a proof of impossibility.

>> I think it was David Hume that said that
>> extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> evidence.
>
> Yes, and the claim that a machine that
> organizes matter in a certain manner
> will always be imposable is extraordinary.

I agree.  (I suspect Hume would too, from my reading of him.  He railed
against absolute knowledge in empirical matters.  Smalley's claim of the
impossibility of nanoassemblers strikes me as just a such a claim of
absolute knowledge.)  It assumes that Smalley can either divine the
future or knows physics better than our current understanding.

BTW, there is a monster in the lake near me.  I have to feed it every
now and then.  On a totally unrelated matter, would you guys like to
hold the next convention here?  There's a nice convention center by the
lake...:)

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Dec  7 06:03:16 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:03:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <007601c3bc61$5bd60c70$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <001101c3bc87$cec6ae80$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> > > Spike wrote,
> > > > This is why I read at least two different news sources:
> > > >
> > > <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/06/afghan.bl
> > ast/index.html
> > >
> > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105037,00.html>
> > 
> > I must be missing something.  What is the difference between 
> > these two stories?  Harvey
> > 
> > Very different spins.  I scarcely recognize the two stories
> > as describing the save event.
> 
> OK....  But you didn't answer my question.  How are they 
> different?  I know you said "spin", but specifically what is different
between 
> the two stories?  They clearly look like they describe the same event
to me.  I see no
> contradictions or disagreements between the stories.




CNN title:  Afghan bicycle bomb injures 15

Foxnews title:  Taliban Targets U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan



CNN:  A bicycle carried a bomb that exploded in the main square of the
southern Afghanistan city of Kandahar, wounding at least 15 people

Foxnews:  A bomb ripped through a bustling Kandahar bazaar Saturday,
wounding 20 Afghans, in an attack the Taliban say targeted - but missed
- U.S. soldiers.



CNN:  Hashma and Deputy Chief Mohammad Salim said police and U.S. troops
were investigating, but no arrests had been made. 

Foxnews: Taliban fighters claimed responsibility, saying the blast was
aimed at American soldiers, but went off late.



CNN:  The blast damaged several shops in the square, breaking windows
and crumbling walls...

Foxnews: ...Six shops were leveled. Broken glass from the shattered
hotel front littered the ground, stained by the victims' blood. The
wounded included three children...three of the 20 injured were seriously
hurt and taken to the coalition military base at the city's airport for
treatment...


The tone of the articles is so very different that
it leads to different conclusions.  The CNN report
almost makes it sound like they do not know who set 
off the explosion.  Foxnews has already tried and
convicted the mad dogs of the Taliban.  It is no
wonder there is such deeply divided opinion on the
coalition action in Afghanistan, it depends on which
news sources one reads.  Both sources are necessary 
to even start to understand.

spike 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Dec  7 06:14:24 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:14:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir><5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312062359490.-329001@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <004301c3bc89$5cde9ba0$6400a8c0@brainiac>

From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>
>
> How old is that interview? She sold calendars for 2003 to
> raise money for the 2002 elections in NC. She's selling new
> calendars for 2004 now.
>
> Most of the folk I ran into here who heard of it thought it
> was pretty cool, rather than taking a handout from the
> government to run a campaign or badgering people for
> contributions.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the issue of whether selling calendars rather
than asking the government for a "handout" is in any way cool.  To be
concerned about a "handout" from the government at this level - it just
seems like such a piffle.  The Iraq war is what's costing us so much (beyond
the cost of the sacrifice of human lives, which are incalculable).
Furthermore, (although it may not be "badgering" per se - just a unilateral
decision hoisted on us), who but the "people" are going to be stuck paying
the  $100 *billion* the war is anticipated to cost?:

http://www.iht.com/articles/90690.html

Believe me, I'm not endorsing Harry Browne (former Libertarian Party
presidential candidate), but found this advice in an article of his written
in 2002 (link to entire article follows):

"Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way to motivate Saddam Hussein
to attack us with whatever dangerous weapons he might have. So long as we
leave him alone, he won't commit the suicidal act of provoking the U.S. to
drop nuclear bombs on him":

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690

I read Rachel Mills' interview.  A bit on the frothy side, wasn't it?

Olga



http://www.iht.com/articles/90690.html




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Dec  7 08:37:33 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:37:33 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
	<028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Technotranscendence wrote:

> John K Clark jonkc at att.net wrote:
------[Brett]
> >> it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof
> >>  lies on Smalley.
> >
> > I disagree, I think the burden of proof is on
> > Smalley. Drexler is proposing a construction
> > machine, lots of such devices have been made;
> > to say it is imposable even in principle for this
> > particular construction machine to ever exist you
> > need to identify which law of physics it would
> > violate. Smalley has not done this and neither
> > has anyone else.
>
> I agree.  An analogy might prove helpful.
[snip]
> >> I think it was David Hume that said that
> >> extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> >> evidence.
> >
> > Yes, and the claim that a machine that
> > organizes matter in a certain manner
> > will always be imposable is extraordinary.
>
> I agree.
[snip]

Two questions then, one sort of scientific or at least empirical, the second
political.

1) What *particular* machine is being considered? (I think I'm just
paraphrasing Hal here actually, so perhaps better to answer Hal).

2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor Smalley (and associates) were to
*accept* the burden of proof scientifically what happens by default
politically?

Regards,
Brett







From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Dec  7 08:47:32 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:47:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
In-Reply-To: <05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <000001c3bc9e$c0f8c790$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


Tonight was our friend's children's Christmas play.
It was the heartwarming story of how a grumpy old
janitor working over the holiday meets a mysterious
visitor and unexpectedly comes to find the true 
meaning of Christmas.  

I wanted to barf.  I wonder, what if...
scientists discover that the true meaning of Christmas
really is maximizing retail sales.  They may find
that crass commercialism reduces harmful cholesterol
and improves circulation.

What this world needs is more brain-warming stories.

spike



From scerir at libero.it  Sun Dec  7 10:03:36 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:03:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
References: <000001c3bc9e$c0f8c790$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000401c3bca9$6212ccc0$f0c7fea9@scerir>


You know that one of the present political
problems in UE (or EU) is whether they
should introduce in the Constitution
the word Christ or the expression Christian
values, or not. The general opinion was:
"No, we do not need these terms". But
an influent Italian (urged by the Vatican)
said: "What is the meaning of Sunday, then?".
So, the problem now becomes: should we 
introduce Sunday in the Constitution?
s.  




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  7 12:24:01 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:24:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <001101c3bc87$cec6ae80$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <007601c3bc61$5bd60c70$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<001101c3bc87$cec6ae80$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031207122401.GL5783@leitl.org>

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 10:03:16PM -0800, Spike wrote:

> The tone of the articles is so very different that
> it leads to different conclusions.  The CNN report
> almost makes it sound like they do not know who set 
> off the explosion.  Foxnews has already tried and

You do know why Fox News is usually spelled Faux News,
right?

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/15/ellis/index.html

They've got a bias the size of, excuse me, Texas.

> convicted the mad dogs of the Taliban.  It is no
> wonder there is such deeply divided opinion on the
> coalition action in Afghanistan, it depends on which
> news sources one reads.  Both sources are necessary 
> to even start to understand.

Nope, both are still US and Western sources. You can't
expect mainstream media giving you the straight dope,
the best you can hope to do is to average different spins
(including Arab media, of course), and expect this will
be close to reality.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/0c42697a/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Dec  7 12:30:12 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:30:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonicist Harry Braun for President
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBCEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Alcor member, Harry Braun, is on the ballot in several states for president
of the U.S.A. Harry Braun is an energy analyst and author of The Phoenix
Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen (phoenixproject.net). The following
paragraphs are taken from his site "Harry Braun for President".
Harry has worked as an energy and environmental analyst for the past 30
years, and is the Chairman and CEO of Sustainable Partners LLC, a systems
integration firm that is involved in a number of renewable energy projects,
including the development of a $180 million wind farm project in New Mexico.
Harry received a Bachelors degree from Arizona State University in 1971. His
undergraduate work was in history and general science, while his graduate
work focused on anthropology and evolutionary biology. His post graduate
research has been in the areas of energy technologies and resources, as well
as the on-going developments in molecular biology, protein engineering and
nanotechnology. Harry ran for Congress in 1984 against John McCain. He is
Chairman of the Hydrogen Political Action Committee (h2pac.org) and author
of the proposed Fair Accounting Act legislation. Harry's religious views are
based on an understanding of molecular biology. Harry is member of Alcor
(alcor.org), a non-profit cryobiology laboratory that freezes and cares for
people when they die in the hope that they can be regenerated in the future,
with all of their past memories, into a biocybernetic "designer gene" era.
To avoid the oblivion scenario and hopefully secure a pollution-free utopian
future of biochips and designer genes, Harry Braun is committed to shifting
from fossil and nuclear fuels to a solar hydrogen economy with wartime-speed
(i.e., by 2010). Given the exponential nature of the global energy and
environmental problems, it is much later that most people think. We are all
like passengers on the Titanic, and there is little time left to change
course. Analyst and author Harry Braun has the new heading, but only the
American public can initiate this rapid "transition of substance" by
electing Harry Braun as President of the United States.
The exponential developments in molecular biology and computer science will
soon make a biological transition to renewable resources inevitable. It is
not a question of whether --but when. In the Chapter called Utopia: From
Here to Eternity, The Phoenix Project reviews a "utopia" scenario that
extrapolates the exponential advances in computers, molecular biology and
nanotechnology. Cloning is only the beginning of this era of molecular
medicine that will develop "biochips" and "designer genes." These rapidly
developing nanotechnology developments will not only delete the biological
mechanisms of aging and disease, but they will allow individuals to
reprogram their genetic structure -- at will -- with atomic (i.e. atom by
atom) precision. The result will be the evolution of a new species, Homo
Immortalis, that will develop an Immortalist culture and institutions that
will be based on individuals having unlimited life spans.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/8ff3f21d/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Dec  7 12:46:56 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 07:46:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <001101c3bc87$cec6ae80$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <00ae01c3bcc0$369a2400$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Spike wrote,
> The tone of the articles is so very different that
> it leads to different conclusions.  The CNN report
> almost makes it sound like they do not know who set 
> off the explosion.  Fox news has already tried and
> convicted the mad dogs of the Taliban.  It is no
> wonder there is such deeply divided opinion on the
> coalition action in Afghanistan, it depends on which
> news sources one reads.  Both sources are necessary 
> to even start to understand.

OK, that's the specifics that I was curious about.  You are exactly right.

As near as I can tell, CNN reported physical damage while Fox focused on
emotional horror.  CNN quoted the chief of police as a source while Fox
quotes the Taliban terrorists as a source.  CNN focuses on the actual Afghan
victims while Fox focuses on the presumed U.S. victims who were not actually
attacked.

They seem to be the exact same story, except I would classify the CNN report
as a factual news report about the event, while I would classify the Fox
report as an editorial position about the event.  They are different
newspapers with different purposes and methods of reporting.

There is no doubt why 80% of Fox viewers versus 55% of CNN viewers believed
that our troops found links between Iraq and al Qaeda, found weapons of mass
destruction, and that world public opinion supported the war.  (Ref.
<http://www.tvbarn.com/ticker/archives/015590.html>.)

	Fox viewers - 80% to have these misconceptions
	CBS viewers - 71%
	NBS viewers - 61%
	CNN viewers - 55%
	Print readers - 47%
	NPR/PBS listeners - 23%

(The report also notes that variations in misperceptions according to news
source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the
demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found
when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of
each audience.)

Simply put, CNN is more of a news source, while Fox is more of an editorial
opinion source.  I have known this for a long time.  I was able to read both
sources and see that they described the exact same event with no direct
factual contradiction.  That was why I wanted to know exactly what
difference you saw.  It is rare to see CNN and Fox agree so well on the
facts, with only the spin being different.  Usually CNN and Fox diverge
wildly on actual numbers and facts in the stories they report!

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  7 12:54:11 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:54:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
	<028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
	<05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20031207125411.GP5783@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 07:37:33PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> 1) What *particular* machine is being considered? (I think I'm just
> paraphrasing Hal here actually, so perhaps better to answer Hal).

No specific machine. Not even a specific process, though there are early
suggestions, e.g.

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/hydroCarbonMetabolism.html

(several of these are heavy steric hindrance candidates).

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/mechanosynthesis.html

"mechanosynthesis" and "machine-phase chemistry" are good keywords.
 
> 2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor Smalley (and associates) were to
> *accept* the burden of proof scientifically what happens by default
> politically?

The Nobel "what's this purple crap in soxhleted soot?" laureate wins by default</duh>
 
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/957468a7/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Dec  7 13:48:15 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:48:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption process is
emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing
laws of quantum physics. In November, a small startup called MagiQ
Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first commercially
available system that uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys
that are widely used to encode and read secret documents.
MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will
appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and
other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think this is
going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond,
MagiQ's founder and chief executive. Encryption schemes commonly used now
are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday. But
even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is
superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people
sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive
string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred
by imperfect means -- via courier or special software. They are not changed
very often and can be susceptible to interception.
Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in
multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine,
until something interacts with them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/aea9ec1f/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Dec  7 14:28:37 2003
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:28:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <004301c3bc89$5cde9ba0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir><5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312062359490.-329001@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
	<004301c3bc89$5cde9ba0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312070915370.-142043@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>


My original question "How old is that interview" stands.
Looked to me like it was more than a year ago. 19 September
2002.

My comment reflected the reaction I saw here in NC *at that
time*, prior to the 2002 elections, when Rachel and other
Libertarian candidates made and sold calendars to help
finance her campaign. That they should now make a calendar
for 2004 indicates the idea was a popular one, well received
by a number of folk, maybe even outside the Libertarian
party.

There is some disapproval in the Libertarian circles about
the government financing of political campaigns.

The disucssion was not, IIUC, about the war in Iraq, either
its correctness nor its financing.

Regards,
MB

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>
> >
> > How old is that interview? She sold calendars for 2003 to
> > raise money for the 2002 elections in NC. She's selling new
> > calendars for 2004 now.
> >
> > Most of the folk I ran into here who heard of it thought it
> > was pretty cool, rather than taking a handout from the
> > government to run a campaign or badgering people for
> > contributions.
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't see how the issue of whether selling calendars rather
> than asking the government for a "handout" is in any way cool.  To be
> concerned about a "handout" from the government at this level - it just
> seems like such a piffle.  The Iraq war is what's costing us so much (beyond
> the cost of the sacrifice of human lives, which are incalculable).
> Furthermore, (although it may not be "badgering" per se - just a unilateral
> decision hoisted on us), who but the "people" are going to be stuck paying
> the  $100 *billion* the war is anticipated to cost?:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/90690.html
>
> Believe me, I'm not endorsing Harry Browne (former Libertarian Party
> presidential candidate), but found this advice in an article of his written
> in 2002 (link to entire article follows):
>
> "Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way to motivate Saddam Hussein
> to attack us with whatever dangerous weapons he might have. So long as we
> leave him alone, he won't commit the suicidal act of provoking the U.S. to
> drop nuclear bombs on him":
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
>
> I read Rachel Mills' interview.  A bit on the frothy side, wasn't it?
>
> Olga
>
>
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/90690.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 14:45:16 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:45:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001><04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001><028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
	<05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <00b901c3bcd0$bba24820$9ccd5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 3:37 AM Brett Paatsch
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> Two questions then, one sort of scientific or
> at least empirical, the second political.
>
> 1) What *particular* machine is being
> considered? (I think I'm just paraphrasing Hal
> here actually, so perhaps better to answer Hal).

The particular design would make it much easier to demonstrate
impossibility.  Of course, even if a particular design fails, this does
not mean the general idea is impossible.  This would be akin to the
particular pre-Wright airplane designs that failed proving
heavier-than-air flight was impossible.  (Also, just like the airplane
analogy, nanotechnological construction is already done by non-made-made
things like enzymes.  Birds, insects, and bats already had
heavier-than-air flight before humanity.)

Smalley has also given specific reasons why he believes nanotechnology
won't work -- the fat and sticky fingers arguments, the that only
organics can do this construction in water (very close to the view that
only birds can fly which someone might have made prior to Kitty Hawk),
and the like.  These specific empirical claims are wrong and he should
know better.  In fact, all of this seems like the 10-leaky-buckets
Tactic -- the view that 10 invalid arguments somehow add up to a valid
one.  (I often see theists using this when defending their belief in
God.  They will, e.g., present a lot of arguments -- not necessarily
ten:) -- that are all invalid, but most people are not logicians, so
maybe the average person might see through a few of them, but still be
convinced by others.  Also, they're trying to use an analogy with
evidence: as evidence accumulates, usually an idea is made more
persuasive, but the same does not hold with invalid arguments.  It's
sort of akin to the view that if you have enough fictions, eventually
they'll add up to fact.)

I'm not claiming Smalley is doing this on purpose or has a bad
character -- or even that others who actually use the 10-leaky-buckets
Tactic are likewise bad people, consciously trying to use illogic to
support their claims.  I'm just saying this is how it appears,
especially given how sophomoric and easily defeated his arguments were.
(In fact, the only thing that actually supports his conclusion is that
we don't have nanotechnology now.  Of course, to claim something's
impossible because we can't do it at this moment is not a very strong or
compelling argument.  It would only convince people who either were
already biased in that direction or who did not understand the technical
details.  Sure, such people do exist, but I hardly think Smalley merely
wants to preach to the choir and the ignorant.)

> 2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor
> Smalley (and associates) were to *accept* the
> burden of proof scientifically what happens by
> default politically?

I don't understand the use of "politically" in the above question.  Do
you mean that the science will drive the politics?  I don't think so.
In the short term, the politics will be based less on where the science
actually can do -- which can fall either way: Drexler could be right or
he could be wrong (Smalley can't be right because his argument is
invalid; at best, his conclusion might be right, but for different
reasons) -- than on who has more clout, even who can persuade more
people in positions of power which amounts to the same thing.

In a rational society, this wouldn't matter much, since science would be
a private endeavor and both Drexler and Smalley could carry on their
work: Drexler trying to build a nanoassember, any nanoassembler and
Smalley trying to prove it can't be built.  Actually, were the latter a
little more rational, he would make an excellent foil and help the whole
effort -- whatever is possible or whatever happens in the end.  (If
nanotechnology is truly beyond our capabilities, he might hasten our
acceptence of this view. If it is not, then he might help us to avoid
fruitless areas of research or to highlight specific problems that
enthusiasts might overlook.  Likewise Drexlerians would help him out as
well.  If nanotech is impossible, their continued looking for a solution
might refine our understanding of matter at that level by defining the
actual limits of our capabilities.)

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 14:57:41 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:57:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir><5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net><Pine.WNT.4.55.0312062359490.-329001@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
	<004301c3bc89$5cde9ba0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <00c501c3bcd2$777f6ea0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 1:14 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com
wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I can't see how the issue of
> whether selling calendars rather than
> asking the government for a "handout" is
> in any way cool.  To be concerned about
> a "handout" from the government at this
> level - it just seems like such a piffle.

Well, I'm not sure about it being "cool," but that's a relative term.
Anything can be cool or uncool depending on the context.

I also don't think it's a piffle.  Yes, there are bigger areas of
spending waste, but this a way to get the point across about such
handouts in a way that most people won't find threatening and might even
agree with.  One problem, too, with government financing of election
campaigns is that it becomes merely another welfare program -- meaning
certain special interests will want to keep it going regardless of its
results -- and that it will result in even more government control over
elections -- meaning that the government will play more of role in what
the issues are and who runs.  The old anarchist saw will apply in
spades:  No matter who you vote for the government wins.  (Well,
naturally, but the more intervention there is in the process, the more
those who hold the reigns of power now will decide who holds them after
the next election.  The more the current government will decide who will
be in the next government and what its policies will be.)

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 15:20:31 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:20:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>

Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe it's more of a matter of not yet finding a way to break it.

Dan
  From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
  To: wta-talk ; hit ; extropy-chat 
  Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:48 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution


  From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption process is emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing laws of quantum physics. In November, a small startup called MagiQ Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first commercially available system that uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys that are widely used to encode and read secret documents. 
  MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think this is going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond, MagiQ's founder and chief executive. Encryption schemes commonly used now are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday. But even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred by imperfect means -- via courier or special software. They are not changed very often and can be susceptible to interception. 
  Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine, until something interacts with them.


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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/a91a155f/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 15:20:31 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:20:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>

Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe it's more of a matter of not yet finding a way to break it.

Dan
  From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
  To: wta-talk ; hit ; extropy-chat 
  Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:48 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution


  From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption process is emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing laws of quantum physics. In November, a small startup called MagiQ Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first commercially available system that uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys that are widely used to encode and read secret documents. 
  MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think this is going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond, MagiQ's founder and chief executive. Encryption schemes commonly used now are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday. But even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred by imperfect means -- via courier or special software. They are not changed very often and can be susceptible to interception. 
  Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine, until something interacts with them.


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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/a91a155f/attachment-0001.html>

From jacques at dtext.com  Sun Dec  7 15:19:24 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:19:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] promoting libertarianism effectively
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0312070915370.-142043@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
References: <000a01c3bc21$7a6cd000$f0c7fea9@scerir><5.1.0.14.2.20031206150543.00bc04c8@mail.earthlink.net>	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312062359490.-329001@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>	<004301c3bc89$5cde9ba0$6400a8c0@brainiac>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0312070915370.-142043@pentium.mb.baumeister.us>
Message-ID: <3FD344FC.80100@dtext.com>

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rachelmills/22673.html




From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Dec  7 15:24:56 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:24:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBCCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From what I have read it is unbreakable in principle, because you can find
out if is it has been intercepted (then of course you declare the key void
and exchange a new one).
  -----Original Message-----
  From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
Technotranscendence
  Sent: 07 December 2003 16:21
  To: ExI chat list; wta-talk; hit; extropy-chat
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution


  Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe it's more of a
matter of not yet finding a way to break it.

  Dan
    From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0
    To: wta-talk ; hit ; extropy-chat
    Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:48 AM
    Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution


    From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption process
is emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the
mind-blowing laws of quantum physics. In November, a small startup called
MagiQ Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first
commercially available system that uses individual photons to transfer the
numeric keys that are widely used to encode and read secret documents.
    MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will
appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and
other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think this is
going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond,
MagiQ's founder and chief executive. Encryption schemes commonly used now
are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday. But
even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is
superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people
sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive
string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred
by imperfect means -- via courier or special software. They are not changed
very often and can be susceptible to interception.
    Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in
multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine,
until something interacts with them.


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


    _______________________________________________
    extropy-chat mailing list
    extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
    http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/5928e712/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 16:12:22 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20031207161222.43412.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Well, the system is merely a means of key transmission that is not
crackable, in that it is able to easily detect interception and take
countermeasures. It says nothing about the security of the cryptosystem
that generates the keys themselves. As far as I am aware, the
cryptosystem is NOT a quantum computer based system.

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe it's more
> of a matter of not yet finding a way to break it.
> 
> Dan
>   From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
>   To: wta-talk ; hit ; extropy-chat 
>   Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:48 AM
>   Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
> 
> 
>   From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption
> process is emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs
> the mind-blowing laws of quantum physics. In November, a small
> startup called MagiQ Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to
> be the first commercially available system that uses individual
> photons to transfer the numeric keys that are widely used to encode
> and read secret documents. 
>   MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this
> will appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical
> companies and other organizations that transmit sensitive
> information. "We think this is going to have a huge, positive impact
> on the world," said Bob Gelfond, MagiQ's founder and chief executive.
> Encryption schemes commonly used now are considered safe, though they
> theoretically could be broken someday. But even before that day
> arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is superior in one
> important way. In some super-high-security settings, people sharing
> passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive
> string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be
> transferred by imperfect means -- via courier or special software.
> They are not changed very often and can be susceptible to
> interception. 
>   Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of
> physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic
> particles exist in multiple possible states at once, however hard as
> that may be to imagine, until something interacts with them.
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>   _______________________________________________
>   extropy-chat mailing list
>   extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>   http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 16:21:29 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <001101c3bc87$cec6ae80$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031207162129.44972.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> CNN title:  Afghan bicycle bomb injures 15
> 
> Foxnews title:  Taliban Targets U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> CNN:  A bicycle carried a bomb that exploded in the main square of
> the
> southern Afghanistan city of Kandahar, wounding at least 15 people
> 
> Foxnews:  A bomb ripped through a bustling Kandahar bazaar Saturday,
> wounding 20 Afghans, in an attack the Taliban say targeted - but
> missed
> - U.S. soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> CNN:  Hashma and Deputy Chief Mohammad Salim said police and U.S.
> troops
> were investigating, but no arrests had been made. 
> 
> Foxnews: Taliban fighters claimed responsibility, saying the blast
> was
> aimed at American soldiers, but went off late.
> 
> 
> 
> CNN:  The blast damaged several shops in the square, breaking windows
> and crumbling walls...
> 
> Foxnews: ...Six shops were leveled. Broken glass from the shattered
> hotel front littered the ground, stained by the victims' blood. The
> wounded included three children...three of the 20 injured were
> seriously
> hurt and taken to the coalition military base at the city's airport
> for
> treatment...
> 
> 
> The tone of the articles is so very different that
> it leads to different conclusions.  The CNN report
> almost makes it sound like they do not know who set 
> off the explosion.  Foxnews has already tried and
> convicted the mad dogs of the Taliban.  It is no
> wonder there is such deeply divided opinion on the
> coalition action in Afghanistan, it depends on which
> news sources one reads.  Both sources are necessary 
> to even start to understand.

Well, I wouldnt' say Fox has tried and convicted the Taliban. Their
article clearly states that the Taliban has *claimed* responsibility,
and is only making excuses about why they wound up killing only fellow
afghans. The CNN simply didn't publish any claims of responsibility by
parties like the Taliban.

Now, I don't know why either side would do what they did. Is CNN simply
parroting its policy of not reporting that a criminal suspect is black
when he/she IS black, and not posting a photo, but having no trouble
reporting white criminals and posting their images, especially when
they are middle aged white males? In this case, are they not reporting
bad things the opponents of the US are doing as being done by them? Is
Fox trying to depict the Taliban as incompetent guerrillas, or are they
trying to say that Afghanistan is still dangerous?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Dec  7 16:55:01 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:55:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Anticipated Internet Exploding in 90s?
In-Reply-To: <00c401c3b9c2$d7679670$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20031203104058.01e64960@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031207114404.0210c208@mail.gmu.edu>

On 12/3/2003, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >>>I just read someone who said:
> >>>"no one anticipated the explosive diffusion of the Internet
> >>>during the 1990s"
> >>>and I figured that this can't be right - surely someone must
> >>>have had the dumb luck to predict such a thing before 1990.
> >>>Can anyone point to a quote?
> >>I suggest reading through "A Brief History of the Internet" at
> >>http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml .  It has references
> >>to all the milestones in Internet creation, including white papers,
> >>conferences, etc.
> >That is a history of who did what when, not of who predicted what when.
>
>Wow.  Remind me not to have you do any research for me!  :-)
>
>You think that the Internet was based on past network usage and not build on
>wide-spread predictions of how the future network would be used and what it
>had to support?  All requirements documents are based on future predictions.
>There are technical predictions of load, spread, and acceptance. ... Of
>*course* they are chock full of predictions about how great and widespread
>the internet was going to be in the future!
>Some quick examples of documents listed in the reference you dismissed: ...

I did not mean to be dismissive; I meant to indicate that I was wondering
if anyone knew of a quote regarding the particular kind of prediction that
was asked for - a predictions of "explosive diffusion" "during the 1990s."
This is much more specific than general predictions that the internet will
eventually be wonderful.  And none of the specific quotes you offered are
on this specific point.  I agree that such predictions may reside in the
many internet "white papers, conferences, etc".  And this is naturally where
one would start to look if one was willing to spend several weeks
researching this topic.  But I'm not going to put that effort in just to be
able to casually tell a particular person that their claim is mistaken.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Dec  7 16:55:12 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:55:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
	<012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <019a01c3bce2$f2acfd80$8efe4d0c@hal2001>

 Technotranscendence  Wrote:

  >  Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable? 
    
  I do. Unlike achieving Nanotechnology to break this code the fundamental laws of physics would have to be very different from what we think they are.

   

  John K Clark    jonkc at att.net  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/98e73e92/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Dec  7 16:04:37 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:04:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBCCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
References: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031207105429.02057e00@mail.gmu.edu>

There is an article in the latest New Scientist on how to break it.

> From what I have read it is unbreakable in principle, because you can 
> find out if is it has been intercepted (then of course you declare the 
> key void and exchange a new one).
> >Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe it's more of a 
> matter of not yet finding a way to break it.
> >>From 
> <http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/120703/bus%5f7sci001.shtml>2theadvocate.com: 
> After 20 years of research, an encryption process is emerging that is 
> considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing laws of 
> quantum physics. ...


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Dec  7 16:48:42 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:48:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <20031207125411.GP5783@leitl.org>
References: <05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
	<028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
	<05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031207110754.02082990@mail.gmu.edu>

On 12/7/2003 Eugen* Leitl  wrote:
> > 2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor Smalley (and associates) were to
> > *accept* the burden of proof scientifically what happens by default
> > politically?
>
>The Nobel "what's this purple crap in soxhleted soot?" laureate wins by 
>default</duh>

It's worse than that actually.  My strong impression from the recent NNI 
conference I just attended is that even if Drexler had the Nobel prize, 
Smalley's position would still win.

The key dynamic is government agencies perceive that "nanobots" have been 
associated in the public mind with possible big dangers, and they'd rather 
avoid any such association with dangers.  So they want to declare that 
"nanobots" are impossible, with no more specific common definition of what 
the impossible things are than whatever it is that the public is afraid 
of.  As long as respectable scientists can be recruited who say they are 
impossible, this is the position the government agencies will take.  And 
given the vast money available, it was pretty sure that some respectable 
scientists would be found to take this position.

Given all this, they key political "mistake" was to publicly create a 
vision of nanotech that included possible big dangers.  Given this initial 
choice, it was pretty much determined that this vision would never get 
government funding.  Of course it could still have been the right thing to 
do to warn the world about the dangers.  It should just have been realized 
(given 20/20 hindsight of course) that this would preclude any direct 
government funding.

An irony is that it was the exciting vision, including both dangers and 
great promise, that created enough public interest to make politicians 
think of creating a special research program, and to make those politicians 
want to explicitly require that there be some study of the social 
implications of this technology.  Given the way this plays out, the studies 
they actually do of social implications will explicitly exclude all 
scenarios that they think have anything to do with the declared impossible 
dangerous nanobots.




Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Sun Dec  7 17:01:47 2003
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:01:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] followup avoidance upon unexpected dissident responses
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <000601c3bc52$976f9bc0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<20031207001341.86452.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <n7n6tv8fgq8osoki4gpnhqr8kinqcpfj5j@4ax.com>

I have been reading a lot lately about how the media shapes political
debate and excludes radical and third party political candidates.  In
particular, I have been following the Democratic party presidential
race and debates.  One of the interesting aspects of the media
coverage has been how, during the televised candidate debates,  the
sometimes "radical" or "dissident" comments of candidate Kucinich has
been handled.
Also, a former poster to this list, Anthony Garcia, was recently on
the Houston PBS "connections" TV show.  He is a Texas Libertarian
party activist and sometime candidate.  He "debated"/discussed various
broad political issues with representatives of the local Democrat,
Republican, and Green parties.  Interesting to me was how the
moderator and Dem and GOP representatives completely ignored Anthony's
occasional comments about broad issues regarding how the dems and gop
use their power to keep 3rd party candidates off the ballot and away
from the media. However, almost every comment from the dem and gop
representatives, even when about seemingly trivial subject matter,
prompted a followup from the moderator and the other major party
candidate.

Likewise, when Kucinich made radical/dissident comments about broad
issues during the debate, the moderator simply ignored every single
one, while comments from the more "mainstream" candidates were
followed up by the moderator.

Here is a quote from Michael Parenti's website that defines how this
exclusion of outlier parties, ideologies, and candidates is
accomplished via "followup avoidance of dissident comments" when a
radical or dissident comment is made on TV:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Follow-up Avoidance

When confronted with an unexpectedly dissident response, media hosts
quickly change the subject, or break for a commercial, or inject an
identifying announcement: "We are talking with [whomever]." The
purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically forbidden
topic no matter how much the unexpected response might seem to need a
follow-up query. An anchorperson for the BBC World Service (December
26, 1997) enthused: "Christmas in Cuba: For the first time in almost
forty years Cubans were able to celebrate Christmas and go to church!"
She then linked up with the BBC correspondent in Havana, who observed,
"A crowd of two thousand have gathered in the cathedral for midnight
mass. The whole thing is rather low key, very much like last year."
Very much like last year? Here was something that craved
clarification. Instead, the anchorperson quickly switched to another
question: "Can we expect a growth of freedom with the pope's visit?"

On a PBS talk show (January 22, 1998), host Charlie Rose asked a
guest, whose name I did not get, whether Castro was bitter about "the
historic failure of communism". No, the guest replied, Castro is proud
of what he believes communism has done for Cuba: advances in health
care and education, full employment, and the elimination of the worst
aspects of poverty. Rose fixed him with a ferocious glare, then turned
to another guest to ask: "What impact will the pope's visit have in
Cuba?" Rose ignored the errant guest for the rest of the program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



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



From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Sun Dec  7 17:47:13 2003
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:47:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
Message-ID: <004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>

> He can't just wave his hands and say, if one thing doesn't work, we'll
> try something else.  He can't point to living things as an existence
> proof (because Drexlerian nanotech's revolutionary properties go far
> beyond anything possible with biology).

###  I think it's useful to consider the conditions that led to the
formation of biological mechanosynthesis, conditions which do not pertain in
the case of artificial mechanosynthesis, and try to imagine how changed
conditions could change the possible outcomes.

Consider, for example the need for self-assembly of every protein: The vast
majority of proteins are produced by a standard system (the ribosome) out of
a very limited number of building blocks, in such a way that the simple
one-dimensional ordering (protein sequence) determines the three-dimensional
outcome. This introduces severe limits on the kind of chemical interactions
between parts of a protein - they cannot be cross-linked for higher
strength, except by the use of other proteins or the limited expedient of
S-S bridges, so only select proteins are cross-braced (see collagen
formation), or else you'd need to have a bunch of specialized
post-translational modificators for each protein, and a bunch of
modificators for each modificator, and ...

The supporting structure of an enzyme has to not only support the active
moieities, but also code for its own folding, necessitating many loops which
are there only because of the folding requirement (see the difference in
size between the catalysts based on cage-compounds and proteins of similar
catalytic ability). Since there is no internal cross-bracing except for
non-covalent bonds (with few exceptions), the structure is very
thermosensitive.

Or consider the need for evolutionary malleability coupled limited
information storage and low computational capabilities: you need to change
enzyme structure very quickly to adapt to new conditions (so you have to
reuse existing devices and kludge them together to make new functions), but
the only way you can compute new structures is to make prototypes out of a
small number of building blocks (a cell couldn't store enzyme information
for making e.g. 20 000 building blocks instead of 21) and see if they
survive. This is a severe limitation on the amount of searching in the
design space you can do, even in millions of years.

The situation for the nanotechnologist is different. Let's imagine you have
enzymes (garden-variety biological ones) to make 20 000 distinct building
blocks - rods, braces, steppers, thousands of prosthetic groups for various
catalytic steps. Instead of making a protein catalyst out of 500 aminoacids,
you could use five or six structural blocks and attach two-three prosthetic
groups to have the same catalytic ability- but in a much smaller and more
durable package, as in a cage compound. You would need an assembler able to
grasp many more building blocks than a ribosome does, maybe even many
separate ribosome-like entities, yes, but without the computational limits
inherent in being a single cell that needs to reproduce *and* make most of
its components almost from scratch, this should be doable.

Also, if you are not limited to reusing existing enzymes, you can calculate
the optimal structure, and choose the optimal blocks out of your library of
20 000, you will make much more efficient devices. You can search the design
space far away from the list of available components and if you find
something worthwhile, you can make the components to get you there. With a
library of 20 000 specialized blocks you should be able to design organisms
with orders of magnitude higher concentrations of active elements, therefore
faster reaction speeds, smaller size, higher complexity - or simply, you'd
have MNT. It's true that the "assembler" might be a bank of 20 000
specialized building-block producers with a hierarchy of assembling devices,
each accepting the feedstocks of dozens of others to finally churn out the
products (such as a specialized producer, or fur for a teddy bear) - but
this makes it all the more believable, at least for me.

I do think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible, and pointing to living
things as the proof of principle is a valid argument. Almost all proofs of
principle, being hastily cobbled together from available parts, are slow and
clunky.... the final product of optimization will be much better.

Rafal



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Dec  7 17:53:00 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:53:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <20031207161222.43412.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011c01c3bcea$f7ab1760$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > Does anyone seriously think it is unbreakable?  I believe
> > it's more of a matter of not yet finding a way to break it.
>
> Well, the system is merely a means of key transmission that
> is not crackable, in that it is able to easily detect 
> interception and take countermeasures. It says nothing about 
> the security of the cryptosystem that generates the keys 
> themselves.

Technotrascendence is right about this merely being temporarily unbreakable.
Unbreakable techniques come and go all the time.  They are theoretically
unbreakable until someone figures out a way to break it.  Sometimes there
was a flaw in the theories.  Usually, it is cracked using an unexpected
trick that does not violate the theoretical proof in any way.  For example,
encrypted passwords were once thought to be unbreakable.  People calculated
that it would take billions of years to try all the passwords to find the
right one.  But hackers noticed that people didn't really choose random
passwords.  They chose English words from their small vocabularies of a few
thousand words.  The key space was magnitudes weaker than theoretically
predicted.  A dictionary attack trying English words broke most
English-speakers' passwords fairly quickly.  In this day of new physics and
rapid advancement, even the laws of physics may be subject to change and/or
new methods discovered that will invalidate previous theories.

Mike is exactly right that this only solves the key-exchange problem, if it
even does that.  It does not address algorithmic flaws or operations flaws.
Common operational attacks are still available for use against this
technology.  Even if the keys are created and exchanged securely, other
methods of attack are not blocked.

A timing attack, for example, can greatly limit the key range required for
guessing if we can somehow detect the beginning of the key generation and
then detect when it comes back with an uncrackable key.  Different
algorithms take different lengths of time to calculate different keys.  By
measuring the time exactly, we can figure out how long it took the algorithm
to develop the key.  This limits the keys to only those taking this length
of time.  Based on the random mathematics involved, some keys take more time
while others take less.  Being able to limit the key range limits the
strength of the key.  The best example of a timing attack was a timing bug
in SSH using remote password encryption.  Theoretically, the system
shouldn't tell you if you have a good username with a bad password, or if
the username is bad as well.  Hackers noticed that a good username took a
few seconds to respond because the system had to decrypt the password for
comparison.  While a bad username came back immediately because there was no
password to decrypt because the username was wrong.  By timing the
responses, hackers could tell whether a username existed or not.  They could
go down a list of common names and have the system tell them whether they
were valid or not.  Theoretically, the encryption was not cracked.  But
timing differences revealed the answer anyway.  Quantum communications won't
protect from this kind of attack.

A man-in-the-middle attack, for example, is when a person masquerades as the
intended party and tricks the security system into exchanging keys with the
fake person rather than the real person.  Then all messages sent to the fake
person are readable by them, and then they re-encrypt it and forward it to
the real recipient.  The sender and the real recipient talk back and forth
using "uncrackable" encryption (which technically has not actually been
cracked), never knowing that a third party is reading all their encrypted
communications.  Quantum communications won't protect from this kind of
attack.

Plain old spying, for example, still allows a person's office or PC to be
bugged so that the spy sees everything going on, even if the data is
encrypted over the network.  They spy sees the human-readable data at each
end before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.  The data must be made
human readable for the humans at each end to read it, and that is where the
spying occurs.  Quantum communications won't protect from this kind of
attack.

Plain old social engineering, for example, is when a bad person fools a
target into lowering security without them realizing it.  A fake e-mail
message to the person saying that they need to give their uncrackable key to
the sysadmin for backups might get the uncrackable key from a gullible
person.  Or consider fake directions on how to verify that their quantum key
generation is really secure, where the complicated directions include
resetting the key to a known key instead of the randomly generated one.
Quantum communications won't protect from this kind of attack.

A Tempest attack, for example, measures very fine changes in power draw or
electromagnetic interference to determine what a device is doing.  Imagine a
graph showing the power consumption to your device.  Random fluctuations on
the power grid are large and broad on this graph.  Power draw from most
appliances are also large discrete changes.  However, a fast computer might
be drawing different micro amounts depending on what data it is
transferring, and these changes are fast and minute.  It is theoretically
possible to extrapolate such data from the power draw.  Another example of
Tempest leaks is the slight radio static click that each keystroke makes.
Each key has a little switch inside it that makes a connection as you type.
They keys are not microscopically similar, and each one gives a slightly
different static burst that is unique.  A person doesn't even have to
recognize each key, they can statistically deduce them like a coded
cryptogram, where "e" is the most common letter in English, "the" is the
most common three-letter word, etc.  A third example of Tempest leakage is
the power leakage from your screen as you type.  Between keystrokes, it is
constant while the screen isn't changing.  With each keystroke, the screen
only changes by one letter difference.  Repeating the letter will repeat the
same delta change.  Different letters with a different number of pixels take
a different amount of energy to display.  This also gives a Tempest spy the
ability to remotely read what is on your screen as it displays.  Quantum
communications won't protect from this kind of attack.

In other words, the quantum key generation and/or transmission only solves a
specific case of security and makes it secure.  All the other security
problems still exist.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Dec  7 17:54:11 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:54:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031207105429.02057e00@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <011d01c3bceb$2224f650$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robin Hanson wrote,
> There is an article in the latest New Scientist on how to break it.

Thanks.  That was fast!  (The more things change, the more they stay the
same....)

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Sun Dec  7 18:36:40 2003
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:36:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Golden Transcendence
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
	<004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <007e01c3bcf1$10b36b80$6501a8c0@dimension>

I just finished reading the third part of John C. Wright's Golden Age
trilogy, and I am awed. As I suspected, Wright allows humanity an escape
from the eons of dignified dying outlined in Phoenix Exultant - I was
convinced that a dynamical optimist like Wright wouldn't let humanity go out
with a quadrillion-year whimper. Add to it insights and epiphanies galore,
some unexpected but smart (rather than, as it sometimes happens, confusing
and stilted) plot twists, wry humor, ebullient libertarianism and an
explanation of some hitherto mysterious elements of his world history and
politics, and you have a glorious conclusion to the best s-f trilogy since
Varley's "Titan" (AISI).

The one issue I don't understand are the IP laws in the Golden Ecumene - are
they statutory or merely contractual? If statutory, why are they
(apparently) time-unlimited, which might result in inefficiencies (and
Wright doesn't say how inefficiencies are avoided), and if they are
contractual, how do they become universally enforced? I could imagine the
following argument in favor of IP held in perpetuity - since the IP owner
receives the full market value of his invention, there is a strong stimulus
to provide new inventions - both to earn and to avoid paying for older IP.
But then, if the inventor of the wheel was still alive, we would be paying
him royalties on every car, including toy trucks. On the other hand,
contractual IP would assure return commensurate with effort spent on
research while avoiding perpetual royalties but Wright specifically mentions
the Parliament as the venue where the scope of IP was decided in the Golden
Ecumene.

All this doesn't detract from Wright's vision, however. Highly recommended.

Rafal



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Dec  7 21:18:25 2003
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:18:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Contradictions in Politics:
 Socialism/Democracy/Libertarianism/Republican
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031207121023.044b8d80@pop.earthlink.net>

Majority rules makes sense to me; especially if my needs are in the 
majority. That is why living in  America, it is easy to be (a) religious, 
wealthy and educated male; or, (b) Black, Hispanic, White uneducated and 
poor male or female.  This all depends on what mountain top one is peering 
down from.

I'm with Abraham Lincoln when he said that "...I would not be a slave, so I 
would not be a master."  However, according to the encumbrances of slavery 
in the early-mid 1800s I would probably be exactly where I am today, not 
with a or b.  These categories are quickly defusing, blurring, fuzzying, 
fading into the past.  But not everyone recognizes this, or even realizes 
it to be occurring.  Feminists still claim there is a glass ceiling, Jesse 
Jackson still hunts for global problems he can mediate, and the welfare and 
homeless still beg for money on the corner of Los Angeles's freeway off-ramps.

That "politics" will not find solutions to transhumanist problems is a 
pipe-dream - all light up with sugar plum fairies and dancing elves.  As 
Thomas Crown said in the "Thomas Crown Affair, "It's just a game.  It 
provides a venue to roll up shirt-sleeves, pump up our chests and vent, 
blame, and defend.  What better way to keep people off the streets? :-)

The human capacity for fairness or moral rightness makes the idea of 
democracy possible, albeit the human tendency toward obligatory of justice 
makes the idea of democracy necessary. Plato said that some of the 
"features of democracy ... will enable a "footing of equality, whether they 
be really equal or not."  Since when did futurists consider human beings 
and transhumans chattel?

Maybe Mark Twain, a favored American humorist/writer/thinker was more 
honest when he said that "I am a democrat only on principle," as it seems 
wholesome and caring to be democratic.  However, we do not  live in a 
"perfect" world in which people are treated "equally."  A physician of A 
PhD is often given more credence than her fellow "majority" - just listen 
to some soap-box academics.  Further, artists seem to think we are more 
in-touch, more intuitive, more spot on when it comes to visionary ideas and 
frowns upon the social ineptitude of the masses. We can pass the baton of 
disciplinary-snobbery around the Internet and we will discover how most 
humans hold onto their ideas like a lifeboat in the rough seas of political 
turmoil.

"Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice," wrote Gore 
Vidal.  Sounds good.  But then he adds, "like Painkiller X and Painkiller 
Y. But they're both just aspirin."

The common thread between all the political agendas discussed over the past 
many years is the, "I'm right.  You are wrong." principle.

Freedom and equality are contradictions in terms, just as society and the 
individual are mutually exclusive.  How can I be free if my individual 
needs are not part of the majority?  Only if the majority is so confident 
that individuals are allowed to pursue and make their own choices.  In this 
country, it is the Democrats vs. the Republicans, but how is "a political 
order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are 
entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them" 
different than a democracy?  How is wanting the world to be healthy and 
prosperous not draw from the principles of socialism in which everyone is 
equal?  How is wanting to live indefinitely different from wanting eternal 
life in Heaven?  How does a desire to live in a pollution-free world where 
there is land yet to explore not environmentalist? Of course these are 
rhetorical questions used to show that while we may all want what seems to 
be the same thing, we approach it from different constructs for different 
purpose.

I can sum it up in meaningful directive in a one-liner clipped from another 
thread:

Max More wrote:

>However, I disagree that *anything* done to get ideas about liberty out 
>there is good. First impressions have a powerful influence on the human 
>mind. A poor first impression only increases the work to be done.

Why resort to outdated political models and religious views just because we 
want to go "mainstream"?  When did affirmative action find its way into 
transhumanism?  We must not bend over for every political or political 
group-think to soften and erode the values and principles of transhumanism 
just because we want to go mainstream.

BETTER, we must enable a sense of understanding, cooperation and 
willingness to work together.  We must invite others to learn about our 
ideals in ways that are non-threatening.  We must hold our own, stand 
strong, and educate the "mainstream."  Let's us not take our hard-earned 
sense of  the future down to a low common denominator.  Let us work toward 
raising the level of reason and vision to the rest  of the world.

Natasha
__________________________

"Two cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it 
permits criticism.
E. M. Forster (1879-1970), British novelist, essayist. Two Cheers for 
Democracy, "What I Believe" (1951). Forster thought two cheers "quite 
enough: there is no occasion to give three." The third he reserved for the 
Republic of Love.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!"
Allen Ginsberg (b. 1926), U.S. poet. Journals: Early Fifties Early Sixties, 
"New York City" (ed. by Gordon Ball, 1977), Oct. 1960 entry, "Subliminal."

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, 
as a rule the majority are wrong." Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), U.S. trade 
unionist, co-founder of the U.S. Socialist Party. Speech, 12 Sept. 1918, 
Cleveland, Ohio, defending himself against charges of sedition. Found 
guilty, Debs was subsequently jailed for three years..

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and 
murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit 
suicide." John Adams (1735-1826), U.S. statesman, president. Letter, 15 
April 1814 (published in The Works of John Adams, vol. 6, 1851).

"Nor is the people's judgement always true: The most may err as grossly as 
the few."
John Dryden (1631-1700), English poet

"I swear to the Lord,
I still can't see,
Why Democracy means,
Everybody but me."
Langston Hughes (1902-67), U.S. poet, author. The Black Man Speaks, in Jim 
Crow's Last Stand (1943).

"Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head;
This world is ruled by violence,
But I guess that's better left unsaid."
Bob Dylan (b. 1941), U.S. singer, songwriter. "Union Sundown," on the album 
Infidels (1983).

"When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, 
inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then 
accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations 
their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them. It's a remarkably 
shrewed and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it."
John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908), U.S. economist. The Age of Uncertainty, 
ch. 12 (1977).

"Democracy is the wholesome and pure air without which a socialist public 
organization cannot live a full-blooded life." Mikhail Gorbachev (b. 1931), 
Soviet president. Speech, 25 Feb. 1986, to 27th Party Congress, Moscow.

"The freeman, casting with unpurchased hand
The vote that shakes the turrets of the land."
Oliver Wendell, Sr. Holmes  (1809-94), U.S. writer, physician. Poetry: a 
Metrical Essay.

"Democracy with its semi-civilization sincerely cherishes junk. The 
artist's power should be spiritual.  But the power of the majority is 
material. When these worlds meet occasionally, it is pure coincidence."
Paul Klee (1879-1940), Swiss artist. The Diaries of Paul Klee 1898-1918, 
no. 747 (1957; tr. 1965), Jan. 1906 entry.


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/526e9d37/attachment.html>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sun Dec  7 19:12:46 2003
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:12:46 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] same story, different spins
In-Reply-To: <20031207162129.44972.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031207162129.44972.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312072010250.17015@hercules>

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> coalition action in Afghanistan, it depends on which
>> news sources one reads.  Both sources are necessary
>> to even start to understand.
>
>Well, I wouldnt' say Fox has tried and convicted the Taliban. Their
>article clearly states that the Taliban has *claimed* responsibility,
>and is only making excuses about why they wound up killing only fellow
>afghans. The CNN simply didn't publish any claims of responsibility by
>parties like the Taliban.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3296307.stm) and other
news sources says that no one has claimed responsibility, but that Taliban
were accused.

It shouldn't be so hard to find out *if* someone has really claimed
responsibilit or not. At least some of the news sources are lying, and it
doesn't help in the least.

Ciao,
Alfio


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Dec  7 19:19:40 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:19:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] followup avoidance upon unexpected dissident
	responses
References: <000601c3bc52$976f9bc0$6501a8c0@SHELLY><20031207001341.86452.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com><5.1.0.14.2.20031206172545.03ca2108@mail.earthlink.net>
	<n7n6tv8fgq8osoki4gpnhqr8kinqcpfj5j@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c3bcf7$1140a8a0$76cd5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:01 PM randy cryofan at mylinuxisp.com
wrote:
> Also, a former poster to this list, Anthony Garcia,
> was recently on the Houston PBS "connections"
> TV show.  He is a Texas Libertarian party activist
> and sometime candidate.  He "debated"/discussed
> various broad political issues with representatives
> of the local Democrat, Republican, and Green
> parties.  Interesting to me was how the moderator
> and Dem and GOP representatives completely
> ignored Anthony's occasional comments about
> broad issues regarding how the dems and gop
> use their power to keep 3rd party candidates off
> the ballot and away from the media. However,
> almost every comment from the dem and gop
> representatives, even when about seemingly
> trivial subject matter, prompted a followup from
> the moderator and the other major party candidate.

Well, I'm not sure of the selection process.  I've seen debates where
third party candidates have done well, but, typically, major party
candidates try to keep third party candidates out of debates or minimize
their impact in them.  This might happen by selecting a moderator who
does not take the third party candidates seriously.

Remember, too, major candidates don't want the situation to get out of
control.  Typically, they go for the so called center and ignore their
radical wings because they know their radical wings can't go anywhere
else.  Enter a third party candidate and that could change.  Now, the
mainstream candidate is given a dilemma: go more purist and alienate the
center or focus on the center and lose the radicals.  Most mainstream
candidates want to avoid that.

It's also like chess too.  In a lot of games, people use the strategy of
simplifying by trading pieces.  By simplifying the "candidate space,"
mainstream candidates can control the terms of debate and not have to
worry about losing support to radical or other factions within their
base -- or expending effort defeating them.  (Why are the Republicans
without any contenders for the Presidential nomination?  Well, Bush can
focus on the Democrats -- rather than fight a bitter primary like last
time and them have to fend off his opponents.  The same logic applies to
third parties.)

> When confronted with an unexpectedly dissident
> response, media hosts quickly change the subject,
> or break for a commercial, or inject an identifying
> announcement: "We are talking with [whomever]."
> The purpose is to avoid going any further into a
> politically forbidden topic no matter how much the
> unexpected response might seem to need a
> follow-up query. An anchorperson for the BBC
> World Service (December 26, 1997) enthused:
> "Christmas in Cuba: For the first time in almost
> forty years Cubans were able to celebrate
> Christmas and go to church!" She then linked up
> with the BBC correspondent in Havana, who observed,
> "A crowd of two thousand have gathered in the
> cathedral for midnight mass. The whole thing is
> rather low key, very much like last year."  Very
> much like last year? Here was something that craved
> clarification. Instead, the anchorperson quickly
> switched to another question: "Can we expect
> a growth of freedom with the pope's visit?"

The BBC is one of the most biased news services anyhow.  They make
statements like that all the time.  I wonder if part of it is just the
service trying to avoid anything that might make them personae non grata
in Cuba.

> On a PBS talk show (January 22, 1998), host
> Charlie Rose asked a guest, whose name I did
> not get, whether Castro was bitter about "the
> historic failure of communism". No, the guest
> replied, Castro is proud of what he believes
> communism has done for Cuba: advances in
> health care and education, full employment,
> and the elimination of the worst aspects of
> poverty.

Which is why people general hop on inner tubes from Key West to get to
Cuba.  I've heard the Cuban Coast Guard has to turn these immigrants
back, so many are trying to migrate to the Caribbean paradise.  Also,
note how those deluded enough to leave Cuba, quickly return when they
discover what a great land they've left.  This explains Florida's
declining Cuban population: more of them move back to live happy and
free under Castro.  (Sorry, I couldn't resist.:)

> Rose fixed him with a ferocious glare, then turned
> to another guest to ask: "What impact will the
> pope's visit have in Cuba?" Rose ignored the
> errant guest for the rest of the program.

I know you got this off another site, but have you ever watched Charlie
Rose?  He's not only politically biased and shows it, but he's a bad
interviewing.  He talks over his guests, ignores those he can't control,
and generally overtly steers the discussion.  Watching him, one gets the
feeling the guests are there merely as props  for him.  (This has
nothing to do with my disagreement with his particular politics, as I
find other Left-wing interviewers to be much better and even among the
best I know, such as Terry Gross (NPR) of Leonard Lopate (WNYC).)  So
I'm not surprised he would do this -- if, in fact, that's what he did.

But to turn this discussion into a positive direction:  How would you
get the media, etc. to pay more attention to radical or dissident views?
One thing to do might be to hire a polling agency to do a survey with so
called radical positions and see how many people hold them.  Let's say
you find 40% of those surveyed hold the radical position.  Yuo could
then use the poll to show how media coverage of such positions is far
lower than their actual representation in the population.  That might
shame some in the media toward mending their ways.  (Of course, I'm
assuming that these so called radical positions are more prevalent than
mainstream reporting would have us believe.:)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Dec  7 19:38:34 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:38:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031207110754.02082990@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071041330.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Robin Hanson wrote:

> So they [goverment officials] want to declare that
> "nanobots" are impossible, with no more specific common definition of what
> the impossible things are than whatever it is that the public is afraid
> of.  As long as respectable scientists can be recruited who say they are
> impossible, this is the position the government agencies will take.  And
> given the vast money available, it was pretty sure that some respectable
> scientists would be found to take this position.  [snip]

I think people are missing a couple of important issues here.  Right now
a Drexler type assembler arm probably is *effectively impossible*.
[And one can comfortably ignore nanorobots.]  The reasons are poorly
developed methods and very high costs.

Lets see:
MECHANOSYNTHESIS: has been done on a limited scale with AFMs and
1-2 atoms.  No parallel AFMs in production to my knowledge.  There
is the Zyvex rotapod but it needs tool tips and needs to be scaled
down from MEMS to nanoscale.  That will happen probably if they
manage to make it through the decade and 5-20 nm litographic/MEMS
methods are developed.  (Right now we are looking at 65 nm circa 2006).

SYNTHETIC CHEMISTRY: it isn't sophisticated enough yet and the computational
capacity isn't up to the job.  The largest synthetic molecules that have
been made are things like Vitamin B-12, vancomycin and maitotoxin.  They
have atomic sizes ranging from ~200-500 atoms.  Even for the fine motion
controller which is 2600 atoms in size but probably only 1/500th to 1/1000th
of an 4,000,000 atom assembler arm design (not counting the motors and
computer interface you might need to control it).  [The reason the ratios
aren't exact is there is a fair amount of repitition in the assembler
arm design.]  Then you only have 2 people in the world (Merkle and Drexler)
who have ever designed nanoscale parts -- where does the rest of the
design come from?  Finally to assemble something with 4,000,000+ atoms
you are going to require *lots* of chemical reactions -- potentially
millions.  Even if you had the design in hand it is probably far too
complicated for the human mind and the current retrosynthetic analysis
programs are only capable of handling molecules from a few hundred
to a few thousand molecules in size.  The problem is the exponential
growth in the number of reactions you have to try as the nanoparts
increase in size.

ENZYMATIC CHEMISTRY: The problem here is that even though we are starting
to accumulate databases with thousands of enzymes (due to genome sequencing)
we don't know many of the structures yet -- though our rate of determining
them should increase significantly over the next couple of years.  Our
computer predictions of protein structure from amino acid sequence are
still pretty poor and our ability to design proteins has only begun to
develop in a few groups over the last 5-8 years.  And very few people
are working on de novo enzyme design.

Finally there is the issue of COST.  I've looked at this for ENZYMATIC
CHEMISTRY in [1].  You can disagree with my analysis but I would bet
they would not be low by more than an order of magnitude and its even
less likely that they are high.  The cost to design *just* the
enzymes for the Fine Motion Controller to do the assembly of smaller
chemical building blocks -- *if* we had lots of designers and some
reasonable skill in that process would be $5.8 million dollars.
For a nanoassembler arm the cost is $9 billioin dollars and for a
single nanorobot its $17 trillion dollars.  These figures do not
include the costs of the design of the nanoparts (nanosubcomponents)
of the finished nanomachines.  Since these amounts are significantly
beyond what most government government grants are for, at this time
you would have to recruit 5-10 groups to tackle the problems if
you really wanted to deal with them seriously.  That is the real
problem with Smalley's position -- an insufficient number of good
scientists have read Drexler's literature enough to want to take
a position against him.  That would allow us to attempt to enroll
the types of team leaders that can both bring home the money.

That's why one of the projects I'd like to work on is a complete
retrosynthetic analysis of the fine motion controller.  Its the
smallest nanopart Merkle & Drexler designed.  Its within 5x
of what has been done to date.  Once that has been accomplished
Smalleys position immediately starts to fall apart and the race
is on.

Now the good news is that natural trends in molecular biology,
synthetic chemistry, biochemical knowledge, computation, etc.
seem to be driving the costs down, in part due to the increase
in the knowledge base, better methods, working at smaller scales,
etc.  By 2010 things might start to look feasible for "moon shot"
type approaches and by 2020 things may really start to get feasible.

So I'm not so sure that there is a lot of politics involved (though
government officials might the impression out to the public that
they don't want to develop things that are dangerous -- but you
know that isn't true for DARPA and the pentagon.  The problem is
that most of the NNI work is being done by the NSF, NIH and
NASA which are probably a little more risk averse.

Robert



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Dec  7 20:09:04 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <004601c3bcea$26086780$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071147090.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> This introduces severe limits on the kind of chemical interactions
> between parts of a protein - they cannot be cross-linked for higher
> strength, except by the use of other proteins or the limited expedient of
> S-S bridges, so only select proteins are cross-braced (see collagen
> formation)

You could take 2 of the stop codons and use them to create 2 new
amino acids that crosslink with something much stronger than an S-S
bond, design/evolve 2 new tRNAs, then kludge up Venter's minimal
organism so it only uses the remaining stop codon, then verify/evolve
receptors that can absorb the new amino acids from the medium
(I'd suspect minimal microorganisms will use universal amino
acid pickup receptors).  Voila -- an orgainsm into which you can
put new genetic sequences that will allow you to build much
stronger proteins/enzymes.  (I believe scientists at UCSD have
done between 1/10th and 1/5th of this already).

It is worth pointing out in [1], Table 1, I point out an alternate
genetic code that would allow 63 building blocks rather than than
just 21.  The era of whole genome engineering would allow one
to construct a variety of organisms capable of working with
different genetic codes.

> or else you'd need to have a bunch of specialized
> post-translational modificators for each protein, and a bunch of
> modificators for each modificator, and ...

How does the selenocysteine modification work?  At the tRNA level
or at the protein level?

> (a cell couldn't store enzyme information for making e.g. 20 000
> building blocks instead of 21) and see if they survive.

Well that isn't true -- there are organisms like Amoeba dubia
that have 670 million BP genomes, 20,000 building blocks
gives them 33,000 bp/building block which is probably enough
for 1500+ bases for each enzyme in a 10 step assembly process
and that doesn't include any reuse of parts of pathways.

> This is a severe limitation on the amount of searching in the
> design space you can do, even in millions of years.

Particularly if you find a basic set that solves most of the
problems most of the time.  I think plants that can tolerate
great extremes of heat and cold would be interesting to study
as they may have copied the enzymes that worked and simply
evolved them sufficiently to work at alternate temperatures.

Robert

1.  Bradbury, R. J., "Protein Based Assembly of Nanoscale Parts", (July 2001)
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Papers/PBAoNP.html



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Dec  7 20:13:15 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071147090.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071211110.1666-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Well that isn't true -- there are organisms like Amoeba dubia
> that have 670 million BP genomes, [snip]

Sorry, correction, that is 670 billion BP genomes.
For those interested genome sizes (the DOGS database
[Dabase of Genome Sizes]) is a useful resource.

See: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/databases/DOGS/

R.




From cphoenix at best.com  Sun Dec  7 21:07:58 2003
From: cphoenix at best.com (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
	<028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
	<05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031207110754.02082990@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <3FD396AE.7B8A0241@best.com>

Robin Hanson wrote (and BCC'd to me--thanks!):
> Given the way this plays out, the studies
> they actually do of social implications will explicitly exclude all
> scenarios that they think have anything to do with the declared
> impossible dangerous nanobots.

Yes, I think you're very likely right.  And that avoidance could
backfire in the short term, and be quite dangerous in the long run.

There's another factor that is probably increasing public--and
scientific--fear of nanobots/assemblers.  I just read a paper by Michael
Lissack: http://emergence.org/redefinition.pdf that describes the way
people respond to unfamiliar concepts.  In general, people map the
concept to the nearest "glom": a fixed and primitive set of
associations.

Now let's apply this.  An assembler is a small device, active, made of
stiff parts with a stiff shell (association: chitinous), moves around,
has stereotyped behavior, can sneak into objects and corrupt or eat
them, can reproduce... need I go on?  It's a bug, plain and simple.  And
we know how people react to bugs.  (Note that "bug" also means
pathogen.)

There are a few people who get lots of practice at thinking with
precision about novel and unfamiliar concepts.  These people are capable
of refusing to glom new concepts, and instead treating them as
"indexicals"--terms that must be interpreted with precision--and working
till they figure out the intended meaning.  For example, those who make
a point of reading science outside their discipline will be continually
confronted with new jargon that must be interpreted carefully.  An even
stronger and more common example: each and every symbol in a computer
program is an indexical, so programmers must become very good at
figuring out indexicals.  But it seems safe to assume that most people
will not be good at this--when confronted with new concepts, they will
form gloms all over the place, and pick the easiest interpretation as
Lissack explained.

Even most scientists will not have much experience in overcoming
glom-type thinking.  In their own sub-field, they know all the jargon
and concepts, and can think with precision--as long as nothing new comes
along.  This phenomenon will be familiar to anyone who's tried to
communicate with scientists about something new.

It's worth noting that molecular nanotech has found good acceptance
among programmers and polymaths, and poor acceptance elsewhere.  Most
descriptions of MNT have failed to take into account the glom-thinking
process of the audience.  And so the descriptions evoked our ancient
fear and revulsion toward bugs.  This may have been a major spin
mistake.

Now that we know nanofactories are easier and more efficient than
assemblers, we may be able to move away from the insect-visions of
earlier MNT discussion.  It should be noted that bugs aren't the only
unfortunate association waiting to be glommed to.  The story of the
Sorcerer's Apprentice--runaway unstoppable productivity--goes back to
ancient Egypt.  Communicating about MNT without evoking fear-ridden
gloms will take quite a lot of care.

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sun Dec  7 21:23:53 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:23:53 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] AIRCAR: Boeing X-50 offers cheap alternative
In-Reply-To: <200312071612.hB7GCiH22605@tick.javien.com>
References: <200312071612.hB7GCiH22605@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <3FD39A69.7070207@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:14:38 -0800 (PST) Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> http://www.boeing.com/phantom/crw.html
> 
> I think that Boeing's Canard Rotor Wing test aircraft, the X-50
> Dragonfly, promises personal air-car capabilities sooner than Moller or
> Bell/Augusta.
>

Neat design! But at present it is a military, unmanned testbed only.

"Under an agreement with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
Boeing will build and flight test two unmanned technology demonstrators
to assess and validate this advanced rotorcraft concept".

Apparently Boeing hope to develop manned versions for the military in
the future.

"Although the CRW demonstrator vehicles are UAVs, the potential exists
for development of both manned and unmanned versions of the vehicle.
Missions for such a vehicle include reconnaissance, armed escort,
tactical air support, communications/data relay and logistics resupply".

How many of the military X-series technology test machines made it
through to a general public version? Not many. And if they get any
really good results, they will probably be kept secret for years.

So, considering that they only just began flight testing (tethered
hover) this summer, a general public, air-car type version is many years
away, if ever.

BillK





From jonkc at att.net  Sun Dec  7 21:18:42 2003
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:18:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031207105429.02057e00@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <019e01c3bd07$c7a7ceb0$97fe4d0c@hal2001>

"Robin Hanson" <rhanson at gmu.edu> Wrote:

> There is an article in the latest New Scientist on how to break it.

I know nothing about network quantum encryption, I've never heard of it
before and the article doesn't explain how it works; but as for breaking
point to point quantum encryption it only has 2 suggestions:

1) Look over my shoulder when I decrypt the message.

2) Fire a massive Laser at me that is so powerful it damages my
cryptographic equipment and hope I'm too dumb to notice.

Apparently quite a bit of money is going into developing quantum encryption,
I'm a little surprised because public key encryption is much easier to use
and seems safe enough.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that
somebody with money thinks a practical quantum computer will soon become a
reality. If that happens then quantum encryption will be the only way to
keep a secret.

  John K Clark     jonkc at att.net






From cphoenix at best.com  Sun Dec  7 21:41:16 2003
From: cphoenix at best.com (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:41:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: fwd -- Robert Bradbury post
References: <01bb01c3bcfb$926dfa00$cf994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3FD39E7C.B35D3AA2@best.com>


Damien Broderick forwarded me a post that
Robert Bradbury wrote:
> I think people are missing a couple of important issues here.  Right now
> a Drexler type assembler arm probably is *effectively impossible*.
> [And one can comfortably ignore nanorobots.]  The reasons are poorly
> developed methods and very high costs.

Robert, I don't think anyone is saying that we could build such a thing
today.  That's not the important issue, and using words like
"impossible" and "ignore" obscures the issues that are important.  Try
these questions instead:

Actually doing it:

Would general-purpose diamondoid manufacturing be worth trillions in
2015?  (My answer: Yes.  It would be decades ahead of other technology
road maps, and could produce a wide range of products.)

Could we build it in ten years at a cost of multiple billions?  (My
answer: Yes, given ten years of targeted funding, we could probably find
and refine some technology to do mechanochemistry.)

Learning about it:

How much would it cost today to get more information about timelines and
capabilities?  (Not much.  A few theoretical physicists and chemists to
review Nanosystems.  A few more chemists and computers to do preliminary
mechanochemical simulation.  Some experimental physicists, mechanical
engineers, and a polymath or two to look for cheap ways to bootstrap.)

How important are these questions?  (With our current information, they
look very important.)


You mentioned several expensive bootstrap pathways, but you did not
consider several others.

Dip-pen Nanolithography:  Has been done with multiple "inks", multiple
tips, arrays of tips, re-registration, 2.5-nm precision.  BTW, parallel
AFMs from the Millipede project have already been applied to DPN. 
"We're up to a 10,000 pen array now, where you have 10,000 individual
pens that can grab 10 000 different chemical agents from ink wells." 
http://www.materialstoday.com/pdfs_6_5/Gould.pdf

Atom holography:  I haven't heard anything about it recently, but a few
years ago they were able to deposit complex patterns of atoms by
shooting them through a programmable grid.  Apparently this was not
merely masking, but interference.  

Bose-Einstein Condensates: One more way of handling very small groups of
atoms with high precision.  Last I heard, they could make them travel
along switchable wires.  I don't know if they've got single-atom control
yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Sub-wavelength optics: At last count, I knew at least four ways of
breaking the lambda/2 barrier.  Of course most of them haven't been
applied to fabrication.  I mention them as an indication that nm-scale
fabrication has not been fully explored and might turn out to be
significantly easier than the methods you considered.

You mention the cost of designing the parts to be fabricated.  If
diamondoid mechanochemistry works as Drexler, Merkle, and Freitas
predict, then the design cost should be very low compared with today's
synthetic chemistry designs.  The set of reactions to choose from would
be far smaller, and the results effectively digital.  You can't assume
that the design cost per atom in a nanodevice will be any higher than
the design cost per transistor in a CPU.  

Also note that for most products of interest, a few good designs could
be re-used and re-combined to make a wide range of products.  Levels of
abstraction have been extremely useful in computers (both hardware and
software), and if chemistry can be made digital, levels of abstraction
will work just as well in designing MNT-built products.  

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Dec  7 22:19:18 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:19:18 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001>
	<04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001>
	<028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune>
	<05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<00b901c3bcd0$bba24820$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <003e01c3bd10$282bee80$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Technotranscendence wrote:

> On Sunday, December 07, 2003 3:37 AM Brett Paatsch
> bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> > Two questions then, one sort of scientific or
> > at least empirical, the second political.

[snip]

> > 2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor
> > Smalley (and associates) were to *accept* the
> > burden of proof scientifically what happens by
> > default politically?
> 
> I don't understand the use of "politically" in the above question.  Do
> you mean that the science will drive the politics? 

No sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant what do you think is
likely to be the outcome of holding the viewpoint that the burden of
proof is on Smalley if it is adopted by folks such as yourself and John
for 'scientific reasons' (perhaps validly) but it is not adopted by 
Smalley. I guess I was wondering if either you or John or others 
would change your views on where the burden of proof would lie
if you were concerned that nothing or little might happen politically 
if the burden was left with Smalley. For me, not leaving the burden 
with Smalley, who is unlikely to want to accept it, is just plain good 
political sense. To me its obvious that it behoves those who are 
aware that they live in a political system where persuasion matters
for the implementation of policy that those who don't like the current
policy direction either accept the political burden of trying to persuade
or they accept in the alternative the consequences, risks and policy
direction that follows from their not doing so. 

Regards,
Brett



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  7 21:53:43 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:53:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <019e01c3bd07$c7a7ceb0$97fe4d0c@hal2001>
References: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031207105429.02057e00@mail.gmu.edu>
	<019e01c3bd07$c7a7ceb0$97fe4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <20031207215343.GB5783@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:18:42PM -0500, John K Clark wrote:

> Apparently quite a bit of money is going into developing quantum encryption,

That's because it's a brand new field in crypto snake oil.

> I'm a little surprised because public key encryption is much easier to use
> and seems safe enough.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that

Entangled photons are just used to distribute a shared secret (symmetric
session key). It's supposed to be a tamper-proof way to rekey remotely. 
It's not sooo tamperproof, but definitely better than to send your session 
keys via snail mail.

There have been excessive discussion of this technology on diverse
lists, cryptography@ included. Several attacks have been proposed.
(I haven't been keeping track of details, because it's boring).

> somebody with money thinks a practical quantum computer will soon become a

Nope. It's just about milking gullible fools. Application niches
targeted are securing financial crypto fiber lines and ground-LEO
sat rekeying (they don't yet work in free atmosphere over this range,
but eventually will). Tamper detection is definitely a boon here.

> reality. If that happens then quantum encryption will be the only way to
> keep a secret.

Nope, QM is only useful for number factoring, and despite encouraging
movements in solid state entanglement we're as far removed from QM
as ever. Nevermind the issue of how this scales to high qubit numbers
(it doesn't).

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/827d5b5c/attachment.bin>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Dec  8 01:22:55 2003
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:22:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <000801c3b84d$2c2f8450$68c31b97@administxl09yj>
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031207163902.02c692d0@pop.earthlink.net>

Tonight @ 9 PM on the Travel Channel will be "Giant Planes" covering the 
future of transportation.

(11/26/03 "Airbus Unveils Giant Jet Airbus 
<http://www.travelmole.com/news_detail.php?news_id=99071&PHPSESSID=8f391fda3ab7c8b99938d5a52da44aa1>showed 
off its new <http://www.airbus.com/A380/default1.aspx>Airbus 380, a jumbo 
jet that could carry as many as 900 passengers Tuesday. Virgin Atlantic has 
reportedly ordered six of the colossal carriers. The plane will begin 
testing next year.")


Natasha 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031207/5dd00353/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 00:01:49 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <20031207215343.GB5783@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031208000149.97520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

I recall on the extropy list of years gone past, that Eugen used to
post long posts rambling on, like he'd been on a caffiene drip for the
last 96 hours, about all sorts of things. What ever happened to that
posting technique?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From scerir at libero.it  Mon Dec  8 00:05:06 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:05:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <011c01c3bcea$f7ab1760$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <000301c3bd1e$f093ea40$f0c7fea9@scerir>

Quantum information is physical and has "permanence". 
That is because there is a no-cloning (and a stronger 
no-cloning) theorem and also a no-deleting
(and a stronger no-deleting) theorem. (Deleting is 
different from erasure, which is allowed).
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~schmuel/papers/pb00.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/481/jozsa.pdf
The above theorems are connected to the possibility
of FTL signals http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0305145
and perhaps also to a possible general principle of 
conservation of quantum information.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044
Classical information is physical but has no "permanence", 
that is to say it can be cloned, deleted, and of course 
erased. 
That "permanence" of quantum information **could** be
the conceptual reason of so many difficulties to reach a 
perfect quantum cryptography.
For a general, and clean, review of the present situation:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312011
 






From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Mon Dec  8 01:38:30 2003
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:38:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071147090.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c3bd2b$fd0da880$6501a8c0@dimension>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>
> > (a cell couldn't store enzyme information for making e.g. 20 000
> > building blocks instead of 21)
>
> Well that isn't true -- there are organisms like Amoeba dubia
> that have 670 million BP genomes, 20,000 building blocks
> gives them 33,000 bp/building block which is probably enough
> for 1500+ bases for each enzyme in a 10 step assembly process
> and that doesn't include any reuse of parts of pathways.

### I agree that an organism could be made to store information about 20 000
building blocks - but could it have evolved this information on its own?
(which is what I wanted to question in the sentence you quoted) Even an
organism with 21 aminoacids and only about 30 000 genes (or 60 000 or 100
000, or whatever), like a human, has under natural conditions an early
mortality of about 90%, due to mutations in crucial genes. It would be
difficult to imagine a bug dependent on every single one of the 20 000
blocks and 200 000 enzymes and who knows how many control elements, and
still able to proliferate without recourse to error-checking methods that
would stop its ability to evolve (or force it to have a complex mechanism
for artificially evolving itself without random mutation).

As I was saying, using the clunky living organisms as a proof of principle
for blitz-fast molecular nanotech is valid precisely because of the
evolutionary limitations under which organisms evolved. Once we increase our
computational capability by another 10 orders of magnitude and our knowledge
about chemistry by another 10 Terabytes or so (purely out-of-the-hat filler
numbers), the nanotechnologist, free from the evolutionary limitations, will
be able to use biotechnological approaches to develop MNT.

Rafal



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Dec  8 02:15:14 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Alexander Lee)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:15:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
References: <012801c3bcd5$a882b4a0$9ccd5cd1@neptune><5.2.1.1.2.20031207105429.02057e00@mail.gmu.edu>
	<019e01c3bd07$c7a7ceb0$97fe4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <Law9-OE199hf9Vu60To000051ec@hotmail.com>

I think you're right. The real reason there's so much funding for quantum
encryption is because whomever gets it first will have "unbreakable"
encryption for a while. It's like nuclear weapons were, you don't want to be
the one without it.

Public key encryption is pretty strong and easy to use, but it has a few
flaws that theoretically a really big gov't computer could use to break it.
A lot of encryption systems that use public key really use it to generate a
120-160bit session key and exchange it with their partner. Although there
are no documented cracks of 120 bit encryption through brute force, it's
theoretically possible.

Harvey pointed out a lot of common vulnerabilities, but most of them can be
avoided by using proper techniques to avoid timing, social engineering, etc.

The big benefit of this is that it allows for a secure key transmission
technique. Proper use of certificates should prevent a man in the middle
exploit.

Nonetheless, crypttech is growing by leaps and bounds as corporations now
need encryption where previously just terrorists and govt's needed it.

BAL
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution


> "Robin Hanson" <rhanson at gmu.edu> Wrote:
>
> > There is an article in the latest New Scientist on how to break it.
>
> I know nothing about network quantum encryption, I've never heard of it
> before and the article doesn't explain how it works; but as for breaking
> point to point quantum encryption it only has 2 suggestions:
>
> 1) Look over my shoulder when I decrypt the message.
>
> 2) Fire a massive Laser at me that is so powerful it damages my
> cryptographic equipment and hope I'm too dumb to notice.
>
> Apparently quite a bit of money is going into developing quantum
encryption,
> I'm a little surprised because public key encryption is much easier to use
> and seems safe enough.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that
> somebody with money thinks a practical quantum computer will soon become a
> reality. If that happens then quantum encryption will be the only way to
> keep a secret.
>
>   John K Clark     jonkc at att.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Dec  8 03:22:21 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:22:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <020801c3bb97$2650ef40$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><027201c3bc25$420b8950$11ff4d0c@hal2001><04b801c3bc48$25dfd880$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><001e01c3bc7f$d02c2b90$defe4d0c@hal2001><028001c3bc86$c38f64e0$8bce5cd1@neptune><05be01c3bc9d$5bdb6c60$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au><00b901c3bcd0$bba24820$9ccd5cd1@neptune>
	<003e01c3bd10$282bee80$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <00bb01c3bd3a$7eee38c0$bcce5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 5:19 PM Brett Paatsch
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> No sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant
> what do you think is likely to be the outcome
> of holding the viewpoint that the burden of
> proof is on Smalley if it is adopted by folks
> such as yourself and John for 'scientific
> reasons' (perhaps validly) but it is not adopted
> by Smalley. I guess I was wondering if either
> you or John or others would change your
> views on where the burden of proof would lie
> if you were concerned that nothing or little
> might happen politically if the burden was left
> with Smalley. For me, not leaving the burden
> with Smalley, who is unlikely to want to accept
> it, is just plain good political sense. To me its
> obvious that it behoves those who are aware
> that they live in a political system where
> persuasion matters for the implementation of
> policy that those who don't like the current
> policy direction either accept the political
> burden of trying to persuade or they accept in
> the alternative the consequences, risks and policy
> direction that follows from their not doing so.

It depends on whether people who agree with Smalley have the capability
and the will to try to prevent their views from being proved wrong.  In
the long run, they don't.  In the short run, they might drive research
underground or to less friendly societies (Red China, for instance).
They might do this as well by lending credence to anti-technology groups
and policies -- not so much just pulling public funds from these
programs but also passing laws against anyone doing it and also shifting
the culture toward other things.  (Passing laws would be initiating
force.  I don't believe Smalley's called for that -- unless I've misread
him.)

A better solution would be, again, to decouple public funding and
scientific research to prevent politics from having a say in science as
well as corrupting it.  However, even in a free market, chances are, one
will have to convince others to fund research.  It's just that one
wouldn't have only one source of such funding.  (In fact, in any
society, unless you're in control, you'll have to convince others.)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From hal at finney.org  Mon Dec  8 03:36:56 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:36:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
Message-ID: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>

Unfortunately I don't have time to write about all the issues that
I see regarding the nanotech debate, or to organize my thoughts as
well as I should.  It's disappointing that the recent nanotech bill
has explicitly removed funding for Drexlerian nanotech.  But this just
reinforces that Brett is right: at least in practice, given the current
political situation, the burden is on the pro nanotech camp to produce
a more convincing case for the technology.

But I don't see that happening, at least not yet.  The initial response
seems to be to try to "spin" the debate into a huge victory for the
home team.  Contrast that with some of the comments in the article
I pointed to last week on the economics of nanotech by Brad DeLong,
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002838.html.
Some quotes:

> Brad -- if you pursue this, I strongly recommend you leave out the
> Drexler stuff. The man is, IMHO, a snake oil salesman who doesn't know
> his stuff. The Chemical and Engineering News debate pointed to by drk
> above, at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html,
> shows the difference between someone who actually knows his chemistry
> (Richard Smalley) and someone who doesn't.

> Apropos "Drexlerian" nanotechnology:
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html
> I saw Drexler speak over a decade ago in front of a group of physicists
> at Stanford. I remember thinking at the time that did not stand up well
> to questioning by hard scientists. I'd put my money on Smalley.

I think the perception by those who are not already nanotech proponents
is that Smalley won the debate.

And I also object to some of the tactics being used in this spin
doctoring.  Smalley is being misrepresented and taken out of context.
>From the Foresight press release: "In the current C&E News exchange,
Smalley now agrees that assemblers (without impossible "magic fingers")
could use something like enzymes or ribosomes as tools for doing precise
chemistry."  This makes it sound like Smalley has conceded that Drexler's
ideas for nanotech could work.  But in fact, Smalley was attempting
to show that to the extent that nanotech needs to rely on things like
enzymes and ribosomes, it will share the limitations of those systems,
such as reliance on water and the inability to make strong objects,
hence that nanotech could not meet its claimed goals.

And about this water business, which has also been trumpeted as showing
that Smalley is ignorant of chemistry (a claim which sounds absurdly
arrogant to the unbiased spectator).  Maybe there are some enzymes
which can work in polar solvents or even in gas or vacuum.  But ribosomes
don't, and so Smalley's overall point still holds.  The chemistry of water
dominates virtually everything about proteins, enzymes (which are a subset
of proteins), and ribosomes (which are built equally of RNA and protein).

So what does Drexler really mean when he says that nanotech will work
like enzymes?  As Smalley asks, "do you think it is really possible to
do enzymelike chemistry of arbitrary complexity with only dry surfaces
and a vacuum?"  I think the answer Drexler would give is basically yes,
albeit not of "arbitrary" complexity (no system could achieve that goal).
He does believe that he can achieve and surpass the power of enzyme-like
systems using dry surfaces and a vacuum.  He refers to this somewhat
obliquely in his reply: "Bound groups adjacent to reactive groups can
provide tailored environments that reproduce familiar effects of solvation
and catalysis."

I've read Nanosystems, and it's always bothered me that the technology
described there is so different from what most nanotech fans are
familiar with.  Drexler describes the famous robot arm; you can see a
picture here, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/images/fig13.14left.jpg.
He goes into a lot of detail about how it would work and how strong it
would be for mechanosynthesis.

But he doesn't use it!  The proposed manufacturing system that he
describes in some detail only uses giant robot arms in a final assembly
stage, to manipulate relatively large, pre-built blocks that are a
cubic micron in size, far larger than the arm above (which is only 0.1
micron long).  Instead, the actual molecular manipulation and assembly
is done by means of a "mill".

This is a system which holds molecular fragments on miniature pallets
attached to 4 nm wide assembly belts. The belts run past each other such
that the pallets are pressed together, and possibly rotated or manipulated
in some way, so that the payload molecules react, transferring one or
more atoms from one pallet's payload to the other.

These mills would gradually build up larger and larger pieces, which
would eventually be transferred to appropriately scaled-up mill systems.
These would use the same principles, now working with pieces with
perhaps thousands of atoms, attaching them together in various ways.
Eventuallly we get up to the micron size, which will have billions of
atoms, and at that point he uses almost-macro-scale robot arms to start
attaching these "bricks" together.

This molecular mill system provides a possible context to understand
Drexler's comparison of nanotech assembly to enzymes.  Enzymes bring
reactants together in a carefully controlled environment.  The active
site is surrounded by atoms which provide the exact pattern of positive
and negative charge, hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions, acidic or base
pH, necessary to promote the desired reaction.  This is what Smalley
means when he talks about biologically catalyzed chemistry occuring
as the interaction of a dozen or more atoms, which would seemingly be
impossible using robot arms.

But it is conceivable that a mill could provide a similar degree of
control over the external environment as what we get in an enzymatic
active site.  The pallets that hold the reactants can be designed
to have desired patterns of charge, ionization and electron binding.
When we bring the reactants together, surrounded by the two pallets that
held them, the environment surrounding the reactants can therefore be
controlled to a considerable degree.  The reactants can even be held
in pouches or grooves within the pallets to provide for full 360 degree
control over the local environment.

This is what I think Drexler means in the quote above, "Bound groups
adjacent to reactive groups can provide tailored environments that
reproduce familiar effects of solvation and catalysis."  The bound groups
are part of the pallets that hold the reactants; solvation, that is,
the effects of water molecules, can be mimicked by means of patterns of
charge; and catalysis achieved by carefully adjusting the properties of
the atoms lining the pallets so as to provide the necessary lowering of
energy barriers.

I think it is rather difficult to interpret Drexler's comment in terms
of robot arms.  They have a limited flexibility in terms of tailoring
the environment in the near vicinity of the reaction.  It would be
extremely complicated to recreate the effects of solvation (the widespread
presence of water molecules shielding and modifying electrical effects)
and catalysis using robot arms, raising fat-finger problems.

The point of this rather lengthy digression is that Drexler and other
nanotech proponents are not doing a good job of explaining their design
concepts.  This is in part why they are so commonly misunderstood.
And it seems almost willful.  Drexler is trying to explain exactly
how his system will work: "In machine-phase chemistry, conveyors and
positioners (not solvents and thermal motion) bring reactants together."
But this terminology is complete generic and unspecific: conveyors and
positioners.  It applies to mills, but could also apply to robot arms,
where reactants are conveyed to the tip and then positioned to be applied
to the work piece.

Didn't anyone reading this exchange wonder about Drexler's insistence
that "fingers" are not needed for his assembly process?  What is a robot
arm if not a finger, in this context?  Do people realize that Drexler
has moved away from arm-based assembly, perhaps due to some of the very
objections that Smalley has (re-) discovered?

Of course, I'm not even 100% sure that my interpretation is right, either.
I've explained above how I think his comments relate to the designs
in Nanosystems.  But maybe I'm wrong, maybe he does still plan to use
robot arms.

Why should I have to guess?  And why should Smalley?  This continued
evasiveness and refusal to plainly specify a design strategy
forces nanotech critics to extrapolate their own understanding and
interpretations.  And once this happens, the nanotech proponents sit back
and smugly call "strawman".  Drexler and Smalley are talking past each
other, because Drexler refuses to plainly state how his manufacturing
system will work, contenting himself with telling Smalley that all his
guesses are wrong.

This isn't a game of 20 Questions.  If nanotech were the dominant
paradigm, this lack of specificity might be acceptable.  But when you
are on the outside looking in, it will not succeed.  All you're going
to do is make people confused and angry.

I share Smalley's frustration when he writes, "it would be helpful to
all of us who take the nanobot assembler idea of 'Engines of Creation'
seriously if you would tell us more about this nonaqueous enzymelike
chemistry."  Rather than lobbying and spinning the debate, I'd suggest
that nanotech proponents work harder at fleshing out and clearly
describing their proposals.  Give your critics something to criticize, and
at least the debates won't be as empty as the Smalley-Drexler exchange.

Hal


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Dec  8 03:53:28 2003
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:53:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>
Message-ID: <011b01c3bd3e$d7d3a660$bcce5cd1@neptune>

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:36 PM Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have time to write about all
> the issues that I see regarding the nanotech
> debate, or to organize my thoughts as well as
> I should.  It's disappointing that the recent
> nanotech bill has explicitly removed funding
> for Drexlerian nanotech.  But this just reinforces
> that Brett is right: at least in practice, given the
> current political situation, the burden is on the
> pro nanotech camp to produce a more
> convincing case for the technology.

I think the only thing that will convince some is actual nanotechnology.
That being said, perhaps -- and I don't have time to read your whole
post, so forgive me if you mention (or someone else already mentioned)
this -- the way to turn things around -- and I actually don't mind no
public funding for this:) but I'd like to convince private sponsors and
see the research aboveboard -- is to get critics of nanotech like
Smalley to articulate what would be the minimum short of a full-blown,
working assembler to get them to agree nanotechnology is possible and
even practical.

In other words, one might say to Smalley, if it's possible to build X or
control process Y on a nanoscale, would you agree that it's possible to
have full-blown Drexlertech?  (X and Y would be stuff that is either
doable now or will be doable in short order.)  Smalley can even fill in
the X and Y above -- provided it's not something too off the wall.  (If
he says you have to bring Socrates back to life...:)

35% awake now.

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Dec  8 04:44:47 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:44:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>
Message-ID: <017001c3bd46$057f6020$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Hal Finney wrote,
> Unfortunately I don't have time to write about all the issues 
> that I see regarding the nanotech debate, or to organize my 
> thoughts as well as I should.

> The 
> initial response seems to be to try to "spin" the debate into 
> a huge victory for the home team.

> I think the perception by those who are not already nanotech 
> proponents is that Smalley won the debate.

> And I also object to some of the tactics being used in this 
> spin doctoring.  Smalley is being misrepresented and taken 
> out of context.

> I've read Nanosystems, and it's always bothered me that the 
> technology described there is so different from what most 
> nanotech fans are familiar with.

> The point of this rather lengthy digression is that Drexler 
> and other nanotech proponents are not doing a good job of 
> explaining their design concepts.  This is in part why they 
> are so commonly misunderstood. And it seems almost willful.

> Why should I have to guess?  And why should Smalley?  This 
> continued evasiveness and refusal to plainly specify a design 
> strategy forces nanotech critics to extrapolate their own 
> understanding and interpretations.  And once this happens, 
> the nanotech proponents sit back and smugly call "strawman".  
> Drexler and Smalley are talking past each other, because 
> Drexler refuses to plainly state how his manufacturing system 
> will work, contenting himself with telling Smalley that all 
> his guesses are wrong.

> This isn't a game of 20 Questions.  If nanotech were the 
> dominant paradigm, this lack of specificity might be 
> acceptable.  But when you are on the outside looking in, it 
> will not succeed.  All you're going to do is make people 
> confused and angry.

> I share Smalley's frustration when he writes, "it would be 
> helpful to all of us who take the nanobot assembler idea of 
> 'Engines of Creation' seriously if you would tell us more 
> about this nonaqueous enzymelike chemistry."  Rather than 
> lobbying and spinning the debate, I'd suggest that nanotech 
> proponents work harder at fleshing out and clearly describing 
> their proposals.  Give your critics something to criticize, 
> and at least the debates won't be as empty as the 
> Smalley-Drexler exchange.

Hear, Hear!  I, too, am frustrated by the lack of scientific or engineering
rigor for many of our futuristic ideas.  Nanotech is merely one of many
obvious examples.  We have no shortage of fan club members who insist on the
viability of these technologies.  We have business models, organizations and
personalities promoting this stuff.  But what we lack is actual engineering
research, design work, or technical specifications that actually have
anything to do with the technology itself.  Virtually all of our
transhumanist writings have been written at the philosophical level or the
speculation level.  Very little of it actually is rigorous enough to analyze
or use by anybody interested in building this technology.  We will continue
to have little to no effect on lobbying or future technologies until we
actually get some engineers working on this stuff.  Military, corporate and
even private labs will continue to ignore us because we have nothing to add
to the technology.  Arm-chair pontificating, arguing on the network, and
amateur calculations on the back of napkin just aren't good enough.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From alito at organicrobot.com  Mon Dec  8 07:09:36 2003
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:09:36 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071041330.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071041330.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <1070867376.6256.13.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 05:38, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> SYNTHETIC CHEMISTRY: it isn't sophisticated enough yet and the computational
> capacity isn't up to the job.  The largest synthetic molecules that have
> been made are things like Vitamin B-12, vancomycin and maitotoxin.  They
> have atomic sizes ranging from ~200-500 atoms.  Even for the fine motion
> controller which is 2600 atoms in size but probably only 1/500th to 1/1000th
> of an 4,000,000 atom assembler arm design (not counting the motors and
> computer interface you might need to control it).

Current synthetic molecules can be a bit bigger than the ones you
pointed out:
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Apr05_93/11.htm shows synthesis of a
pure hydrocarbon sphere of 1134 carbon atoms (2.2k atoms overall).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24856 shows
total chemical synthesis of a 238 amino-acid chain.  (This last one is
from 1998, don't know if this has been bettered).

alejandro




From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Dec  8 07:30:52 2003
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:30:52 +0100
Subject: [Posting style] Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBBCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <3FD428AC.1010403@mail.tele.dk>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

I have purposedly copied the entire content of the posting. But cannot 
bring myself to top-post. So please read on at the bottom.


>>From 2theadvocate.com: After 20 years of research, an encryption process is
> emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing
> laws of quantum physics. In November, a small startup called MagiQ
> Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first commercially
> available system that uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys
> that are widely used to encode and read secret documents.
> MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will
> appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and
> other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think this is
> going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond,
> MagiQ's founder and chief executive. Encryption schemes commonly used now
> are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday. But
> even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is
> superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people
> sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive
> string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred
> by imperfect means -- via courier or special software. They are not changed
> very often and can be susceptible to interception.
> Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics:
> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in
> multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine,
> until something interacts with them.

I have noticed that some posters post massive blocks of text, as the 
above. (Giu1i0 this is not personal) Being a web designer and usability 
geek I have long wanted to say something about it.

The shape of the text makes it easier to scan/read a big block of text. 
A big square lump of text like the above is *very* difficult to read. 
The overall graphic layout of the text doesn't give me any landmarks 
that I can use for orientation.

So if I read the text and loose my orientation, I have to re-read 
several lines to find it again.


Usually if a text looks like above, I don't bother reading it. I am 
shure that many other reacts likewise.

Having a massive block of text also makes it difficult to reply to a 
specific point in the text. The newsreader will allredy have placed 
quotemarks in irritating places.

So generally it is better to split up a text in related paragraphs.


I have some links about it here
-------------------------------
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703b.html
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html


And a link for writing better email subjects
--------------------------------------------
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html

That is generally not a big problem on this list, but imagine having to 
scan through the archives a few years down, trying to find a particular 
posting. Then you really appreciate a really clear subject.


I have tried to reformat the posting at the bottom of this page, to show 
what I mean.


regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark


##################################

 >From 2theadvocate.com:

After 20 years of research, an encryption process is emerging that is 
considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing laws of 
quantum physics.

In November, a small startup called MagiQ Technologies Inc. began 
selling what appears to be the first commercially available system that 
uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys that are widely 
used to encode and read secret documents.

MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects this will 
appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies 
and other organizations that transmit sensitive information. "We think 
this is going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob 
Gelfond, MagiQ's founder and chief executive.

Encryption schemes commonly used now are considered safe, though they 
theoretically could be broken someday. But even before that day arrives, 
Gelfond believes quantum encryption is superior in one important way.

In some super-high-security settings, people sharing passwords and other 
information must have the same key, a massive string of digits used to 
encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred by imperfect means 
-- via courier or special software. They are not changed very often and 
can be susceptible to interception.

Quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics: 
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist 
in multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to 
imagine, until something interacts with them.



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Dec  8 08:44:26 2003
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:44:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071041330.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312071041330.31945-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <3FD439EA.8000905@mail.tele.dk>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I think people are missing a couple of important issues here.  Right now
> a Drexler type assembler arm probably is *effectively impossible*.
> [And one can comfortably ignore nanorobots.]  The reasons are poorly
> developed methods and very high costs.

I usually don't post "me to" posts, but this is a very good overview of 
the possible routes to nanotech.

I strongly believe myself that the road to nano goes through enzyme 
chemistry. Ensymes are the closest thing to nanotech that we currently 
have a chance of understanding and synthesizing. They also have most of 
the features of small nanobots, fast, efficient and reusable.

Which is why protein folding and proteomics is so important.

Organic chemistry/biology also gives us a lot of flexible reusable 
designs to borrow from.



regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Dec  8 08:48:01 2003
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:48:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>
References: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>
Message-ID: <3FD43AC1.1010501@mail.tele.dk>

Hal Finney wrote:

> I think the perception by those who are not already nanotech proponents
> is that Smalley won the debate.


How can you not win, if you can clearly show that it is scary for the kids.

Now if only he can make Drexler call him a nazi, then the debate will be 
completely over.



regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark

;-)



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Dec  8 09:10:49 2003
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:10:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] theobiology
In-Reply-To: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031205230445.69884.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FD44019.5020605@mail.tele.dk>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> In my experience there are generally two types of religious folk. The 
> first are the brainwashed sheep that send off their cash to any 
> huckster with enough charisma to wave a 1000 year old book around in 
> front of them and tell them they are doomed if they don't convert.
>  
> The second kind are very bright skeptical people that have examined 
> the evidence thoroughly and made an informed decision that the 
> universe is governed by a living rational force or entity. Usually 
> these people are deeply spiritual although they tend to hold no stock 
> in the traditional organized religions as they recognize these to be 
> scams and tools of power on major scale. 


If they have "examined the evidence thoroughly and made an informed 
decision" they are either not very bright nor very sceptical...

Post modern self-invented religious views or no more correct than those 
in a 2000 year old book, unless supported by evidence.

There is simply no evidence that points in the direction of a rational 
force or entity.

That is why it is called "belief" and not "support of a theory".

 > Some of the most celebrated geniuses in history have been of the
 > second type

This is called "argument from authority", and is rather irellevant:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

> This is because when you have a very high IQ you are good at seeing 
> patterns of information. When you see so much pattern in the universe, 
> so little of which can be explained by mere science, it engenders 
> faith that there is SOMETHING out there calling the shots. 

It might. Thought I would say that if a lot of random stuff happens, 
then there will allways be patterns. And the human mind being an 
efficient pattern recogniser will look for these patterns and apply 
useless meaning to them.



regards Max M Rasmsusen, Denmark



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Dec  8 09:34:37 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:34:37 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
	<20031206195800.GC5783@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <012001c3bd6e$7fa86360$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> I personally expect crosslinked polymer as structure bulk, not
> diamond nor graphenes.

Interesting. I think I can see why crosslinked polymers might appeal
given disulphide bonds already feature in routine protein chemistry,
but I see protein design as pretty complex, requiring a solvent, and
very hard to do computationally (I presume you don't just want to stuff
a volume with any old shape). If diamonoid forms could be produced
they would seem to have the advantage of being conceptually easier to
design with. Is your expectation for cross-linked polymer bulk structures
based on  the view that diamondoid would be too difficult or rather that
designer protein chemistry would be relatively easy?

Regards,
Brett 




From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Dec  8 11:34:50 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:34:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Cryonics Society
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBGEBFCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

The Spanish Cryonics Society (SEC) is a non profit Society whose aim is: "to
gather all interested persons, and to promote all activities deemed
appropriate to achieve, through medical and scientific means, extending or
suspending human life while preserving the identity of the person as well as
all his physical and mental skills.
To achieve this aim, the following activities are performed:
Supporting the investigation and the application of all current and future
medical and scientific means that may permit achieving the objectives
stated;
Facilitating the approval by the Spanish Law of all means which may permit
achieving the objectives stated;
Promoting collaboration with Health Authorities, as well as with medical and
scientific societies, nationally and worldwide;
An important objective of the Society is ensuring that everyone who has been
treated is protected, when appropriate, with biological and legal means to
maintain suitable conditions for his preservation, until Science permits his
complete recovery." (translated from Spanish by yours truly).
I attended a SEC meeting in Madrid on December 6, 2003. We decided to
relaunch the activities of the Society, in particular in terms of spreading
awareness of cryonics in Spain, establishing contacts with life insurance
providers, establishing a solid Internet presence, developing a media
strategy, and solving all issues related to Spanish Law and Health
Authorities. The Society will offer advice to all members and interested
persons for understanding cryonic science, technologies and procedures,
contacting cryonic service providers such as Alcor and the Cryonics
Institute, selecting suitable life insurance terms, and solving all issues
related to Spanish Law and Health Authorities. All developments will be
posted to the website of the SEC.
The Spanish Cryonics Society wishes to develop collaborations with all the
main players in the field of cryonics. In the next few days SEC officers
will begin contacting cryonicists individually.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031208/8bbca79a/attachment.html>

From extropy at audry2.com  Mon Dec  8 14:41:26 2003
From: extropy at audry2.com (Major)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:41:26 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <000001c3b8a4$7156ff20$6501a8c0@SHELLY> (spike66@comcast.net)
References: <000001c3b8a4$7156ff20$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <200312081441.hB8EfQ201341@igor.synonet.com>


"Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net> writes:

> The equations for power requirements as a function of rotor
> length are well understood Don.  Textbooks on VTOL design
> are available at your local university.  There is a very 
> good reason why choppers have long rotors, and why sailplanes
> with long skinny wings have a more efficient glide slope
> than high powered aircraft.

Jet VTOL is possible, and has been don. It's called the Harrier.

Having listened to on take off at an airshow (500m away), I would not
want my neighbor to use one for his daily commute though.

Major


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  8 14:02:14 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:02:14 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est exclusioalterius
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311280748500.15427-100000@server.aeiveos.com><00a201c3b5cc$f477beb0$3bb5ff3e@artemis><000f01c3b5e4$0c2f4020$0200a8c0@etheric><01bc01c3b5e8$a6f96c30$3bb5ff3e@artemis><006801c3b60f$42d8e060$0200a8c0@etheric><028601c3b612$a1527c70$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
	<010601c3b631$4044a880$0200a8c0@etheric>
	<00a101c3b6b9$323b7bf0$3bb5ff3e@artemis>
	<uupusv8tn9pesisud0kac7d508apnukh2s@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <03fb01c3bd93$e1c2fb80$62256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "randy" <cryofan at mylinuxisp.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est
exclusioalterius


> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:41:42 -0000, Dirk wrote
> >
> >The Consensus:-
> >The political party for the new millennium
> >http://www.theconsensus.org
>
>
> I really like your new political party. It aligns fairly well with my
> own political beliefs.  However, since there probably only about a
> dozen people in the entire world who adhere to these same political
> beliefs, I doubt it will take the world by storm, and the chances of
> it making any dent here in the USA is of course nil.

Or anywhere, probably.
However, I'm giving it my best shot so if in future anyone says '...so what
did you do?' when I whine on about how crap everything is I'll just point
them to some history.

> But how do you feel about the European welfare states? You wrote:
>
> "From the Right we believe in individual responsibility to balance
> individual rights and that less government is best government - that
> governments should regulate, but not act as an employer or wealth
> producer. "
>
> This would seem to cast the European welfare states in a less
> favorable light?

Specifically I'm not in favour of govts taking wadges of cash from one
section of society and handing it to another.
Govts should govern ie regulate, so that the basic rules under which a
society operates creates the greatest good for the greatest number, and do
it without sacrificing the least capable members.

> You also wrote:
> "We are nationalists in that we believe that every major cultural
> group should have its own homeland and live under laws of its own
> choosing and in its own way. Also that the independent nation state is
> the last line of defence for the common people against exploitation by
> unrestrained Global Capitalism. We are 'inclusive nationalists' in
> that we believe that all of our citizens have equal rights and are
> equally welcome irrespective of race. So if you are looking for
> nationalists who are not racists, sexists or into euphemisms such as
> 'traditional values', here we are. Our nationalism is a celebration of
> our future, not the past."

> I completely agree about having homelands and nation as small and as
> homogeneous as possible.  This increases the available amount of
> Social Capital, which gives more leverage to the citizens over those
> entities and persons who have more financial leverage.

I think that form of nationalism is essential if we want to get the chance
of creating posthuman species and radically differing societies.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  8 14:07:23 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:07:23 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age
References: <3FCDE00E.9050506@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>	<3FCDEE02.8030308@mail.tele.dk>
	<008f01c3ba4b$72dbb220$2bb26bd5@artemis>
	<3FCF15EA.8070508@dtext.com>
Message-ID: <041f01c3bd94$9a348ad0$62256bd5@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JDP" <jacques at dtext.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Boredom in old age


> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> > LSD gave me a big boost in my 30s.
>
> Can you say a bit more?

It opened up a whole new way of looking at the world.
The interesting thing for me at the time was not that I was incapable of
seeing it without LSD, but that until that point I had been incapable of
even imagining it.

It reminds me of a passage I read in an SF book that went something like -
'alien mindfuck, a mentals state so bizarre that even as you experience it
you won't know what it feels like'.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Dec  8 14:09:39 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:09:39 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203221744.05506008@mail.comcast.net>
	<3FCF11B2.1000308@dtext.com>
Message-ID: <042901c3bd94$eb4e69e0$62256bd5@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JDP" <jacques at dtext.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy #15 Timeline


> David Lubkin wrote:
> >
> > The nevers surprise me, particularly for "Two Century Biological
Lifespans."
>
> Apparently what they meant is we would go straight from lifespans
> shorter than two centuries to indefinite lifespans. (Drexler even gives
> 1967 for indefinite lifespan.)


Personally, I prefer 1953.
However, the real question is when will life expectance be extended by
medical technique to an equivalent of the 'singularity' ie when will life
expectancy be rising at >1 yr per yr? I'd say that would be around the 2020
mark.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 16:22:38 2003
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Very interesting interview to John Smart
Message-ID: <20031208162238.7325.qmail@web41313.mail.yahoo.com>

It includes several "predictions"...
 
http://www.speculist.com/archives/000473.html#more
 
Transhumanistically yours,



La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031208/3e8c8bc8/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Dec  8 16:54:28 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312080336.hB83auP07649@finney.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312080824160.24629-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Hal Finney wrote:

> It's disappointing that the recent nanotech bill
> has explicitly removed funding for Drexlerian nanotech.

But it didn't Hal!  The study people are all talking about
in the oringally proposed Senate bill was explitly for
"self-assembly"  (I checked that section of the 4 bills
in the congressional records yesterday).

Self-assembly isn't in the index in Nanosystems.  He mentions
it once commenting on how it might be used for the assembly
of molecular electronics in a 1987 paper and he then discusses
it more extensively in his Annual Review paper on Molecular
Nanomachines in 1994.  Without rereading the paper I think
much of that discussion may be about biological nanomachines.

You should go read my comments, esp. those of the last couple
of days on nanodot.org.  What Eric was driving towards was
"directed molecular assembly" and that isn't what the bill
proposed to study.  Since the original bill was heavily
contributed to by the NanoBusiness Alliance I'm wondering
if they messed up and used the wrong term.  Or perhaps
some of the molecular electronics folks wanted a study
to show how difficult self-assembly was (perhaps to justify
increased funding).

At any rate it would appear that someone deleted the study
from the floor of the Senate sometime between when it was
proposed (January) and when it got sent to committee (September).
I would love to know who and why.

> But he doesn't use it!  The proposed manufacturing system that he
> describes in some detail only uses giant robot arms in a final assembly
> stage, to manipulate relatively large, pre-built blocks that are a
> cubic micron in size, far larger than the arm above (which is only 0.1
> micron long).

That is because MEMS hasn't scaled down to electronic scales yet
because it hasn't had to.  For there to be a use for it people
would have to believe it would work and that generally isn't
true.   The studies I cite below are making it a bit harder
to hold that position however.

> This isn't a game of 20 Questions.  If nanotech were the dominant
> paradigm, this lack of specificity might be acceptable.  But when you
> are on the outside looking in, it will not succeed.  All you're going
> to do is make people confused and angry.

Drexler does cite a set of concrete paths in Table 16.1 in Nanosystems.
If you think about them in detail it becomes obvious that one could
probably write a book about each of the 4 stages he proposes.  Eric
really withdrew from MNT to a large degree after the first Scientific
American critiques.

> I share Smalley's frustration when he writes, "it would be helpful to
> all of us who take the nanobot assembler idea of 'Engines of Creation'
> seriously if you would tell us more about this nonaqueous enzymelike
> chemistry."

Plan to read the following:

Ralph C. Merkle, Robert A. Freitas Jr., "Theoretical analysis of a
carbon-carbon dimer placement tool for diamond mechanosynthesis," J.
Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 3(August 2003):319-324.
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm or
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/JNNDimerTool.pdf

Jingping Peng, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Ralph C. Merkle, "Theoretical Analysis
of Diamond Mechanosynthesis. Part I. Stability of C2 Mediated Growth of
Nanocrystalline Diamond C(110) Surface," J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 1(March
2004). In press.

David J. Mann, Jingping Peng, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Ralph C. Merkle,
"Theoretical Analysis of Diamond Mechanosynthesis. Part II. C2 Mediated
Growth of Diamond C(110) Surface via Si/Ge-Triadamantane Dimer Placement
Tools," J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 1(March 2004). In press.

They survived review by the hard-core computational chemists at Zyvex.

Robert




From colinmagee3282 at hotmail.com  Mon Dec  8 16:55:05 2003
From: colinmagee3282 at hotmail.com (Colin Magee)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:55:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Caltech Extropians and Transhumanists
Message-ID: <Law14-F89mOhanH2dCe0001ffd1@hotmail.com>

            I am curious to know if anybody here knows of any major 
scientists/researchers at Caltech who are sympathetic to or interested in 
Transhuman/Extropian issues.They could be in any one of the following 
fields:nanotechnology,artificial intelligence,biotechnology,computer 
science,cognitive science,neuroscience,or any other major field of interest 
to Extropians/Transhumanists.Two of the major Transhumanist/Extropian 
thinkers-Ray Kurzweil and Marvin Minsky are from MIT and so is Eric 
Drexler(although I don't know if he specifically identifies himself as an 
Extropian/Transhumanist-but since I am somewhat of a novice in this area,I 
could be mistaken).I was just wondering if there is anyone from Caltech 
similar in stature to Ray Kurzweil or Marvin Minsky interested in this 
area.Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.

                                                                             
                 Sincerely,
                                                                             
                 Colin Magee

_________________________________________________________________
Get holiday tips for festive fun. 
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx



From iph1954 at msn.com  Mon Dec  8 17:10:09 2003
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:10:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
Message-ID: <BAY5-F12wo95EFk2H3b0001d6ac@hotmail.com>

CRN was recently invited to comment on the published report of a UK 
government workshop exploring likely developments in nanotechnology, and 
associated ELSI issues. You can view our commentary here - 
http://www.crnano.org/RSWorkshop1.htm

We welcome your feedback and questions.

Mike Treder
Executive Director
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
http://CRNano.org

_________________________________________________________________
Cell phone ?switch? rules are taking effect ? find out more here. 
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx



From hal at finney.org  Mon Dec  8 19:43:40 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:43:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
Message-ID: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>

Mike Treder writes:

> CRN was recently invited to comment on the published report of a UK 
> government workshop exploring likely developments in nanotechnology, and 
> associated ELSI issues. You can view our commentary here - 
> http://www.crnano.org/RSWorkshop1.htm

Just kind of a nitpick, following along with my rant last night:

"Foundational work in the field, especially Nanosystems (Drexler, 1992),
has laid out a detailed theoretical approach to nanoscale mechanochemical
systems and other nanoscale machinery that has never been successfully
criticized."

It's never been successfully criticized!  After eleven years!  What, was
it divinely inspired?  Did the hand of God reach down and write this book?
Because no human being can create a 556 page book without error.

These kinds of claims smack of cultishness rather than science.  They make
belief in nanotech sound like a matter of faith and religion.

And if in fact this book has managed to avoid "successful" criticism for
so long, that is an indictment of the book, not a compliment.  It means
that the book is so vague, circumspect, or confusing that critics are
unable to grapple with it.

Every author knows that his ideas are imperfect.  He should be writing
so as to seek and invite criticism, in order to improve the quality of
his concepts and advance the state of knowledge.  But I don't find this
attitude in Nanosystems.  I don't see any admissions of imperfection,
or expressions of uncertainty.  The overall tone is one of supreme
confidence.  Even though each chapter closes with a list of open problems,
they are mostly of the form, find even more examples to show all of the
ways that nanotech can work.

It may be that Nanosystems is written this way intentionally, because it
means to be as much a political as a technical book.  It does not exist
to invite people to criticize its proposed nanotech manufacturing system,
but rather to convince people that they should support investment and
research towards the technology.

Whether this is true or not, the fact is that the book has failed to
generate an engaged and dynamic intellectual debate about the prospects
for nanotech.  Instead it is largely used as a political bludgeon,
as in the "never been criticized" quote above.

I'd suggest that what we need today are works that get criticized.
Criticism is how science advances.  Avoiding criticism, such as by
the tactic I discussed earlier of shifting the burden of proof, is a
counter-productive strategy which must be abandoned.  Your critic is
your best friend.

Hal


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Dec  8 19:54:51 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:54:51 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing in 2004--and Beyond
Message-ID: <3FD4D70B.70305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

PC World magazine has a look into the future -
<http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113444,00.asp>

How will the PC change during the coming year? The next five years? We
consult the experts and come up with answers.

Highlights:

According to IDC, flat-panel display shipments will surpass those of
tubes for the first time in 2004.

Rumors abound that Tejas, Intel's successor to Prescott, will debut near
the end of 2004 with speeds from 5 to 7 GHz.

Moore's law--the concept that chip performance will double every 18
months or so--is alive and well. Researchers are just beginning to build
chips with circuits only 65nm wide, and IBM and AMD are among those
working to develop a 45nm process. Intel envisions paring that to 22nm
by the year 2011.

"The PCs we'll buy just three years from now will have features, user
interfaces, and expansion options that are radically different from
those in the systems we're using today," predicts Microprocessor
Report's Glaskowsky.


BillK





From thespike at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  8 21:03:31 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:03:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
References: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
Message-ID: <003001c3bdce$bf082300$af994a43@texas.net>

Although I agree with Hal's general position here, I think the precise
statement in question was poorly expressed rather than madly hubristic:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:43 PM

> "Foundational work in the field, especially Nanosystems (Drexler, 1992),
> has laid out a detailed theoretical approach to nanoscale mechanochemical
> systems and other nanoscale machinery that has never been successfully
> criticized."
>
> It's never been successfully criticized!  After eleven years!  What, was
> it divinely inspired?

I believe this assertion (often repeated by Drexler et al) means:
`Criticisms of its key arguments have never been successful in persuading
its author and supporters of their alleged error/s' or `It has successfully
surmounted critical challenges, often by showing they were ill-framed or
ignored arguments advanced in the text'. Whether this formulation would be
justified is, of course, another question, and needs to be dealt with on a
continuing challenge-and-response basis by Foresight. I agree with Hal that
the current formulation conveys a tone of absurd doctrinal confidence.

Damien Broderick



From hal at finney.org  Mon Dec  8 21:02:28 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:02:28 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
Message-ID: <200312082102.hB8L2S911116@finney.org>

Hal Finney wrote:

: It's disappointing that the recent nanotech bill
: has explicitly removed funding for Drexlerian nanotech.

Robert Bradbury replied:

> But it didn't Hal!  The study people are all talking about
> in the oringally proposed Senate bill was explitly for
> "self-assembly"  (I checked that section of the 4 bills
> in the congressional records yesterday).

I am going by
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_nanobot_archive.html#106969756709919883,
which indicates that the original House version of the bill funded
research to study "molecular manufacturing", while that phrase got
changed in the Senate to "molecular self-assembly", and that's what's
in the final bill.  The former term would cover Drexler-style nanotech,
while the latter apparently does not.  And according to the article this
was an explicit and politically motivated decision to remove funding
from the field.

Hal


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Dec  8 21:11:46 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:11:46 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312080824160.24629-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <023901c3bdcf$e33224a0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Hal Finney wrote:
>
> > It's disappointing that the recent nanotech bill
> > has explicitly removed funding for Drexlerian nanotech.
>
> But it didn't Hal!  ...

> ....the original bill was heavily
> contributed to by the NanoBusiness Alliance I'm wondering
> if they messed up and used the wrong term.  Or perhaps
> some of the molecular electronics folks wanted a study
> to show how difficult self-assembly was (perhaps to justify
> increased funding).
>
> At any rate it would appear that someone deleted the study
> from the floor of the Senate sometime between when it was
> proposed (January) and when it got sent to committee (September).
> I would love to know who and why.

Surely this stuff must be available online somewhere. The record
of changes made in parliament in Australia is the Hansard and
its available online the following day.

I'd imagine it would be similar with whatever the equivalent record
is in the US. Does anyone know what it is?

3 back issues of Science for November arrived in the mailbox
recently and in one of them I noted that Brownback seems to
be trying to get "human organism" whatever that means (that's part
of the problem) excised from things that can be patented. This
would affect the amount of work that would be able to be done
in that area.

I think it might be useful if extropes and transhumanists added
another image to the notion of the singularity as a technological
spike. The picture is of a political spring that gets overcompressed
whenever the rate of change gets too fast. It pushes back against
the technology slowing at least to some extent (an extent much stronger
than I think is commonly recognized) the rate of technological change.

On the broad canvas of human history I think one could bet confidently
on technology. But in 2003 the one that made the bet might not be alive
to collect or to see the singularity because of the political spring pushing
back.

Regards,
Brett














From hal at finney.org  Mon Dec  8 21:37:42 2003
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:37:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Caltech Extropians and Transhumanists
Message-ID: <200312082137.hB8LbgH11362@finney.org>

Colin Magee writes:
>             I am curious to know if anybody here knows of any major 
> scientists/researchers at Caltech who are sympathetic to or interested in 
> Transhuman/Extropian issues.They could be in any one of the following 
> fields:nanotechnology,artificial intelligence,biotechnology,computer 
> science,cognitive science,neuroscience,or any other major field of interest 
> to Extropians/Transhumanists.Two of the major Transhumanist/Extropian 
> thinkers-Ray Kurzweil and Marvin Minsky are from MIT and so is Eric 
> Drexler(although I don't know if he specifically identifies himself as an 
> Extropian/Transhumanist-but since I am somewhat of a novice in this area,I 
> could be mistaken).I was just wondering if there is anyone from Caltech 
> similar in stature to Ray Kurzweil or Marvin Minsky interested in this 
> area.Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.

I am a Caltech alumnus myself, as is my wife, Fran, and my son is in his
junior year there now.  I know of at least one other recent list member,
Damien Sullivan, who is a relatively recent graduate and still has a
home page at http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/.

I don't know if there is much transhumanist interest on campus.
One relevant area of research is nanotech, where especially William
Goddard's group at http://www.wag.caltech.edu/, the Materials and
Process Simulation Center, does all kinds of of molecular modelling
and simulation.  They have won awards from the IMM and Foresight for
their research.

The MSC has an interesting program coming up in April,
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/PASI/, a two week workshop/tutorial intended
to introduce the techniques of molecular modelling, aimed at Latin
American instructors and researchers.  The recommended reading list
includes Drexler's canon: Engines, Unbounding and Nanosystems.  Sounds
like it would be a fun workshop to sit in on.

Another Caltech affiliated list member is Patrick Wilken,
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~patrickw/, a biologist with an interest in
the neurological aspects of consciousness.  There was also an event held
earlier this year in April between Caltech and the Art Center College
of Design to create a melding of art and technology.  It sounded great
but I was not able to attend.

The Caltech group affiliated with this event was the Center for
Neuromorphic Systems, http://www.cnse.caltech.edu/.  That's an
interdisciplinary effort in an area that I find very promising,
encompassing wireless networking, ubiquitous computing, Vingean
localizers, augmented reality, all that stuff.  This may well
revolutionize the way we communicate and gather information about the
world over the next two decades.

I'm curious, what is your connection or interest in Caltech, if any?

Hal Finney


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 21:38:58 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312082102.hB8L2S911116@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20031208213858.854.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> : It's disappointing that the recent nanotech bill
> : has explicitly removed funding for Drexlerian nanotech.
> 
> Robert Bradbury replied:
> 
> > But it didn't Hal!  The study people are all talking about
> > in the oringally proposed Senate bill was explitly for
> > "self-assembly"  (I checked that section of the 4 bills
> > in the congressional records yesterday).
> 
> I am going by
> http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_nanobot_archive.html
> #106969756709919883,
> which indicates that the original House version of the bill funded
> research to study "molecular manufacturing", while that phrase got
> changed in the Senate to "molecular self-assembly", and that's what's
> in the final bill.  The former term would cover Drexler-style
> nanotech, while the latter apparently does not.  And according to
> the article this was an explicit and politically motivated
> decision to remove funding from the field.

Not surprised. But what about molecular self-assembly leaves out
Drexler style nanotech? I'd think that would be MORE accurate than just
molecular manufacturing, which IMHO seems to just be about making small
stuff, not stuff that can remake itself...

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Dec  8 21:51:27 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:51:27 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Even a little tipple shrinks your brain
Message-ID: <3FD4F25F.6010709@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920730,00.html>

JUST a few alcoholic drinks a week may be enough to shrink the brain,
according to US research.

Middle-aged men and women who consume moderate amounts of alcohol on a
regular basis tend to have lower concentrations of brain tissue than
teetotallers or occasional drinkers, scientists have discovered.

While heavy drinking has long been linked to a decrease in brain size,
which can lead to impaired mental abilities, the study from Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, suggests that a lower intake
of alcohol may also be risky.

It also found that a moderate intake of alcohol had no effect on a
person?s risk of stroke. Previous research had indicated that sensible
drinking might offer a measure of protection.

As the volunteers? alcohol intake rose, the scans showed an increasing
volume in the ventricular and sulcal regions of the brain ? "empty"
areas that contain only cerebrospinal fluid and no nervous tissue.

-------

Bother! Luckily I only use 10% of my enormously large brain, so I should
be OK for a while.  ;)

BillK








From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  8 22:09:23 2003
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:09:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Even a little tipple shrinks your brain
Message-ID: <146040-22003121822923181@M2W079.mail2web.com>


From: BillK 

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920730,00.html>

>JUST a few alcoholic drinks a week may be enough to shrink the brain,
according to US research.<


So what does this mean:  We will be stupid but athletic?  Nimble thinkers
but a whole lot of heart?

Natasha

"Small head, big heart."

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 22:14:41 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:14:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <3FD4F25F.6010709@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20031208221441.21689.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920726,00.html

Don't know what took the Brits so long, but they finally made it a
crime to steal someone's organs without their consent, or that of next
of kin. This comes on the heels of a major scandal in which doctors
removed organs and tissues without consent and did not return them to
their owners. This will certainly be useful for cryonicists. The last
thing you want is to pay $50k for a neurosuspension when some bloke has
gone and made off with your brain....



=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 22:45:51 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Even a little tipple shrinks your brain
In-Reply-To: <146040-22003121822923181@M2W079.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20031208224551.50519.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> From: BillK 
> 
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920730,00.html>
> 
> >JUST a few alcoholic drinks a week may be enough to shrink the
> brain, according to US research.<
> 
> 
> So what does this mean:  We will be stupid but athletic?  Nimble
> thinkers but a whole lot of heart?

Who says you need all that brain anyways? Fat brains don't mean
smarts.... just look at all that homo erectus accomplished on only 800
cc of grey matter.... those spaces are not a loss of brain tissue, they
are an increase in cooling capacity... ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Dec  8 22:48:41 2003
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:48:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Even a little tipple shrinks your brain
In-Reply-To: <3FD4F25F.6010709@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3FD4F25F.6010709@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3FD4FFC9.1000704@pobox.com>

BillK wrote:
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920730,00.html> 
> Bother! Luckily I only use 10% of my enormously large brain, so I should
> be OK for a while.  ;)

Unfortunately, BillK, this is a TOTAL URBAN LEGEND.  You do not use only 
10% of your brain any more than you use only 10% of your blood.

Seriously, being human is dangerous enough without deliberately making it 
worse.  You don't have the neurons to spare.  Neither do I.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Dec  8 23:26:22 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <200312082102.hB8L2S911116@finney.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312081508260.31948-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Hal Finney wrote:

> I am going by
> http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_nanobot_archive.html#106969756709919883,

The House bill seems to be dated May 1st.  The Senate bill (labeled 189 es) that
Howard cites is the copy that is sent to the Senate (presumably immediately after
it was submitted (S. 189 (enr)) both the (enr) and (es) versions were presumably dated
in January.  The S. 189 (is) is the version is I believe the version that came
out of committee in September and finally got voted on.  The S. 189 (rs) version
shows all of the stuff they deleted/changed in the committee.  Neither the (rs)
or the (is) versions have the study in them.  That means the study was most
likely deleted from the floor of the Senate sometime between January and
September unless the committee made a mistake in its editing of the (rs) version.

There is a possibility that a Senate-House conference committee met sometime
between January and September to resolve the differences and the study got
thrown out in that process.  I'm not sure where to find those records.

But I believe Howard and perhaps CMP Cientifica are citing older bills and
not the final version signed by President Bush.

If we want to know why politics is so complex this is sure a good example.

Robert

The pointers for the bills and definitions can be found in my post to
the thread: http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/04/0216244
under the specific post by me at: Sunday December 07, @10:59AM (#11)




From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 23:51:51 2003
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortality
Message-ID: <20031208235151.28088.qmail@web41311.mail.yahoo.com>


Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? 

Answer: ?I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever.?   -- Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest 




La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) 

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031208/5e388889/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Dec  8 23:55:03 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <023901c3bdcf$e33224a0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312081527090.31948-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Surely this stuff must be available online somewhere. The record
> of changes made in parliament in Australia is the Hansard and
> its available online the following day.
>
> I'd imagine it would be similar with whatever the equivalent record
> is in the US. Does anyone know what it is?

At least some of it is:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/billsindex.html

I don't know if everything is documented.

This is an interesting URL:

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9263039933+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

If it documents all of the activity on the bill then it would probably not
explain where the study got lost.

My guess might be S11478 on Sept. 15th.

But in the early versions of the bill (S. 189 (es)) it was in Section 5b
and it isn't in S 189 (is or rs) (where Section 5 became Section 4).
You can search on "Self-Assembly".

This would make a great detective story...

As I believe Hal pointed out there was a House bill floating around
(H.R. 766) from Feb. 13 to May 6th which does have a section in
section 8b which calls for a study of "Molecular Manufacturing".
That text is in the version that was "reported to the house" (rh).

So someplace, perhaps when the bills were brought together, the
studies didn't get resolved with each other.

Robert




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Dec  9 00:12:48 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
In-Reply-To: <000401c3bca9$6212ccc0$f0c7fea9@scerir>
Message-ID: <20031209001248.32536.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> You know that one of the present political
> problems in UE (or EU) is whether they
> should introduce in the Constitution
> the word Christ or the expression Christian
> values, or not. The general opinion was:
> "No, we do not need these terms". But
> an influent Italian (urged by the Vatican)
> said: "What is the meaning of Sunday, then?".
> So, the problem now becomes: should we 
> introduce Sunday in the Constitution?

Huh?  Sunday is a day of the week.  It has historic
origins, but it has lost its religious meanings
(alternately, its religious origins have been subsumed
into common secular practice)...albeit on a level of
policy too low to belong in the Constitution,
analogous to overtime and minimum wage laws.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 01:20:01 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
In-Reply-To: <20031209001248.32536.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031209012001.689.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> > You know that one of the present political
> > problems in UE (or EU) is whether they
> > should introduce in the Constitution
> > the word Christ or the expression Christian
> > values, or not. The general opinion was:
> > "No, we do not need these terms". But
> > an influent Italian (urged by the Vatican)
> > said: "What is the meaning of Sunday, then?".
> > So, the problem now becomes: should we 
> > introduce Sunday in the Constitution?
> 
> Huh?  Sunday is a day of the week.  It has historic
> origins, but it has lost its religious meanings
> (alternately, its religious origins have been subsumed
> into common secular practice)...albeit on a level of
> policy too low to belong in the Constitution,
> analogous to overtime and minimum wage laws.

On the contrary, it has not lost its religious meanings whatsoever.
Given that the sabbath was originally Saturday and was changed to
Sunday specifically by the Church (and other judeo-christian sects and
religions still do worship on Saturday), any recognition of Sunday as
the EU standard 'day of rest' is an implicit recognition of an act of
the Catholic Church in particular.

The only people who think it has lost its meaning are people who are
ignorant of history and religion. If the EU really wanted to stick it
to the church, they should have the guts to make Saturday the official
day of rest and have the work week start on Sunday....

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  9 02:25:50 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:25:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
References: <20031209012001.689.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c3bdfb$c5718ce0$af994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:20 PM

> If the EU really wanted to stick it
> to the church, they should have the guts to make Saturday the official
> day of rest and have the work week start on Sunday....

Hey! What about us Wodan-worshippers?

Damien Broderick



From cphoenix at best.com  Tue Dec  9 02:29:05 2003
From: cphoenix at best.com (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:29:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
References: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
	<003001c3bdce$bf082300$af994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3FD53371.89A3D694@best.com>

Never having been successfully criticized is an attribute common to most
(ideally all) current scientific theories.  I'm surprised that the
statement sounds hubristic or doctrinal.  

Perhaps the problem can be found in Damien's two interpretations, which
are not even very similar to each other.  I completely agree with his
second restatement, the one about how it has successfully surmounted
critical challenges by showing that they're just plain weak.  That's
what I meant, and I think the history of the debate supports that
statement.

If "never been successfully criticized" doesn't sound like that, then we
should change the formulation.

Chris

Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> Although I agree with Hal's general position here, I think the precise
> statement in question was poorly expressed rather than madly hubristic:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:43 PM
> 
> > "Foundational work in the field, especially Nanosystems (Drexler, 1992),
> > has laid out a detailed theoretical approach to nanoscale mechanochemical
> > systems and other nanoscale machinery that has never been successfully
> > criticized."
> >
> > It's never been successfully criticized!  After eleven years!  What, was
> > it divinely inspired?
> 
> I believe this assertion (often repeated by Drexler et al) means:
> `Criticisms of its key arguments have never been successful in persuading
> its author and supporters of their alleged error/s' or `It has successfully
> surmounted critical challenges, often by showing they were ill-framed or
> ignored arguments advanced in the text'. Whether this formulation would be
> justified is, of course, another question, and needs to be dealt with on a
> continuing challenge-and-response basis by Foresight. I agree with Hal that
> the current formulation conveys a tone of absurd doctrinal confidence.
> 
> Damien Broderick

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Tue Dec  9 02:27:50 2003
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:57:50 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B017868B7@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>

Just be sensitive to everyone and make all the days official days of rest. I
could live with that :-)

Emlyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damien Broderick [mailto:thespike at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 11:56 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:20 PM
> 
> > If the EU really wanted to stick it
> > to the church, they should have the guts to make Saturday 
> the official
> > day of rest and have the work week start on Sunday....
> 
> Hey! What about us Wodan-worshippers?
> 
> Damien Broderick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Dec  9 03:28:12 2003
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:28:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: again with the gun stats
Message-ID: <3FD5414C.479A1E07@mindspring.com>

In a message dated 12/4/2003 4:57:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fortean1 at mindspring.com fwded:


       It is documented that states that pass right-to-carry laws experience a
       minimum of a 12% greater decrease in violent crime than states without
       such laws. (Dr John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime"; University of
       Chicago Press) Furthermore, Lott shows that spree killings are reduced
       by 80% over non-right-to-carry states.

    Lott is also under investigation by the National Academy of Sciences for
academic fraud for this work, and in a bizaare
twist he pretended to be one of his ex-grad students to defend himself on the
internet.  If the guy was in a university and
not at AEI he would have been fired long ago.
 

Ben Avery

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

Some references:

   http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/lott.asp
   
http://markarkleiman.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_markarkleiman_archive.html#90242658

-- 
Jim Lippard

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

Sigh.  Not only was Lott's book published by the university press I used to 
work for (I'm a Chicago B.A.), but he has degrees from UCLA (and worked 
there). I just hope he wasn't an English major.

Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA

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

Is Dr. John Lott the only source for such statistics?  If so
this "factoid" certainly has legs -- I've seen it quoted by 
practically every gun carrier and wannabe gun carrier.  

I went to the National Center for Disease Control and looked at
their statistics re gun usage in accidental deaths, but the 
detailed report can only be gotten by mail (I sent for it).

Are there any readily available critiques of his facts? Aside,
of course, from the fact that he seems to be a lying liar.

Don


-- 
?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 03:30:13 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B017868B7@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>
Message-ID: <20031209033013.37439.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

I am trying to get a good navigational chart of Clipperton Island (a
French posession) in the eastern Pacific and would like to find an ENC
database (Electronic Navigational Chart) that conforms to the
international S-57 standard. As it seems that each nation takes care of
its own navigational chart distribution, I was hoping someone who is
French, or French literate, could locate such a chart database for me
somewhere on the French government internet sites. Finding such a file
without knowing the lingo is a bit tough.... so much for my three years
of French in high school...

All I've been able to obtain so far on the greater internet is a very
low resolution scanned image of a 1956 map that has no depth soundings
or other information.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  9 03:44:31 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:44:31 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <20031208221441.21689.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c3be06$c14399a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920726,00.html
> 
> Don't know what took the Brits so long, but they finally made it a
> crime to steal someone's organs without their consent...

It's still legal, even encouraged in this country.  I don't
recall giving my consent to have my foreskin removed.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  9 04:11:32 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:11:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <200312081441.hB8EfQ201341@igor.synonet.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c3be0a$87794d10$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net> writes:
> 
> > The equations for power requirements as a function of rotor
> > length are well understood Don.  Textbooks on VTOL design
> > are available at your local university...
> 
> Jet VTOL is possible, and has been don. It's called the Harrier.
> 
> Major

Harrier?  How about the stunning Lockheeed Martin F22 and 
that failed F23 built by that other company whose name I
can never recall (or rather shall go mercifully unmentioned 
in light of the recent events so eloquently enumerated in
the 15 December 03 issue of Business Week.)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_50/b3862001_mz001.htm  

These aircraft put the Harrier to shame, more shame than
is already being generously and deservedly heaped upon the 
afore nonmentioned company.  In any case, VTOL is inherently 
noisy, violent, windy and dangerous. 

spike



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  9 04:35:20 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:35:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <20031209033013.37439.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c3be0d$ddf418c0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> I am trying to get a good navigational chart of Clipperton 
> Island (a French posession) in the eastern Pacific and would 
> like to find an ENC database (Electronic Navigational Chart) 
> that conforms to the international S-57 standard. 

You might be able to purchase these from a url I found.
<http://www.cartographic.com/xq/ASP/AreaID.4/RegionID.68/CategoryID.2/Produc
tID.3/australia_and_oceania/clipperton_island/qx/topographic_maps.asp>.  You
have to click in the column labeled "Browse Types" to see descriptions of
different map types.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find any free online
versions.  All I can find is a single low-res cartoon drawing which must be
the one you saw.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 04:45:19 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thank evolution for the interstate highway system
In-Reply-To: <003f01c3be0a$87794d10$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031209044519.45036.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Harrier?  How about the stunning Lockheeed Martin F22 and 
> that failed F23 built by that other company whose name I
> can never recall (or rather shall go mercifully unmentioned 
> in light of the recent events so eloquently enumerated in
> the 15 December 03 issue of Business Week.)
> 

What ever happened to the F12? That F22 can only do vectored thrust. It
can't take off vertically. Besides, it was nowhere near as beautiful as
the F-23 (ducking....)
  
> 
> These aircraft put the Harrier to shame, more shame than
> is already being generously and deservedly heaped upon the 
> afore nonmentioned company.  In any case, VTOL is inherently 
> noisy, violent, windy and dangerous. 

Nah, they just aren't trying to cancel out the noise with symmetrical
waves. 

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 04:49:28 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <000301c3be0d$ddf418c0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20031209044928.64556.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > I am trying to get a good navigational chart of Clipperton 
> > Island (a French posession) in the eastern Pacific and would 
> > like to find an ENC database (Electronic Navigational Chart) 
> > that conforms to the international S-57 standard. 
> 
> You might be able to purchase these from a url I found.
>
<http://www.cartographic.com/xq/ASP/AreaID.4/RegionID.68/CategoryID.2/Produc
>
tID.3/australia_and_oceania/clipperton_island/qx/topographic_maps.asp>.
>  You
> have to click in the column labeled "Browse Types" to see
> descriptions of
> different map types.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find any free online
> versions.  All I can find is a single low-res cartoon drawing which
> must be the one you saw.

Well, the cartoon one is often lifted from the CIA World Factbook, but
the one I am referring to was linked to by the micronation of Molossia
(an enclave micronation in the Nevada desert), which gives a bit more
detail, but not much.

I was hoping to find a chart for free, since the US govt provides chart
databases free for download, the socialist French should do at least as
well as those damned capitalist imperialist agressor running dog
bastards in DC. ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From thespike at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  9 05:05:59 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:05:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
References: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
	<003001c3bdce$bf082300$af994a43@texas.net>
	<3FD53371.89A3D694@best.com>
Message-ID: <013201c3be12$24a6b620$af994a43@texas.net>


Chris Phoenix sez:

> Never having been successfully criticized is an attribute common to most
> (ideally all) current scientific theories.

Really? You must be using these words in a rather unusual way. Do you assert
that George Gamow's version of the Big Bang persists unchanged, unchallenged
and uncriticized? Or Guth's, for that matter? The original Crick&Watson
model of DNA and its protein expression? Plate tectonics? Solar system
formation? Quark theory unaltered since Gell-Mann's first salvo? Sure,
*something* persists throughout all the challenges and responses, but it
would unbelievable if Drexler's every word stood inviolate more than a
decade later, which appears to be implied by the statement Hal and I are
independently objecting to. (Maybe this is word-chopping, I'm not sure; but
you can be certain that your antagonists will chop with a will if you give
their blades an unnecessary opening.)

Damien Broderick



From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Tue Dec  9 06:04:46 2003
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:04:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] NYTimes on primate neurological structures
In-Reply-To: <20031209044928.64556.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000301c3be0d$ddf418c0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
	<20031209044928.64556.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9epatv8rnub29n2hr5793ndt47vc9goefo@4ax.com>

good  stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/science/09BRAI.html?pagewanted=1


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



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Dec  9 06:45:18 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:45:18 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
References: <20031209012001.689.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008401c3be20$02c98ce0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> On the contrary, it [sunday] has not lost its religious meanings
> whatsoever. 

[snip]

> If the EU really wanted to stick it to the church, they should
> have the guts to make Saturday the official day of rest and 
> have the work week start on Sunday....

Mike sometimes your 'diplomacy' cracks me up :-) 

Deep within the intestines of the EU must lie an entire faction 
seething with resentment but waiting, hoping, and planning that 
one day they may summon the courage to emerge victorious and
"stick it to the church" over Sunday!  :-)

Thanks Mike ! 

Brett







From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Dec  9 06:53:25 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:53:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Optical Force Clamps Allow Observation Of Single RNA
	Polymerase Enzyme
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEBHCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From FuturePundit: Steven M. Block, a professor of biological sciences and
of applied physics at Stanford University, and his team have developed
two-dimensional optical force clamps that can monitor the action of a single
RNA polymerase (RNAP) enzyme.
In a new study in the journal Nature, Block and his colleagues present
strong evidence to support this proofreading hypothesis. Their results --
based on actual observations of individual molecules of RNAP -- are posted
on Nature's website: http://www.nature.com. In another set of experiments
published in the Nov. 14 issue of Cell magazine, the researchers discovered
that RNAP makes thousands of brief pauses as it pries open and copies the
DNA double helix.
"Together these two papers push the study of single proteins to new limits,"
Block said. "We've been able to achieve a resolution of three angstroms --
the width of three hydrogen atoms -- in our measurements of the progress of
this enzyme along DNA. In so doing, we've been able to visualize a
backtracking motion of just five bases that accompanies RNAP
error-correction or proofreading."
This is an example of why the rate of advance in biological science is not
constant. The development of instrumentation that can study components of
biological systems down on the scale at which they operate will allow these
systems to be figured out orders of magnitude more quickly. The biggest
reason we still know only a small fraction of what there is to understand
about cells and diseases is that we can't watch what happens down at the
level at which events actually take place. Continued advances in the ability
to build smaller devices and smaller sensors will make observable that which
it has previously never been possible to observe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/0eb02850/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Dec  9 06:54:39 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:54:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lifeline Nutraceuticals and CereMedix
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEBICBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Found via Longevity Meme: An article in the Denver Post sheds some more
light on what Lifeline Nutraceuticals and CereMedix have been up to with
their new antioxidant supplement. There is talk of a human trial next year,
which would be the first step towards the needed widespread scientific
confirmation of their claims. This article is also a telling insight into
the damage that the snake oil "anti-aging" industry has done to the
prospects of any legitimate product. We all have to be skeptical (of
Lifeline as well) because so many hucksters, frauds and suave marketing
departments make millions by selling worthless junk.
As the body ages, it produces more and more free radicals and its own
antioxidants are unable to fight this process, causing eroding vitality and
death. One would have to eat more than 30 pounds of fruits a day for the
body to absorb enough vitamins to fend off disease. The only other way to
slow the body's own suicide clock lies deep inside our genetic material,
according to Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, an expert on aging and mortality at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. CereMedix's peptide stimulates the body's
production of three antioxidants that work together to eliminate free
radicals. Olshansky is an outspoken critic of scams in the anti-aging
marketplace. He would not comment directly on Lifeline's supplement, but
said, "If they can up-regulate the body's own production of free-radical
scavengers, they may be onto something."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/1459b389/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Dec  9 06:55:52 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:55:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Novel Gene Therapy Delivery Uses Stem Cells That
	Target, Attack Tumors
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEBICBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Science Daily: Genetically engineered stem cells can find tumors and
then produce biological killing agents right at the cancer site, say
researchers at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, who
have performed a number of successful "proof of concept" experiments in
mice.
This novel treatmentmay offer the first gene therapy "delivery system"
capable of homing in on and then attacking cancer that has metastasized --
wherever it is in a patient's body. And the stem cells will not be rejected,
even if they are not derived from the patient. The system has been tested in
mice with a variety of human cancers, including solid ones such as ovarian,
brain, breast cancer, melanoma and even such blood-based cancer as leukemia.
"This drug delivery system is attracted to cancer cells no matter what form
they are in or where they are," says Michael Andreeff, M.D., Ph.D.,
professor in the Departments of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and
Leukemia. "We believe this to be a major find."
In the novel delivery system, researchers isolate a small quantity of MSC
from bone marrow, and greatly expand the quantity of those cells in the lab.
They then use a virus to deliver a particular gene into the stem cells. When
turned on, this gene will produce an anti-cancer effect. When given back to
the patient through an intraveneous injection, the millions of engineered
mesenchymal progenitor cells will engraft where the tumor environment is
signaling them, and will activate the therapeutic gene.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/15619a63/attachment.html>

From cphoenix at best.com  Tue Dec  9 07:04:36 2003
From: cphoenix at best.com (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:04:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
References: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
	<003001c3bdce$bf082300$af994a43@texas.net>
	<3FD53371.89A3D694@best.com>
	<013201c3be12$24a6b620$af994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3FD57404.4871572@best.com>

Well, no, I didn't mean that the original unchanged description of
scientific theories had never been successfully criticized.  I meant
that the scientific theories we follow today have usually not had major
contradictions pointed out--if they had, we wouldn't still be following
them, would we?  Except as engineering approximations, of course.  And
there are some famous areas where two excellent theories contradict, and
other areas in ferment so that the time since last criticism is quite
short, and still others where the basic theory is solid but not all the
wrinkles and mechanisms are pinned down yet.

But that's beside the point.  Because now that you mention it, I'm not
aware of any need for any significant alteration of anything Drexler
wrote in Nanosystems.  Of course, Nanosystems is not his original word
on the subject.  There are several things that have been changed and
improved between Engines and Nanosystems--most importantly, in my
opinion, the shift from assemblers to nanofactories.  But aside from an
unimportant typo I found, and an obscure point Jeffrey Soreff told me
about (a slight overestimate in the probability of satisfying a surface
constraint, in Section 9.5.3), I don't know of any errors.  At all.  Not
even little ones.  At this point, I haven't even heard of any
predictions in Nanosystems that have been disproved.  

Hm... I guess if you count the fact that the planetary gear breaks at
incredibly high speeds, there might be two errors.  

Feel free to correct me, anyone.  If not...  Perhaps this is why those
who have actually studied Nanosystems have such high respect for Drexler
and are willing to go so far out on a limb to defend his work and
promote his theories.

Chris

Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> Chris Phoenix sez:
> 
> > Never having been successfully criticized is an attribute common to most
> > (ideally all) current scientific theories.
> 
> Really? You must be using these words in a rather unusual way. Do you assert
> that George Gamow's version of the Big Bang persists unchanged, unchallenged
> and uncriticized? Or Guth's, for that matter? The original Crick&Watson
> model of DNA and its protein expression? Plate tectonics? Solar system
> formation? Quark theory unaltered since Gell-Mann's first salvo? Sure,
> *something* persists throughout all the challenges and responses, but it
> would unbelievable if Drexler's every word stood inviolate more than a
> decade later, which appears to be implied by the statement Hal and I are
> independently objecting to. (Maybe this is word-chopping, I'm not sure; but
> you can be certain that your antagonists will chop with a will if you give
> their blades an unnecessary opening.)
> 
> Damien Broderick

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  9 07:27:33 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:27:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <20031208000149.97520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031207215343.GB5783@leitl.org>
	<20031208000149.97520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031209072732.GA4452@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:01:49PM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> I recall on the extropy list of years gone past, that Eugen used to
> post long posts rambling on, like he'd been on a caffiene drip for the
> last 96 hours, about all sorts of things. What ever happened to that
> posting technique?

Posting doesn't get anything done, and I do have a life these days.
It's very possible that I'll be gone (virtually, for good?) in a few
months.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/0690f8a2/attachment.bin>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  9 07:47:36 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:47:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] planes
In-Reply-To: <20031209044519.45036.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004801c3be28$b7374d90$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> 
> What ever happened to the F12?

Do you mean the Flying Dorito?  Cancelled by the Bottom Up review.
The A12 Avenger II which was suppose to replace the A6, 
was ultimately deemed as too expensive and was cut by then SecDef 
Dick Cheney becoming the largest defense contract cancellation 
in the history of the Department of Defense. 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm


> That F22 can only do vectored thrust. It
> can't take off vertically.

It can take of vertically, if you don't have ordinance
or much fuel aboard.  {8-]

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2002/5/flexible_flyer/print
.phtml

> Besides, it was nowhere near as beautiful as
> the F-23 (ducking....)

Surely Mike means NOT!  As soon as we saw the mockup
of the x35, we knew we were going to win.  I bought a
bunch of LM stock that day.  I lost most of my money,
but thats a different story.  We figured no self-respecting
AF officer would fly such a thing as the x35, nor any
Naval Aviator would want to fly "Monica."

http://www.ebtx.com/oats/x32vsx35.htm

Of course, had the services chosen the x-35, then at least
the army would no longer suffer the ignominy of having
the ugliest plane, the A-10 Warthog.

http://members.aol.com/cbmjets/homepage/A10.html

In any case, we are seeing perhaps the end of the line
for fighter planes.  Humanity doesn't need them anymore.
I don't suspect they will be much use in our last remaining
great conflict: the massive culture war the west faces against
the Taliban, the Al Qaida and their ilk.

I am interested in seeing the civil applications
of a ducted fan lifting system.

spike



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 08:36:26 2003
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312081508260.31948-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20031209083627.85550.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

If we want to know why politics is so complex this is
sure a good example.

Robert

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

What's so complex?  Smalley is a meta-honcho--likely
on the short list for honcho--near the summit a
multi-billion dollar public research money pile. 
Quite a career accomplishment.  

The top down approach to nano reaches out from the
broad margins of current capabilities, can absorb
research billions easily, and can deliver
immediately-usable science and tech as it expands
those margins.

The bottom up approach can only deliver theoretical
analysis (though providing tangible improvements in
the requisite analytical tools), can't deliver new
tech at the same rate, or the same dollars per gizmo,
can't IMO absorb a comparable quantity of research
monies, and can't deliver 'product' in the short term.
 And Drextech's perception as 'out there' science,
whether warranted or no, doesn't help.

The politicos responsible for committing public funds
to scientific research, and the scientific luminaries
who advise them, deal in BIG budgets and need to
demonstrate BIG results.  Top down is their ticket. 
Drextech is not.

And from a purely political/competitive stand point,
in so far as Smalley sees himself on a course to be
for the NNI what Oppenheimer was for the Manhattan
Project, why he want to promote Drexler, the "Founder
of Nanotech"?  It could only make Smalley look
smaller.

But this is all obvious.  Isn't it?

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From hemm at br.inter.net  Tue Dec  9 11:07:27 2003
From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:07:27 -0200
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <Law9-F543EJnl1AtfqK00012b1b@hotmail.com>
	<5.2.0.9.0.20031207163902.02c692d0@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <005601c3be44$a1bdf420$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Nice. But it's only more of the same. 
What I would really like to see is something more revolutionary than evolutionary. For instance, if we build many space elevators around the globe, people could travel between them using ships that would never need to land. It's some crazy idea, but it's an idea. Ok, it's not possible today, but could be considered.
On the other hand there are other means of transportation that could be used today and are so neglected. Such as dirigibles and ekranoplanes (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~gulkiz/wig.html)


-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: Natasha Vita-More 
Para: ExI chat list 
Enviada em: domingo, 7 de dezembro de 2003 23:22
Assunto: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


Tonight @ 9 PM on the Travel Channel will be "Giant Planes" covering the future of transportation.

(11/26/03 "Airbus Unveils Giant Jet Airbus showed off its new Airbus 380, a jumbo jet that could carry as many as 900 passengers Tuesday. Virgin Atlantic has reportedly ordered six of the colossal carriers. The plane will begin testing next year.")


Natasha 



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


From trichrom at optusnet.com.au  Tue Dec  9 11:23:09 2003
From: trichrom at optusnet.com.au (Rob KPO)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:23:09 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] planes
References: <004801c3be28$b7374d90$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000a01c3be46$d84b2f60$0200a8c0@snasa>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] planes



> > That F22 can only do vectored thrust. It
> > can't take off vertically.
>
> It can take of vertically, if you don't have ordinance
> or much fuel aboard.  {8-]
>
> http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2002/5/flexible_flyer/print
> .phtml
>

Vertical take-off is not a capability of the F22, vertical climb - yes,
takeoff - no. Perhaps it has the thrust level and thrust control to do it,
but it isnt capable of sitting on it's tail for starter's! The link provided
is about the F35 which does have a VSTOL variant that can take off and land
vertically.

Sorry for interrupting, but I cant resist on that topic!!!

Regards

Rob KPO



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Dec  9 12:14:48 2003
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:14:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [TLCB] Re: French assistance request...
Message-ID: <3FD5BCB8.68D696DB@mindspring.com>

Terry

How about passing this back to Mike as I don't know his email address, and 
my mail will most likely bounce from the other servers.

Mike

Did you check out this www site?
http://www.cartographic.com/xq/ASP/AreaID.34/qx/nautical_charts.asp

Looks like they might have something, but AT A COST!!

Some links:  http://www.connectedglobe.com/millennium/ip.html

Mac
At 09:08 PM 12/8/2003 -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
>I am trying to get a good navigational chart of Clipperton Island (a
>French posession) in the eastern Pacific and would like to find an ENC
>database (Electronic Navigational Chart) that conforms to the
>international S-57 standard. As it seems that each nation takes care of
>its own navigational chart distribution, I was hoping someone who is
>French, or French literate, could locate such a chart database for me
>somewhere on the French government internet sites. Finding such a file
>without knowing the lingo is a bit tough.... so much for my three years
>of French in high school...
>
>All I've been able to obtain so far on the greater internet is a very
>low resolution scanned image of a 1956 map that has no depth soundings
>or other information.
>
>=====
>Mike Lorrey


-- 
?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  9 14:33:27 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:33:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <Law9-OE199hf9Vu60To000051ec@hotmail.com>
References: <019e01c3bd07$c7a7ceb0$97fe4d0c@hal2001>
	<Law9-OE199hf9Vu60To000051ec@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031209143327.GY4452@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:15:14PM -0500, Brian Alexander Lee wrote:
> I think you're right. The real reason there's so much funding for quantum
> encryption is because whomever gets it first will have "unbreakable"

Do you trust the laws of physics (these you know, that is, and you do know
that we know our current physics is inconsistent, and hence knowably
incomplete?) or those of mathematics?

Cryptoanalysis is a mature, understood discipline. There are several 
independant-fields-of-theory production-quality PKI systems.

Not many people understand QM, even less people understand the limitations
of hardware using QM (single-photon source? proof of entanglement? detection
of cloning?). 

http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html

> encryption for a while. It's like nuclear weapons were, you don't want to be
> the one without it.

The only provably secure cryptosystem is one-time pad, generated
using a good source of entropy and properly whitened. The second best one
is a good (hairy territory, this) PRNG seeded by a shared secret. PKI
is where you're stuck with no shared secret, and only open channels. 
 
> Public key encryption is pretty strong and easy to use, but it has a few

Please refrain from using blanket statements about a domain you obviously
don't understand. "pretty strong" is meaningless without an attack model,
"easy to use" is ridiculous, unless you refer to peer-reviewed
implementations of PKIs, which have an empiric record track of being
insecure. People who thought PKI was easy to write kept producing buggy
shitware. Because they thought it "easy to use".

They're not the weak link in majority of cases, agreed.

> flaws that theoretically a really big gov't computer could use to break it.
> A lot of encryption systems that use public key really use it to generate a
> 120-160bit session key and exchange it with their partner. Although there

All PKI systems are used for symmetric encryption key exchange. In fact, most
PKI has considerable weaknesses, if it's being used for something else than
that.

> are no documented cracks of 120 bit encryption through brute force, it's
> theoretically possible.

The key size is useless without knowing the algorithm complexity. No, it is not possible
to brute-force a symmetric crypto key within its viability window. It is
perfectly possible (though impractical) to use key sizes which cannot
be brute-forced, period. This includes QC, because not all algorithms
can profit from QC parallelism; nevermind that you can't scale to
high qubit numbers (barring error-correction, the problem is energy
efficiency being worse than classical computation).
 
> Harvey pointed out a lot of common vulnerabilities, but most of them can be
> avoided by using proper techniques to avoid timing, social engineering, etc.
> 
> The big benefit of this is that it allows for a secure key transmission
> technique. Proper use of certificates should prevent a man in the middle
> exploit.

You cannot detect a MITM with PKI alone. The QM is there as an (imperfect)
tampering detection.
 
> Nonetheless, crypttech is growing by leaps and bounds as corporations now
> need encryption where previously just terrorists and govt's needed it.

Please do not assume reading Slashdot is sufficient to understand
cryptography (No, reading cryptography@ over years is not sufficient, 
either, or just reading <http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/> ,
but it's a first start if you want to understand the basics
of cryptography).

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/b908e24e/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Dec  9 14:36:28 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <20031209083627.85550.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312090628240.17591-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Jeff Davis wrote:

> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
>
> If we want to know why politics is so complex this is
> sure a good example.
>
> What's so complex?  Smalley is a meta-honcho--likely
> on the short list for honcho--near the summit a
> multi-billion dollar public research money pile.

Jeff, I did not interject that statement as a comment
on Smalley v. Drexler.  I interjected it based on the
fact that in spite of a hour or more looking through
the U.S. legislative processes I cannot determine
accurately how/when the studies got deleted from
the bills.  I think around May the House bill got
sent to the Senate, but the Senate bill didn't get
sent to committee until September.  I think sometime
between those dates some reconciliation took place
between the bills but I'm unsure who did it and
when it took place.

And I may be all wrong because the published paper
trail (that I've been able to find thus far) is
complex in and of itself and that is still probably
less complex than what actually took place.

Robert




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Dec  9 15:43:12 2003
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:43:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
Message-ID: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac>

Michael Shermer wrote an article critical of life extension in a recent
Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0001AF03-A8B1-1F57-905980A84189EEDF

Subsequent article in CSICOP touched on skeptical views on life extension
and global warming:

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/abuses/

Olga





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 16:07:10 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:07:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] planes
In-Reply-To: <004801c3be28$b7374d90$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031209160710.32690.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > What ever happened to the F12?
> 
> Do you mean the Flying Dorito?  Cancelled by the Bottom Up review.
> The A12 Avenger II which was suppose to replace the A6, 
> was ultimately deemed as too expensive and was cut by then SecDef 
> Dick Cheney becoming the largest defense contract cancellation 
> in the history of the Department of Defense. 
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
> 

Nah, I meant the F-12, which was listed for years in Aviation Leak's
annual military inventory as being a Mach 2 VTOL fighter in
development.

The Flying Dorito, known in one part of Boston as the Calzone of Doom
and in another part as the Scone That Never Was (depending on your
ethnicity), was a fun plane to not work on. We worked really hard not
developing that plane, I'll tell ya, but I can't tell you what I did or
what contractor I worked for, or I'll have to give you the Nacho
Sleeper.

> 
> > That F22 can only do vectored thrust. It
> > can't take off vertically.
> 
> It can take of vertically, if you don't have ordinance
> or much fuel aboard.  {8-]
> 

Hey, that is an F-35. You're one engine short of an F-22...

> 
> > Besides, it was nowhere near as beautiful as
> > the F-23 (ducking....)
> 
> Surely Mike means NOT!  As soon as we saw the mockup
> of the x35, we knew we were going to win.  I bought a
> bunch of LM stock that day.  I lost most of my money,
> but thats a different story.  We figured no self-respecting
> AF officer would fly such a thing as the x35, nor any
> Naval Aviator would want to fly "Monica."
> 
> http://www.ebtx.com/oats/x32vsx35.htm

Of COURSE the Lockheed plane is scarier lookin than the Boeing lawn
dart, it's the freakin' Hunchback of San Jose. The Boeing plane looks
just right for the leading part in Of Mice and Men, "I'm gonna pet him
and hug him and name him George...." Odd, but in a giggle funny way....

However, that ISN'T the plane contest I'm talkin bout, you're pullin
one a them fancy Kaliforny bait and switch scams on me. The F-23 is
indeed a far more attractive aircraft than the F-22.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-23.htm

> 
> Of course, had the services chosen the x-35, then at least
> the army would no longer suffer the ignominy of having
> the ugliest plane, the A-10 Warthog.
> 
> http://members.aol.com/cbmjets/homepage/A10.html

Ugliness is an asset on the battlefield. Do you want enemy troops to
have wet dreams about your aircraft, or do you want them to have the
fear of death and destruction?

> 
> In any case, we are seeing perhaps the end of the line
> for fighter planes.  Humanity doesn't need them anymore.
> I don't suspect they will be much use in our last remaining
> great conflict: the massive culture war the west faces against
> the Taliban, the Al Qaida and their ilk.
> 

I suspect that the need for fighter planes will never end. Whatever is
the high terrain in warfare, that is where the knights will congregate.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 16:17:30 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <005601c3be44$a1bdf420$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <20031209161730.47694.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

Well, atmospheric transportation has hit a wall of diminishing returns
on velocity, so the new plenum of progress is number of passengers and
cost efficiency. The Airbus entry is certainly a step in that
direction. Boeing has had designs for similar aircraft out for years
with little market interest up to now. Maybe that will change and
Boeing will do something now that Condit is canned.

Skyhooks are not a really time efficient means of getting from point A
to point B on earth. You may go faster in terms of peak velocity, but
the route is many times longer, going up to geosynch, around (at 23k
altitude, half circumference is 160,000 miles) and back down, for a
total route length of over 200,000 miles. You are going to have a trip
time of over 20 hours, more like 30-40 hours at best, going that way.

Why not jump in a 747-XFXL (extrafat, extralong) and travel in comfort
at mach .97 and do it in 15 hours?

--- Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at br.inter.net> wrote:
> Nice. But it's only more of the same. 
> What I would really like to see is something more revolutionary than
> evolutionary. For instance, if we build many space elevators around
> the globe, people could travel between them using ships that would
> never need to land. It's some crazy idea, but it's an idea. Ok, it's
> not possible today, but could be considered.
> On the other hand there are other means of transportation that could
> be used today and are so neglected. Such as dirigibles and
> ekranoplanes (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~gulkiz/wig.html)
> 
> 
> -----Mensagem Original----- 
> De: Natasha Vita-More 
> Para: ExI chat list 
> Enviada em: domingo, 7 de dezembro de 2003 23:22
> Assunto: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
> 
> 
> Tonight @ 9 PM on the Travel Channel will be "Giant Planes" covering
> the future of transportation.
> 
> (11/26/03 "Airbus Unveils Giant Jet Airbus showed off its new Airbus
> 380, a jumbo jet that could carry as many as 900 passengers Tuesday.
> Virgin Atlantic has reportedly ordered six of the colossal carriers.
> The plane will begin testing next year.")
> 
> 
> Natasha 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  9 16:11:35 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:11:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
Message-ID: <Law9-F8ul0lJkdPbXNp000178d7@hotmail.com>

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:33:27 +0100

>Please refrain from using blanket statements about a domain you obviously
>don't understand. "pretty strong" is meaningless without an attack model,
>"easy to use" is ridiculous, unless you refer to peer-reviewed
>implementations of PKIs, which have an empiric record track of being
>insecure. People who thought PKI was easy to write kept producing buggy
>shitware. Because they thought it "easy to use".

Please refrain from using blanket statements about a domain you obviously 
don't understand.

"Pretty strong" is not meaningless. As a cryptography consumer, I won't 
write the software myself but I need to know that it is difficult or 
pratically impossible to compromise.

>The key size is useless without knowing the algorithm complexity. No, it is 
>not possible
>to brute-force a symmetric crypto key within its viability window.

The key size is not useless. Of course to make a perfect valuation you need 
to know what algorithm is used.

>All PKI systems are used for symmetric encryption key exchange. In fact, 
>most
>PKI has considerable weaknesses, if it's being used for something else than
>that.
See, here's another of your blanket statements. Not All PKI systems are used 
for symmetric encryption. There are plenty of insecure systems that use PKI 
for things they shouldn't use them for.

>Please do not assume reading Slashdot is sufficient to understand
>cryptography (No, reading cryptography@ over years is not sufficient,
>either, or just reading <http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/> ,
>but it's a first start if you want to understand the basics
>of cryptography).
Everyone knows that true cypherpunks learn from reading Cryptonomicon, not 
slashdot. Man, I thought you would have known that.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, just trying to ablate 
your abrasiveness a little.

BAL

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:33:27 +0100
>
>On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:15:14PM -0500, Brian Alexander Lee wrote:
> > I think you're right. The real reason there's so much funding for 
>quantum
> > encryption is because whomever gets it first will have "unbreakable"
>
>Do you trust the laws of physics (these you know, that is, and you do know
>that we know our current physics is inconsistent, and hence knowably
>incomplete?) or those of mathematics?
>
>Cryptoanalysis is a mature, understood discipline. There are several
>independant-fields-of-theory production-quality PKI systems.
>
>Not many people understand QM, even less people understand the limitations
>of hardware using QM (single-photon source? proof of entanglement? 
>detection
>of cloning?).
>
>http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html
>
> > encryption for a while. It's like nuclear weapons were, you don't want 
>to be
> > the one without it.
>
>The only provably secure cryptosystem is one-time pad, generated
>using a good source of entropy and properly whitened. The second best one
>is a good (hairy territory, this) PRNG seeded by a shared secret. PKI
>is where you're stuck with no shared secret, and only open channels.
>
> > Public key encryption is pretty strong and easy to use, but it has a few
>
>Please refrain from using blanket statements about a domain you obviously
>don't understand. "pretty strong" is meaningless without an attack model,
>"easy to use" is ridiculous, unless you refer to peer-reviewed
>implementations of PKIs, which have an empiric record track of being
>insecure. People who thought PKI was easy to write kept producing buggy
>shitware. Because they thought it "easy to use".
>
>They're not the weak link in majority of cases, agreed.
>
> > flaws that theoretically a really big gov't computer could use to break 
>it.
> > A lot of encryption systems that use public key really use it to 
>generate a
> > 120-160bit session key and exchange it with their partner. Although 
>there
>
>All PKI systems are used for symmetric encryption key exchange. In fact, 
>most
>PKI has considerable weaknesses, if it's being used for something else than
>that.
>
> > are no documented cracks of 120 bit encryption through brute force, it's
> > theoretically possible.
>
>The key size is useless without knowing the algorithm complexity. No, it is 
>not possible
>to brute-force a symmetric crypto key within its viability window. It is
>perfectly possible (though impractical) to use key sizes which cannot
>be brute-forced, period. This includes QC, because not all algorithms
>can profit from QC parallelism; nevermind that you can't scale to
>high qubit numbers (barring error-correction, the problem is energy
>efficiency being worse than classical computation).
>
> > Harvey pointed out a lot of common vulnerabilities, but most of them can 
>be
> > avoided by using proper techniques to avoid timing, social engineering, 
>etc.
> >
> > The big benefit of this is that it allows for a secure key transmission
> > technique. Proper use of certificates should prevent a man in the middle
> > exploit.
>
>You cannot detect a MITM with PKI alone. The QM is there as an (imperfect)
>tampering detection.
>
> > Nonetheless, crypttech is growing by leaps and bounds as corporations 
>now
> > need encryption where previously just terrorists and govt's needed it.
>
>Please do not assume reading Slashdot is sufficient to understand
>cryptography (No, reading cryptography@ over years is not sufficient,
>either, or just reading <http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/> ,
>but it's a first start if you want to understand the basics
>of cryptography).
>
>-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
><< attach4 >>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Our best dial-up offer is back.  Get MSN Dial-up Internet Service for 6 
months @ $9.95/month now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 16:33:37 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [TLCB] Re: French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <3FD5BCB8.68D696DB@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20031209163337.39489.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Terry
> 
> How about passing this back to Mike as I don't know his email
> address, and 
> my mail will most likely bounce from the other servers.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Did you check out this www site?
> http://www.cartographic.com/xq/ASP/AreaID.34/qx/nautical_charts.asp
> 
> Looks like they might have something, but AT A COST!!

Scale 1:500,000 
Producer Military Topographic Directorate of the General Staff 
Vintage 1980-1981 
Projection Gauss-Kruger 
Language Russian 
Size 3x2 degrees 
Contours 50 meters 
Status Available Immediately in raster or paper format 
Sheet Count 1 
Base price (Paper) $79.00  per sheet  

This is a low resolution contour map that does not provide any
hydrometric topography. Saw it already, doesn't suit my needs.

> 
> Some links:  http://www.connectedglobe.com/millennium/ip.html

Found that page a while back. Thanks.

An ENC database is a file containing both geographic and hydrographic
topological data, depth soundings, and other GIS data that conforms to
the International Geophysical S-57 standard. The US has been creating
such charts for all of its territorial waters and posessions, even
uninhabited Navassa Island has been digitally charted. Other major
nations are supposed to be doing the same thing with their own
posessions and waters, which I why I want someone literate in French to
find such a chart on French government servers that is available to the
public.

> 
> Mac
> At 09:08 PM 12/8/2003 -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> >I am trying to get a good navigational chart of Clipperton Island (a
> >French posession) in the eastern Pacific and would like to find an
> ENC
> >database (Electronic Navigational Chart) that conforms to the
> >international S-57 standard. As it seems that each nation takes care
> of
> >its own navigational chart distribution, I was hoping someone who is
> >French, or French literate, could locate such a chart database for
> me
> >somewhere on the French government internet sites. Finding such a
> file
> >without knowing the lingo is a bit tough.... so much for my three
> years
> >of French in high school...
> >
> >All I've been able to obtain so far on the greater internet is a
> very
> >low resolution scanned image of a 1956 map that has no depth
> soundings
> >or other information.
> >
> >=====
> >Mike Lorrey
> 
> 
> -- 
> ?Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.? Copyright 1992,
> Frank Rice
> 
> 
> Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) <
> fortean1 at mindspring.com >
>      Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
> Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html
> >
> Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
>       U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
> ------------
> Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
>    TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam
> veterans,
> Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From hemm at br.inter.net  Tue Dec  9 17:21:12 2003
From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:21:12 -0200
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
References: <20031209161730.47694.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01d101c3be78$d84bb8e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>


As I said, crazy idea. :)
Just a paradigmatic issue. I wouldn't like to be forever tied to conventional airplanes.
I wouldn't even mind to travel slower than mach .97 (or much slower) aboard a dirigible for instance. It's not a matter of speed. 

The transports need a revolution. When we had only horses, the trains were revolutionary. Then the automobiles and finally airplanes. Nothing new since then. And there goes one hundred years.
One might point that there are rockets and stuff, but how many people do you know have used rockets for transportation? Not practical.
I've seen (discovery channel, internet) many ideas that could change radically the transports but I don't see any of these ideas being implemented.


-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
Para: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at br.inter.net>; "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2003 14:17
Assunto: Re: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation


| Well, atmospheric transportation has hit a wall of diminishing returns
| on velocity, so the new plenum of progress is number of passengers and
| cost efficiency. The Airbus entry is certainly a step in that
| direction. Boeing has had designs for similar aircraft out for years
| with little market interest up to now. Maybe that will change and
| Boeing will do something now that Condit is canned.
| 
| Skyhooks are not a really time efficient means of getting from point A
| to point B on earth. You may go faster in terms of peak velocity, but
| the route is many times longer, going up to geosynch, around (at 23k
| altitude, half circumference is 160,000 miles) and back down, for a
| total route length of over 200,000 miles. You are going to have a trip
| time of over 20 hours, more like 30-40 hours at best, going that way.
| 
| Why not jump in a 747-XFXL (extrafat, extralong) and travel in comfort
| at mach .97 and do it in 15 hours?
| 
| --- Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at br.inter.net> wrote:
| > Nice. But it's only more of the same. 
| > What I would really like to see is something more revolutionary than
| > evolutionary. For instance, if we build many space elevators around
| > the globe, people could travel between them using ships that would
| > never need to land. It's some crazy idea, but it's an idea. Ok, it's
| > not possible today, but could be considered.
| > On the other hand there are other means of transportation that could
| > be used today and are so neglected. Such as dirigibles and
| > ekranoplanes (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~gulkiz/wig.html)



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  9 17:28:47 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:28:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <012001c3bd6e$7fa86360$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <200312060543.hB65hqM30870@finney.org>
	<20031206195800.GC5783@leitl.org>
	<012001c3bd6e$7fa86360$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20031209172847.GD4452@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 08:34:37PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > I personally expect crosslinked polymer as structure bulk, not
> > diamond nor graphenes.
> 
> Interesting. I think I can see why crosslinked polymers might appeal
> given disulphide bonds already feature in routine protein chemistry,

No, the simple reason is processivity and energy use. Even if I can
deposit about everything chemically stable, but have to do it
at a MHz..GHz rate by a resonant tooltip I'm burning lots of juice
for a glacially slow deposition. 

With a monomer I just have to squirt it out, and to initiate it.
With a cumulene as linear monomer I can in fact make pretty good
diamond, if I have the F-tipped carbon nanotube as a tool, but
I can also change the polymer deposited (a continuum between diamond
and graphene) by controlling the tip movement, and quench radicals
with a gas jet. It might be not perfect, but it's orders of 
magnitude faster, and gets the job done.

> but I see protein design as pretty complex, requiring a solvent, and

Proteins are very good for purification, autoassembly and part ligation,
all in one step, and a vast existing infrastructure (biotechnology) to
produce them. This is sufficient for assembling cellular architectures,
anything regular, but is lousy for structural material (you won't get 
much better than spider silk, and that's not too thermally stable) and 
for nonregular complex shapes.

You can of course add artificial amino acids to the repertoire, it's
been done already. The problem is that the information required for folding
guidance dilutes your functionality concentration. It takes a lot of blahblah
to create the functional envelope for the enzyme core (the periphery
has also functionality, of course, but I'm simplifying this for the
sake of argument).

> very hard to do computationally (I presume you don't just want to stuff

PFP/iPFP is making nice progress. They've invented a brand new fold the
other day, and forecast the structure very nicely, too. You need basically 
a self-bootstrapping high-precision forcefield, and custom hardware to 
implement it (Blue Gene is pretty close to that) to do it robustly and quickly.

The PFP/iPFP is not a boolean event (now we've got it! The Holy Grail! etc.),
you just get lucky more and more often.

> a volume with any old shape). If diamonoid forms could be produced
> they would seem to have the advantage of being conceptually easier to
> design with. Is your expectation for cross-linked polymer bulk structures

I would forget machine-phase for time being. This is almost irrelevant
for bootstrap. I'm not sure machine-phase is exclusive means of fabbing
for mature nanotechnology either.

> based on  the view that diamondoid would be too difficult or rather that
> designer protein chemistry would be relatively easy?

Right now hacking biology is our strongest tool. The second closest 
being self-assembly by supramolecular chemistry. But here you have
to synthesize everything from scratch, so you're stuck with very
primitive structures, and lousy yield. Manipulative proximal probe
is even more limited, if we're trying to do single-molecule chemistry.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/7b43d33c/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  9 17:49:55 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:49:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F8ul0lJkdPbXNp000178d7@hotmail.com>
References: <Law9-F8ul0lJkdPbXNp000178d7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20031209174955.GF4452@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0500, Brian Lee wrote:

> I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, just trying to ablate 
> your abrasiveness a little.

I flame with a purpose. I'm sick and tired of pretend knowledge
about a complex field. The only thing I learned about cryptography
in all those years is that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking
about.

Misunderstandements about system security and cryptography can in
future get your, and -- most importantly -- other people's ass
killed. This is not a hyperbole. Bad crypto already kills people,
just not thousands or millions. Not yet.

The right frame of mind before this is humility, and readiness
to learn. In any case: do not spread actual misinformation
without checking back with people who know.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031209/81593beb/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Dec  9 18:03:40 2003
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312081527090.31948-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312090957320.21534-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> But in the early versions of the bill (S. 189 (es)) it was in Section 5b
> and it isn't in S 189 (is or rs) (where Section 5 became Section 4).
> You can search on "Self-Assembly".
>
> This would make a great detective story...

The above is wrong!  I had the order of the bills incorrect.

If you start at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search on "S189" you
will get the 4 versions in the correct order with explanations.
The text appears in S.189(es).  Then go to the es/enr versions
and go to "Bill Summary & Status file" to get a list of the pages
in the Congressional Record.

In section 5b it says "the National Research Council shall conduct
a one-time study to determine the technical feasibility of molecular
self-assembly for the manufacture of materials and devices at the
molecular scale."

The text shows up in the debate on the floor on November the 18th.
Documents S15101/S15102 in the Congressional Record. The changes
appear to be coming into the version of the bill from Senators
Allen (VA) and Wyden (OR). The text is not in earlier versions
of the bill.

Sorry for the confusion.
Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 18:11:33 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
In-Reply-To: <01d101c3be78$d84bb8e0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <20031209181133.84129.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

Akranoplans are interesting ideas, but I suspect that the danger of
collision with ships would be a problem as would dealing with heavy
seas. Doesn't matter if you are going mach .75 25 feet over the ocean
if the waves are 100 feet high...

The real revolution in transportation is in residential ships like
Residensea. When you can telecommute, then ocean cruise ships will make
a comeback.

--- Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at br.inter.net> wrote:
> 
> As I said, crazy idea. :)
> Just a paradigmatic issue. I wouldn't like to be forever tied to
> conventional airplanes.
> I wouldn't even mind to travel slower than mach .97 (or much slower)
> aboard a dirigible for instance. It's not a matter of speed. 
> 
> The transports need a revolution. When we had only horses, the trains
> were revolutionary. Then the automobiles and finally airplanes.
> Nothing new since then. And there goes one hundred years.
> One might point that there are rockets and stuff, but how many people
> do you know have used rockets for transportation? Not practical.
> I've seen (discovery channel, internet) many ideas that could change
> radically the transports but I don't see any of these ideas being
> implemented.
> 
> 
> -----Mensagem Original----- 
> De: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> Para: "Henrique Moraes Machado" <hemm at br.inter.net>; "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2003 14:17
> Assunto: Re: [ok] Re: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
> 
> 
> | Well, atmospheric transportation has hit a wall of diminishing
> returns
> | on velocity, so the new plenum of progress is number of passengers
> and
> | cost efficiency. The Airbus entry is certainly a step in that
> | direction. Boeing has had designs for similar aircraft out for
> years
> | with little market interest up to now. Maybe that will change and
> | Boeing will do something now that Condit is canned.
> | 
> | Skyhooks are not a really time efficient means of getting from
> point A
> | to point B on earth. You may go faster in terms of peak velocity,
> but
> | the route is many times longer, going up to geosynch, around (at
> 23k
> | altitude, half circumference is 160,000 miles) and back down, for a
> | total route length of over 200,000 miles. You are going to have a
> trip
> | time of over 20 hours, more like 30-40 hours at best, going that
> way.
> | 
> | Why not jump in a 747-XFXL (extrafat, extralong) and travel in
> comfort
> | at mach .97 and do it in 15 hours?
> | 
> | --- Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at br.inter.net> wrote:
> | > Nice. But it's only more of the same. 
> | > What I would really like to see is something more revolutionary
> than
> | > evolutionary. For instance, if we build many space elevators
> around
> | > the globe, people could travel between them using ships that
> would
> | > never need to land. It's some crazy idea, but it's an idea. Ok,
> it's
> | > not possible today, but could be considered.
> | > On the other hand there are other means of transportation that
> could
> | > be used today and are so neglected. Such as dirigibles and
> | > ekranoplanes (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~gulkiz/wig.html)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From jacques at dtext.com  Tue Dec  9 18:36:34 2003
From: jacques at dtext.com (JDP)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:36:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [TLCB] Re: French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <20031209163337.39489.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031209163337.39489.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FD61632.607@dtext.com>

Mike,

The French organism responsible for the ENC charts is 
http://www.shom.fr/ Send them an email and they will tell you if/where 
you can find the ENC chart for Clipperton Island.

http://www.primar-stavanger.org/ commercializes some such charts, 
including French ones. They have a "Chart catalogue" java app that you 
can download.

CC to me if you want me to read some other message about this, as I 
don't monitor the list in a systematic way.

And don't go bombing the little atoll, please. I might want to retire 
there and play with the crabs.

Jacques

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> An ENC database is a file containing both geographic and hydrographic
> topological data, depth soundings, and other GIS data that conforms to
> the International Geophysical S-57 standard. The US has been creating
> such charts for all of its territorial waters and posessions, even
> uninhabited Navassa Island has been digitally charted. Other major
> nations are supposed to be doing the same thing with their own
> posessions and waters, which I why I want someone literate in French to
> find such a chart on French government servers that is available to the
> public.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  9 18:35:03 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:35:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
In-Reply-To: <20031209143327.GY4452@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <000801c3be83$2c2bff60$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Eugen Leitl wrote,
> Please refrain from using blanket statements about a domain 
> you obviously don't understand.

and

> Please do not assume reading Slashdot is sufficient to 
> understand cryptography

This is a big problem with Extropians and Transhumanists in general.  All we
seem to have is a discussion group with armchair quarterbacks and amateurs
arguing over star-trek science.  Where are all the real experts in our
favorite fields?  I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but it has to be
said.

We have to move beyond the fan-club stage and create develop expertise and
involvement to create the future.  Educating the public, lobbying our
governments, and discussing this stuff is only the first step.  And even
that step is misguided without a proper understanding of the technologies.
We are becoming a cargo cult that doesn't understand what we are really
promoting.  How can we break out of this feel-good mode and into the real
work?  Self-education, grassroots efforts, and garage tinkering worked well
in the industrial age, but won't be good enough for the future.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  9 18:46:57 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:46:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <000c01c3be84$d63c9180$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Olga wrote,
> Subsequent article in CSICOP touched on skeptical views on life extension
and global warming:
>
> <http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/abuses/>

Excellent article.  At first, skepticism was a scientific tool used to
critically analyze assumptions and verify facts.  Now we have copycats who
are acting like skeptics to give their unfounded beliefs an air of
scientific authority.  As the article notes, people who are "skeptical"
about evolution or global warming are merely pretending to be skeptics
without the underlying science.  This is the same as Christian "Scientists"
or Creation "Science" trying to pretend that their religious beliefs are as
rigorous as real science.  It is too easy to fall into this trap.  People
easily fall into a mode where they act like they are experts and they have
no real concept of how science or the underlying technology really work.  I
am afraid that there are more faux experts than real experts in the public
spotlight today.  It is easier to be a consumer, commentator, political
activists, strategy consultant, public educator, or whatever in a field of
"expertise" without really going through all the trouble of really learning
the field.  This is the biggest threat to science and by extension to
transhumanism facing us today.  The world of science is being diluted with
pseudoscience, and it is very difficult for the laypeople to tell the
difference.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 19:10:56 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [TLCB] Re: French assistance request...
In-Reply-To: <3FD61632.607@dtext.com>
Message-ID: <20031209191056.91846.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- JDP <jacques at dtext.com> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> The French organism responsible for the ENC charts is 
> http://www.shom.fr/ Send them an email and they will tell you
> if/where 
> you can find the ENC chart for Clipperton Island.
> 
> http://www.primar-stavanger.org/ commercializes some such charts, 
> including French ones. They have a "Chart catalogue" java app that
> you can download.
> 
> CC to me if you want me to read some other message about this, as I 
> don't monitor the list in a systematic way.

Thank you very much for your response, Jaques. I will see what I can
accomplish through these links.

> 
> And don't go bombing the little atoll, please. I might want to retire
> there and play with the crabs.

Well, I'd rather play with some of the tourists than the crabs, myself
(unless they, the crabs, saute well).

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  9 19:15:52 2003
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:15:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
Message-ID: <Law9-F420eGlnaTq2bq0001f925@hotmail.com>

Of course I too am sick and tired of people spouting off about things which 
they know nothing.

I'm moderately familiar with what crypto to use in which situation and what 
provides an acceptible level of risk. Of course nothing is impregnable (even 
one-time pads have social engineering vulnerabilities), but there are 
acceptible encryption schemes and methods that have never known to be 
compromised (like the 128 bit RC4 cipher used in many SSL implementations).

My first point was attempting to relay that as technology power increases, 
these theoretical vulnerabilities to brute force cracks will become actual, 
and whomever has the next level of encryption will be at an advantage. An 
advantage as huge as nuclear weapons were.

Since

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Encryption revolution
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:49:55 +0100
>
>On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0500, Brian Lee wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, just trying to 
>ablate
> > your abrasiveness a little.
>
>I flame with a purpose. I'm sick and tired of pretend knowledge
>about a complex field. The only thing I learned about cryptography
>in all those years is that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking
>about.
>
>Misunderstandements about system security and cryptography can in
>future get your, and -- most importantly -- other people's ass
>killed. This is not a hyperbole. Bad crypto already kills people,
>just not thousands or millions. Not yet.
>
>The right frame of mind before this is humility, and readiness
>to learn. In any case: do not spread actual misinformation
>without checking back with people who know.
>
>-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
><< attach4 >>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Cell phone ?switch? rules are taking effect ? find out more here. 
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 19:32:05 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <000c01c3be84$d63c9180$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <20031209193205.10451.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Olga wrote,
> > Subsequent article in CSICOP touched on skeptical views on life
> > extension and global warming:
> >
> > <http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/abuses/>
> 
> Excellent article.  At first, skepticism was a scientific tool used
> to critically analyze assumptions and verify facts.  Now we have
> copycats who are acting like skeptics to give their unfounded
> beliefs an air of scientific authority.  As the article notes,
> people who are "skeptical"about evolution or global warming are
> merely pretending to be skeptics without the underlying science. 

I am sorry, Harvey, but global warming does not deserve to be included
in this. The author makes a ludicrous claim that we should not be
skeptical about something that is allegedly happening right now.
Bullshit. UFO adherents claim that we are being invaded and abducted
right now. So freakin what? Does that mean we should not be skeptical
of the scientific investigations of psychologists into the memories of
abductees? Hell no. Does it mean we should not be skeptical about the
laboratory results of samples taken from alleged landing/crash sites?
Hell no.

Global warming? What global warming? I've got two feet of snow in my
front yard and winter hasn't even officially STARTED yet. You think I'm
unduly skeptical about the claims ONLY of scientists who have a
socialist agenda? Do you think I am unduly skeptical when scientists
who developed much of the base data the UN makes its claims on say that
their data is not being properly used or interpreted by the UN??? Do
you think I am unduly skeptical when my own cousin, a published
scientist with degrees from BU and UMO, and who is doing his doctorate
at the University of Aukland, and who happens to actually BE a
climatologist, says that most of the claims of global warming
proponents are absolute bullshit, and the rest are not anthropogenic in
nature? 

Given the immense cost of completely changing our entire economic and
governmental structures that is being demanded by global warming
proponents, we need to be EXTREMELY skeptical of the claims of these people.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 19:35:14 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <20031209072732.GA4452@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20031209193514.33762.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:01:49PM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > I recall on the extropy list of years gone past, that Eugen used to
> > post long posts rambling on, like he'd been on a caffiene drip for
> the
> > last 96 hours, about all sorts of things. What ever happened to
> that
> > posting technique?
> 
> Posting doesn't get anything done, and I do have a life these days.
> It's very possible that I'll be gone (virtually, for good?) in a few
> months.

WHAT? What is up?

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 19:37:49 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan
In-Reply-To: <20031209083627.85550.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031209193749.17194.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> If we want to know why politics is so complex this is
> sure a good example.
> 
> Robert
> 
>         ------------------------------
> 
> What's so complex?  Smalley is a meta-honcho--likely
> on the short list for honcho--near the summit a
> multi-billion dollar public research money pile. 
> Quite a career accomplishment.  
> 
> The top down approach to nano reaches out from the
> broad margins of current capabilities, can absorb
> research billions easily, and can deliver
> immediately-usable science and tech as it expands
> those margins.

I'm not too concerned, myself. So what if they are leery of even
allowing potentially grey gooish technolgies be developed? What they
intend to fund will build a lot of the tools that will be needed to
accomplish a self assembler technology anyways. All this does is ensure
that the self-assembler technology will be developed solely as a
private enterprise, with no federal mucking about or potential military confiscation.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Dec  9 21:20:15 2003
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:20:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <000c01c3be84$d63c9180$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
References: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>

On 12/9/2003, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
><http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/abuses/>
>
>Excellent article.  ...  People
>easily fall into a mode where they act like they are experts and they have
>no real concept of how science or the underlying technology really work.  I
>am afraid that there are more faux experts than real experts in the public
>spotlight today.  It is easier to be a consumer, commentator, political
>activists, strategy consultant, public educator, or whatever in a field of
>"expertise" without really going through all the trouble of really learning
>the field.  This is the biggest threat to science and by extension to
>transhumanism facing us today.  The world of science is being diluted with
>pseudoscience, and it is very difficult for the laypeople to tell the
>difference. ...

I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if you think the
situation was ever any different.  It seems to me that this is the way it
has always been.




Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  9 22:53:50 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:53:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <20031209193205.10451.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009501c3bea7$5304df70$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> I am sorry, Harvey, but global warming does not deserve to be 
> included in this.

I disagree.  Most reputable scientists believe that the earth is warming and
that humans are accelerating this.  There are only a small percentage of
scientists who dispute this, and they seem to be right-wing extremists or
funded by big energy corporations.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Dec  9 22:59:43 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:59:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <009601c3bea8$2277b700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Robin Hanson wrote,
> I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if 
> you think the situation was ever any different.  It seems to 
> me that this is the way it has always been.

I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.  University studies
are supported by specific corporations now.  Discoveries are proprietary and
patented instead of peer-reviewed.  More money is spent on lawyers to
prevent flaws from being exposed rather than confirmation studies being
performed.  Corporate fraud has moved into the realms of computer science
and biology more than ever before.  Areas of research that used to be purely
scientific are now overrun with corporate lawyers, politicians, ethics
advisors, and a whole host of non-technical people trying to control
technology that they don't understand.  Doctors used to make medical
decisions, now non-medical professionals in HMOs do.  Scientists used to
direct research, now corporate boards of directors do.  Researchers used to
choose research paths, now venture capitalists do.  The control and
(mis)representation of technology has shifted from the scientists to the
eco-political realm.  This shift is new and has completely changed the
dynamic of how science is done.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Dec  9 23:11:56 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:11:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] planes
In-Reply-To: <20031209160710.32690.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031209231156.93688.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ugliness is an asset on the battlefield. Do you want
> enemy troops to
> have wet dreams about your aircraft, or do you want
> them to have the
> fear of death and destruction?

I dunno.  If the enemy really doesn't want to hurt my
craft because they wouldn't dare mar such a thing of
beauty, the enemy really doesn't want to hurt my
craft.  That can be a useful form of limited
invulnerability.  ;)


From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Wed Dec 10 03:00:47 2003
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:00:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <009501c3bea7$5304df70$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLCEIJCMAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

 Harvey wrote:
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
>
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
>> I am sorry, Harvey, but global warming does not deserve to be
>> included in this.
>
> I disagree.  Most reputable scientists believe that the earth is
> warming and that humans are accelerating this.  There are only a
> small percentage of scientists who dispute this, and they seem to be
> right-wing extremists or funded by big energy corporations.

### Are you sure about this? Most reputable climate scientists profess to
have insufficient knowledge about the degree of warming, if any, or the
degree of human complicity, if any, to make any firm policy recommendations
(except "Spend more on research"). Admitting that "some" warming might occur
(with a 95% confidence interval sometimes larger than the postulated
effect), and vaguely surmising that humans might have "some" influence,
doesn't make most scientists into global warming believers.

Rafal




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Dec 10 00:09:42 2003
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <002e01c3be06$c14399a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20031210000942.77373.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-920726,00.html
> > 
> > Don't know what took the Brits so long, but they
> finally made it a
> > crime to steal someone's organs without their
> consent...
> 
> It's still legal, even encouraged in this country. 
> I don't
> recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> removed.

At the time, you were probably the (effectively) legal
property of those who had just given birth to you, on
the grounds that you were not (yet) mentally competent
to give consent.  Similarly, you probably did not give
consent to be removed from that warm, nourishing
pocket of flesh where you had gestated - most people
who undergo that experience are quite upset about it
at the time - nor, thereafter, to be fed, clothed, or
sheltered.

Now, there may be something to be said for adjusting
the standards of age-related mental competency.  But
the fundamental legal concept (a newborn person is not
a full citizen until a certain event happens - an
event that is likely, even automatic, for all citizens
before they gain much power to protest about it, to
avoid abuse of the rule) remains sound.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Dec 10 00:16:22 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:16:22 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
References: <009601c3bea8$2277b700$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <003001c3beb2$d7ae8220$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Harvey Newstrom  wrote:

> Robin Hanson wrote,
> > I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if 
> > you think the situation was ever any different.  It seems to 
> > me that this is the way it has always been.
> 
> I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.  University
> studies are supported by specific corporations now.  Discoveries
> are proprietary and patented instead of peer-reviewed.  More
> money is spent on lawyers to prevent flaws from being exposed 
> rather than confirmation studies being performed.  Corporate 
> fraud has moved into the realms of computer science and 
> biology more than ever before.  Areas of research that used to
> be purely  scientific are now overrun with corporate lawyers,
> politicians, ethics advisors, and a whole host of non-technical 
> people trying to control technology that they don't understand.
>  Doctors used to make medical decisions, now non-medical 
> professionals in HMOs do.  Scientists used to direct research,
> now corporate boards of directors do.  Researchers used to
> choose research paths, now venture capitalists do.  The control
> and (mis)representation of technology has shifted from the
> scientists to the eco-political realm.  This shift is new and has
> completely changed the dynamic of how science is done.

Maybe you are right Harvey. Maybe you are not. Why don't you
tackle something with a slightly narrower scope and give more 
evidence for what your saying? The broad brush stuff can only be
accepted or rejected wholesale and mostly its rejected not explicitly
because its disagreed with but implictly because the difficulty of 
untangling it is too great. If you don't get engagement you can't get
persuasion. Trust me I know :-)

Often the posters on the Exi list are encouraged to do more, or
try different things. This is seldom bad advice in itself but would
overwhelming silence on the list (as does pops up from time to
time) be interpreted by you as success as everyone had gone off
to do stuff? If you have some specific things you'd like to see done
perhaps you could state them? I thought the recent discussion about
nanotechnology would have been useful to anybody interested and 
willing to actually listen. I agree with Hal that critics are our friends 
(or at least can be :-). 

I can empathise with frustration and perhaps sometimes the list
functions as a fraternity of the frustrated but there is little point just
howling at the moon. 

Regards,
Brett




From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec 10 00:15:17 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:15:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
References: <20031210000942.77373.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <014901c3beb2$b2cde540$d8994a43@texas.net>


Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> It's still legal, even encouraged in this country.
> I don't recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> removed.

Wow, that's disgraceful! Do you know the name of the lucky transplant
recipient?

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 01:24:40 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLCEIJCMAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20031210012440.97549.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
>  Harvey wrote:
> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
> >
> >
> > Mike Lorrey wrote,
> >> I am sorry, Harvey, but global warming does not deserve to be
> >> included in this.
> >
> > I disagree.  Most reputable scientists believe that the earth is
> > warming and that humans are accelerating this.  There are only a
> > small percentage of scientists who dispute this, and they seem to
> be
> > right-wing extremists or funded by big energy corporations.
> 
> ### Are you sure about this? Most reputable climate scientists
> profess to
> have insufficient knowledge about the degree of warming, if any, or
> the
> degree of human complicity, if any, to make any firm policy
> recommendations
> (except "Spend more on research"). Admitting that "some" warming
> might occur
> (with a 95% confidence interval sometimes larger than the postulated
> effect), and vaguely surmising that humans might have "some"
> influence,
> doesn't make most scientists into global warming believers.

Rafal is right, and the "2,500" scientists you said signed onto the
Climat Change report were most definitely NOT all climatologists, or
even hard scientists. A lot of them were sociologists, psychologists,
and other people completely unqualified to judge.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 01:30:17 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:30:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: The Jones have the bomb...
Message-ID: <20031210013017.99090.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.videoranch.com/NNSlarge.html

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Dec 10 01:46:33 2003
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:46:33 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: The Jones have the bomb...
References: <20031210013017.99090.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FD67AF9.8048421D@sasktel.net>

Not Found

The requested URL /Temporary
Items/home/vranch/html/www/Xmas/html/popup_functions.js was not
found on this server.


Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.videoranch.com Port 80

"Pharmer Mo"



Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.videoranch.com/NNSlarge.html
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>                                        - Mike Lorrey
> Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec 10 02:59:56 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:59:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <20031210000942.77373.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003301c3bec9$b12b3a50$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> > > crime to steal someone's organs without their
> > consent...
> > 
> > It's still legal, even encouraged in this country. 
> > I don't recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> > removed.
> 
> At the time, you were probably the (effectively) legal
> property of those who had just given birth to you, on
> the grounds that you were not (yet) mentally competent
> to give consent...

Of course.  I have a friend whose job it was to meet with
African immigrant families to explain to them that it is
illegal in this country to do female circumcision, not to
mention cruel and ill-advised.  I have often inquired why
she has no counterpart arguing the same for the male children.

I do not recall the event of course, but I would suppose it
to be painful as all hell.  I feel sorry for my infant self.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec 10 03:04:07 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:04:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <014901c3beb2$b2cde540$d8994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <003401c3beca$471a4100$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
> 
> Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > It's still legal, even encouraged in this country.
> > I don't recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> > removed.
> 
> Wow, that's disgraceful! Do you know the name of the lucky transplant
> recipient?
> 
> Damien Broderick

HEY!  Thats a hell of an idea Damien!  Restoration
thru transplantation.  I would imagine that there are
those who undergo circumcision as adults (for whatever
reason, perhaps having become engaged to an Israeli
princess.)  Organ donation!  Come to think of it, one
could even sell the thing, much like they sell kidneys
in some parts of the world.

spike 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Dec 10 03:24:52 2003
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:24:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <003401c3beca$471a4100$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <014901c3beb2$b2cde540$d8994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031209221508.032bd8f0@mail.comcast.net>

At 07:04 PM 12/9/2003 -0800, Spike wrote:

> > > It's still legal, even encouraged in this country.
> > > I don't recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> > > removed.
>
> > Wow, that's disgraceful! Do you know the name of the lucky transplant
> > recipient?
>
>HEY!  Thats a hell of an idea Damien!  Restoration
>thru transplantation.  I would imagine that there are
>those who undergo circumcision as adults (for whatever
>reason, perhaps having become engaged to an Israeli
>princess.)  Organ donation!  Come to think of it, one
>could even sell the thing, much like they sell kidneys
>in some parts of the world.

Nah, I'm sure the part went to a specialty food market, when you consider 
how many ethnic groups use body parts of exotic animals as ingredients in 
aphrodisiacs or for life-extension.

There are a few contextual jokes on your name I could make but I'm still 
recovering from the 23-part pun I posted to another group yesterday.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 03:58:43 2003
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: The Jones have the bomb...
In-Reply-To: <3FD67AF9.8048421D@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20031210035843.48655.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Works fine on IE

--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
> Not Found
> 
> The requested URL /Temporary
> Items/home/vranch/html/www/Xmas/html/popup_functions.js was not
> found on this server.
> 
> 
> Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.videoranch.com Port 80
> 
> "Pharmer Mo"
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > http://www.videoranch.com/NNSlarge.html
> >
> > =====
> > Mike Lorrey
> > "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> >                                        - Gen. John Stark
> > "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
> >                                        - Mike Lorrey
> > Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> > Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Dec 10 03:57:01 2003
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:57:01 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: The Jones have the bomb...
References: <20031210013017.99090.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FD6998C.D2BA088B@sasktel.net>


I googled and found:

Dark Thoughts...
... nuclear war. Now, thanks to the grey market, anyone with a gold card

can buy their way to neighbourhood nuclear superiority. On ...
members.shaw.ca/triviaqueen/dark_end.htm     - 6k - Cached - Similar
pages

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.videoranch.com/NNSlarge.html
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> "Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
>                                        - Mike Lorrey
> Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec 10 04:44:52 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:44:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <003001c3beb2$d7ae8220$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <00e301c3bed8$5d188fd0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Brett Paatsch wrote,
> 
> Harvey Newstrom  wrote:
> 
> > Robin Hanson wrote,
> > > I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if you 
> > > think the situation was ever any different.  It seems to me that 
> > > this is the way it has always been.
> > 
> > I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.
>
> Maybe you are right Harvey. Maybe you are not. Why don't you
> tackle something with a slightly narrower scope and give more 
> evidence for what your saying?

I wasn't aware that anybody needed evidence of what I was saying.  Robin
seemed to agree with me, but thought this was the way things had always
been.  He certainly didn't dispute my assessment of how things are now.  My
entire diatribe was a long expansion of how I agreed with Hal and that he
was exactly right in his assessments of nanotechnology.  In fact, I believe
his assessment applies to a lot of other areas as well.  So far everybody is
in agreement.

What exact points did you disagree with, and what exact evidence did you
want to see?  Do you doubt that pseudoscience is confusing the public?  Do
you doubt HMOs have taken medical decisions away from doctors?  Do you doubt
that scientific research is now owned more by corporation backers and less
by public universities?  I am not sure exactly what points you think require
further evidence.

Or was it my suggestions you disliked.  Do you disagree that we have more
talk here than action?  Do you disagree that we should go beyond the
fan-club stage and start actually creating the future ourselves?  You asked
me to give more evidence for what I was saying, but I don't know exactly
what you disagreed with.

> If you have some specific things you'd like
> to see done perhaps you could state them?

I would like Extropians to get real technology jobs, practice radical
life-extension techniques, sign up for cryonics, start real think-tanks,
produce real solutions, start real development projects, and write
scientifically rigorous papers to present our ideas.

> I thought the recent discussion about nanotechnology would have been 
> useful to anybody interested and willing to actually listen. I agree 
> with Hal that critics are our friends

I agree with Hal as well.  My entire diatribe was a big expansion on how I
agree with Hal.  As Hal pointed out, the nanotech stuff is not very well
presented or supported.  We need to do a better job in providing evidence
for our ideas.  I am not sure why you are implying that I missed Hal's
excellent points.  I was writing to say that Hal was right on the money and
that his observations apply in other areas as well.

> I can empathise with frustration and perhaps sometimes the
> list functions as a fraternity of the frustrated but there is 
> little point just howling at the moon. 

Sadly, this is the primary cause why people drop out of the list.
Discussions here seem to be incompatible with getting real work done.
Eugen, Eliezer and many others have specifically questioned whether this
list detracts from their serious interests elsewhere.  The list does seem to
have a history of losing people as soon as they really get serious.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec 10 04:45:17 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:45:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <20031210012440.97549.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e401c3bed8$6c2ae630$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Rafal is right, and the "2,500" scientists you said signed
> onto the Climat Change report were most definitely NOT all 
> climatologists, or even hard scientists. A lot of them were 
> sociologists, psychologists, and other people completely 
> unqualified to judge.

I never mentioned 2,500 scientists or the Climate Change report.  I don't
believe that petitions and voting are a means to scientific truths.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Dec 10 04:45:41 2003
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:45:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLCEIJCMAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <00e501c3bed8$7a042050$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>

Rafal wrote,
> ### Are you sure about this? Most reputable climate
> scientists profess to have insufficient knowledge about the 
> degree of warming, if any, or the degree of human complicity, 
> if any, to make any firm policy recommendations (except 
> "Spend more on research").

Yes.  There is no doubt that the globe is actually warming.  If you want to
argue whether humans are causing it or whether it is a natural cycle, that
is a different argument.  If you want to discuss the politics of what we
should do about it, and who specifically should do what, that is another
argument.  But if you want to argue that the Earth is not getting warmer as
a local trend in the last few decades, this just isn't supported by any
evidence or science.  Ignoring all the hype about carbon-dioxide, causes,
politics, and doomsday, the fact is that there is a current warming trend
occurring.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Dec 10 05:59:56 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:59:56 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
References: <00e301c3bed8$5d188fd0$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <007501c3bee2$d6bb6ec0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote,
> > 
> > Harvey Newstrom  wrote:
> > 
> > > Robin Hanson wrote,
> > > > I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as
> > > > if you think the situation was ever any different.  It seems
> > > > to me that this is the way it has always been.
> > > 
> > > I disagree.  Things are different than they used to be.
> >
> > Maybe you are right Harvey. Maybe you are not. Why don't
> > you tackle something with a slightly narrower scope and give
> > more evidence for what your saying?
 
> What exact points did you disagree with, and what exact evidence
> did you want to see? 

I don't so much disagree with you as think you are re-voicing fuzzy
generalisations as a result of frustration. I thought if you homed in 
a bit you might get better purchase and less frustration. 

> I am not sure exactly what points you think require further 
> evidence. Or was it my suggestions you disliked. 

I didn't dislike them. I'm not on your case. 

> Do you disagree that we have more  talk here than action?

No I don't disagree. I just make the point that this is a chat list. 
Even says so right there in the subject header.  

>  Do you disagree that we should go beyond the
> fan-club stage and start actually creating the future ourselves? 

I have no view on the matter as I find your initial proposition too
fuzzy. I wondered if you'd want to expand on it, hence my question
which you've respond to below. 
 
> > If you have some specific things you'd like
> > to see done perhaps you could state them?
> 
> I would like Extropians to get real technology jobs, practice 
> radical life-extension techniques, sign up for cryonics, start real 
> think-tanks, produce real solutions, start real development 
> projects, and write scientifically rigorous papers to present our
> ideas.

Ok. But as extropes together or as individuals that just happen 
to frequent the Exi list?  The reason I ask is that I think one of the 
biggest questions is whether transhumanists should form a political
force. I do see merit in that proposition. I can see good arguments
for and against it. I thought that the WTA might become a political
organisation yet Exi might stay out of politics and that might give the
best of both worlds. 

> > I can empathise with frustration and perhaps sometimes the
> > list functions as a fraternity of the frustrated but there is 
> > little point just howling at the moon. 
> 
> Sadly, this is the primary cause why people drop out of the list.
> Discussions here seem to be incompatible with getting real work
> done.

Well the universe is contingent. Time spent typing posts to Exi is 
time not available for other things but people sometimes pick up 
stuff when they are just being people and talking to other people
too. 

> Eugen, Eliezer and many others have specifically questioned
> whether this list detracts from their serious interests elsewhere.

I reckon that's a good question I think but its always a personal 
one. Each of us should perhaps ask ourselves it but I doubt we 
can answer for otheres. Do you think the Exi chat list actually
works as a sort of drug that steals our creative juices or something?

Regards,
Brett




From oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au  Wed Dec 10 06:21:45 2003
From: oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au (Emlyn O'regan)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:51:45 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
Message-ID: <7A2B25F8EB070940996FA543A70A217B017868C7@adlexsv02.protech.com.au>


> Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > It's still legal, even encouraged in this country.
> > I don't recall giving my consent to have my foreskin
> > removed.
> 
> Wow, that's disgraceful! Do you know the name of the lucky transplant
> recipient?
> 
> Damien Broderick

Yes, it was our PM, John Howard. It was for an eyelid replacement. They took
a bit too much skin though, which explains his eyebrows...

Emlyn



From thespike at earthlink.net  Wed Dec 10 06:26:26 2003
From: thespike at earthlink.net (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:26:26 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
References: <00e501c3bed8$7a042050$cc01a8c0@DELLBERT>
Message-ID: <02eb01c3bee6$8e073b60$d8994a43@texas.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:45 PM

> There is no doubt that the globe is actually warming.  If you want to
> argue whether humans are causing it or whether it is a natural cycle, that
> is a different argument.

In Oz:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8118124%255E27
02,00.html

Average yearly temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 2C across
the nation by 2030, and 6C by 2070, according to an Australian Greenhouse
Office report into global warming - triggering more natural disasters and
crippling water shortages.

The number of very hot summer days, with temperatures soaring above 35C,
could double in most capital cities.

The 240-page assessment, to be released today by Environment Minister David
Kemp at a UN summit on climate change in Italy, says Australia will need to
make major changes to adapt to the hotter weather that will be induced by
global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

The trend in Australian temperatures since 1950 is now matching climate
model simulations of how temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, the report says.

It is likely the 1990s was the warmest decade in the past 1000 years, at
least in the northern hemisphere.

To cope with climate change, the report warns that Australians must use less
water, change the types of crops grown by farmers, revise engineering
standards and rezone land to prevent flooding.

Farmers are at high risk of losing money due to the increased frequency of
bad years, especially droughts, in parts of Australia within the next 20 to
50 years.

And Queensland's tourism industry could suffer as warmer water bleaches the
corals in the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef.

[etc, and of course that's a gummit report so we know we can ignore it]



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec 10 06:46:17 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:46:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031209221508.032bd8f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <003b01c3bee9$50456b50$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> There are a few contextual jokes on your name I could make 
> but I'm still recovering from the 23-part pun I posted to another
group yesterday.


We haven't had a pungasm on extropians for some time.  {8-]
Remember about 3 yrs ago before the war started, when we
used to just have fun?  Especially around Newtonmass and
April 1?

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Dec 10 06:56:56 2003
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:56:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <007501c3bee2$d6bb6ec0$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <003c01c3beea$ccf0be60$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> > Eugen, Eliezer and many others have specifically questioned
> > whether this list detracts from their serious interests elsewhere.
Harvey
> 
> I reckon that's a good question... Do you think the Exi chat list
actually
> works as a sort of drug that steals our creative juices or something?
> 
> Regards,
> Brett


Harvey, I see your point, but for some of us, the extrolist is
an idea bank, where both deposits and withdrawals are made.  I
know you are one who takes life very seriously, and we are lucky
to have such as these.  The chat list for me is more of a drug 
that *creates* creative juices.  I know I am not making any discoveries
in life extension; most of us are not.  But having fun is itself 
a life-extension device.  Thinking is a life extension device.
For my part I will root for the guys doing actual life extension, 
and attempt to maximize fun while doing so.  {8-]  spike 



From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec 10 06:57:25 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:57:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Chinese moon probe to blast off in 3 years
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBOEBICBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From SciScoop: Some new players are getting ready to break Earth orbit and
head out into deep space. China has released its plans for lunar exploration
over the coming decade, which include a two-ton lunar orbiter named
"Chang'e-I,'' an apparent reference to an ancient legend about the fairy
Chang'e who flies to the moon. The craft is currently under construction and
will lift off within three years for a 9 day voyage to the Moon followed by
a functional year in lunar orbit. Chang'e is to be followed by an unmanned
Chinese lunar sample return mission in 2010. In the second decade of the
21st Century, China plans to land one of its citizens on the Moon.
Meanwhile, White House spokespersons have debunked as inaccurate rumors
several reports that in coming weeks President Bush would issue a call for
an American return to the Moon or manned missions to Mars.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/8d679262/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec 10 06:58:31 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:58:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM Claims Nanotech Breakthrough
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBCEBJCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From BizReport: Researchers at IBM Corp. claim they have made an important
breakthrough in the race to design circuitry at the molecular level: a
system that works with existing methods of electronics manufacturing. In a
paper being released Monday at an industry conference in Washington, D.C.,
IBM researchers Chuck Black and Kathyrn Guarini say they used a naturally
occurring pattern of molecules as a stencil to etch flash memory circuitry
into silicon.
Other researchers are experimenting with using self-assembling, or naturally
forming, patterns of molecules to build very tiny circuitry. Doing so is
believed to be necessary if the high-tech industry can continue to pack more
transistors into smaller spaces - the process that continually makes
computing faster and less expensive. But the IBM scientists believe they are
the first to use the molecular patterns not as circuits that have to be
connected to larger wires, but as stencils that light can be shone through
to create circuitry in silicon. That would make it more likely to work with
existing processes, potentially saving money in manufacturing.
IBM predicts prototype devices using the technique could emerge in three to
five years.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/62f69288/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec 10 06:59:45 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:59:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternate Universe: Human Spaceflight Without NASA?
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBGEBJCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Space.com, an interesting article on the future of space exploration:
Space visionary Freeman Dyson, the acclaimed emeritus professor of physics
at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, recently had a
conversation with Robert Zubrin, the world's biggest cheerleader for human
missions to Mars.
"Your scheme of Mars missions is excellent," Dyson said, "but it has one
fatal flaw, the fact that you are expecting NASA to do it." "Ah, but when we
give NASA a real challenge like this, it will be a different NASA," Zubrin
replied. "I think he is right," Dyson said last Thursday. I had asked Dyson
and other top scientists about the future of human spaceflight, on a day
when worldwide media reports (then denied) said President Bush might soon
announce a major new human space initiative, to the Moon and perhaps Mars.
Sir Martin Rees, a British cosmologist and author of popular books, figures
rich entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos should lead the way to
the Moon and Mars, with NASA playing a supportive role.
The article describes the views of Dyson, Zubrin, Rees and others on space
exploration, reporting that many well-known rich individuals are trying to
set up commercial space ventures. If humans venture back to the Moon, and
even beyond, they may carry commercial insignia rather than national flags.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/b5cb976e/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec 10 07:00:43 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:00:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hawaii Moon Declaration
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBKEBJCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Space.com: A worldwide gathering of lunar experts has called for a
sequence of technological, exploratory and commercial missions culminating
in the establishment a human presence on the Moon.
The Moon is currently the focus of an international program of scientific
investigation. Current missions underway or planned will lead to the future
use of the Moon for science and commercial development, thereby multiplying
opportunities for humanity in space and on Earth. We need the Moon for many
reasons: to use its resources of materials and energy to provide for our
future needs in space and on Earth, to establish a second reservoir of human
culture in the event of a terrestrial catastrophe, and to study and
understand the universe. The next step in human exploration beyond low Earth
orbit logically is to the Moon, our closest celestial neighbor in the Solar
System...
... To encourage and stimulate the peaceful and progressive development of
the Moon, we recommend that the international community of national space
agencies, companies and individuals operate and maintain an exploratory
mission at a pole of the Moon to serve as a catalyst for future human
missions within a decade. Our vision is one of expanding humanity into space
on an endless journey. We believe a human return to the Moon is the next
step into the Solar System and the future of the human race.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/d2bb4a95/attachment.html>

From joe at barrera.org  Wed Dec 10 07:52:00 2003
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:52:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternate Universe: Human Spaceflight Without NASA?
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBGEBJCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
References: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBGEBJCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <3FD6D0A0.3080508@barrera.org>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>  Re: [extropy-chat] Alternate Universe:

I think you mean "future history"

>  popular books, figures rich entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder
>  Jeff Bezos should lead the way to the Moon and Mars, with NASA

I think you mean "D. D. Harriman"

- RAH



From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec 10 08:49:29 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:49:29 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
References: <20031209012001.689.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
	<00d601c3bdfb$c5718ce0$af994a43@texas.net>
Message-ID: <016501c3befa$861db0a0$4a7b6951@artemis>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas


> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:20 PM
> 
> > If the EU really wanted to stick it
> > to the church, they should have the guts to make Saturday the official
> > day of rest and have the work week start on Sunday....
> 
> Hey! What about us Wodan-worshippers?

Damn right!
We want Wednesday off! 

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec 10 08:56:23 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:56:23 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing in 2004--and Beyond
References: <3FD4D70B.70305@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <017801c3befb$7ccc7a30$4a7b6951@artemis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BillK" <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:54 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing in 2004--and Beyond


> PC World magazine has a look into the future -
> <http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113444,00.asp>
> 
> How will the PC change during the coming year? The next five years? We
> consult the experts and come up with answers.
> 
> Highlights:
> 
> According to IDC, flat-panel display shipments will surpass those of
> tubes for the first time in 2004.
> 
> Rumors abound that Tejas, Intel's successor to Prescott, will debut near
> the end of 2004 with speeds from 5 to 7 GHz.
> 
> Moore's law--the concept that chip performance will double every 18
> months or so--is alive and well. Researchers are just beginning to build
> chips with circuits only 65nm wide, and IBM and AMD are among those
> working to develop a 45nm process. Intel envisions paring that to 22nm
> by the year 2011.
> 
> "The PCs we'll buy just three years from now will have features, user
> interfaces, and expansion options that are radically different from
> those in the systems we're using today," predicts Microprocessor
> Report's Glaskowsky.
 

Well, I already know the basic specs of my next system (about 3yrs away).
10GHz 64 bit CPU, 1TB of mass storage, 16GB RAM etc

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Dec 10 11:19:36 2003
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:19:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] the true meaning of christmas
References: <20031209012001.689.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com><00d601c3bdfb$c5718ce0$af994a43@texas.net>
	<016501c3befa$861db0a0$4a7b6951@artemis>
Message-ID: <001001c3bf0f$7f54e2b0$82b01b97@administxl09yj>

No, Sunday or any other day, is definitely out of
question, there is nothing in the UE Constitution 
paper - last draft version. 
:-)




From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec 10 10:59:59 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:59:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20031210105958.GF4452@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:20:15PM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:

> I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if you think the
> situation was ever any different.  It seems to me that this is the way it
> has always been.

Science and technology is getting progressively complicated, people are less and less
willing to work hard, media give voice to everybody.

This is a comparatively new problem, and, yes, it's getting worse.
(This doesn't apply globally, new players are yet unaffected).

Did you ever try to hire somebody under 30 in SoCal? It's an interesting
experience.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/b59d77b2/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec 10 11:24:32 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:24:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <20031209193514.33762.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031209072732.GA4452@leitl.org>
	<20031209193514.33762.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20031210112432.GH4452@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:35:14AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> > Posting doesn't get anything done, and I do have a life these days.
> > It's very possible that I'll be gone (virtually, for good?) in a few
> > months.
> 
> WHAT? What is up?

There are 24 h in a day. Minus 8 h sleep, minus commute, minus family.
Minus work, because email at work is a good way of not getting anything
done.

Sleeping less is not an option, neither not working, neither neglecting
the family.

The arithmetic is really quite simple.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/8f16fc45/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Dec 10 11:26:26 2003
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:26:26 GMT
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternate Universe: Human Spaceflight Without NASA?
Message-ID: <E1AU2U6-0002XB-KN@fetch-bak.runbox.com>

No, D. D. Harriman is a fictional character. The article mantions some real people (Bezos, one of the founders of PayPal, plus others), who want to found and fund private space ventures. I loved Heinlein's novel with Harriman (forgot the name) but I think today is a bit naive to think that space can be developmed ONLY with private funds without government involvement. Synergy is the key.

> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> 
> >  Re: [extropy-chat] Alternate Universe:
> 
> I think you mean "future history"
> 
> >  popular books, figures rich entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder
> >  Jeff Bezos should lead the way to the Moon and Mars, with NASA
> 
> I think you mean "D. D. Harriman"
> 
> - RAH


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Dec 10 11:42:17 2003
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:42:17 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
References: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac><5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20031210105958.GF4452@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <045701c3bf12$aaabacc0$4a7b6951@artemis>

> I agree this is a huge problem, but you say "diluted" as if you think the
> situation was ever any different.  It seems to me that this is the way it
> has always been.

Science and technology is getting progressively complicated, people are less
and less
willing to work hard, media give voice to everybody.

This is a comparatively new problem, and, yes, it's getting worse.
(This doesn't apply globally, new players are yet unaffected).

Did you ever try to hire somebody under 30 in SoCal? It's an interesting
experience.
___

Part of the 'problem' is that science and technology is not only harder than
the pseudosciences but getting weirder as well.
It's a clash of religions.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org



From alito at organicrobot.com  Wed Dec 10 12:02:40 2003
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:02:40 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <20031210112432.GH4452@leitl.org>
References: <20031209072732.GA4452@leitl.org>
	<20031209193514.33762.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031210112432.GH4452@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1071057760.6250.118.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 21:24, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:35:14AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > > Posting doesn't get anything done, and I do have a life these days.
> > > It's very possible that I'll be gone (virtually, for good?) in a few
> > > months.
> > 
> > WHAT? What is up?
> 
> There are 24 h in a day. Minus 8 h sleep, minus commute, minus family.
> Minus work, because email at work is a good way of not getting anything
> done.
> 
> Sleeping less is not an option, neither not working, neither neglecting
> the family.
> 
> The arithmetic is really quite simple.
> 
There's no need for absolutist measures here though.  Ignore rabid
arguments, ignore what you deem as stupidity and arrogance, and your
wasted email time drops by >90%.

alejandro (trying to practice what i preach (especially about preaching
less, and obviously failing))





From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec 10 12:14:28 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:14:28 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] EUGEN: What happened to Genes screeds?
In-Reply-To: <1071057760.6250.118.camel@alito.homeip.net>
References: <20031209072732.GA4452@leitl.org>
	<20031209193514.33762.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20031210112432.GH4452@leitl.org>
	<1071057760.6250.118.camel@alito.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <20031210121428.GQ4452@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:02:40PM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> There's no need for absolutist measures here though.  Ignore rabid
> arguments, ignore what you deem as stupidity and arrogance, and your
> wasted email time drops by >90%.

I'm doing that; it's just I titrate the mail volume to saturation.
I'm going to start dropping several lists as soon as I'm through with
the backlog.
 
> alejandro (trying to practice what i preach (especially about preaching
> less, and obviously failing))

I wonder what Anders is doing right now.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031210/0e4b11f6/attachment.bin>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Dec 10 12:30:42 2003
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:30:42 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Doubt and About
References: <00ba01c3be6b$27f6a700$6400a8c0@brainiac>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20031209160927.020d5518@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20031210105958.GF4452@leitl.org>
	<045701c3bf12$aaabacc0$4a7b6951@artemis>
Message-ID: <013701c3bf19$6d56d280$11262dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Dirk Bruere wrote:
 
> Part of the 'problem' is that science and technology is not only
> harder than the pseudosciences but getting weirder as well.
> It's a clash of religions.

Science (and technology) as religion. Surely not? 

Brett



From extropy at audry2.com  Wed Dec 10 14:28:39 2003
From: extropy at audry2.com (Major)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:28:39 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stealing organs finally a crime...
In-Reply-To: <003301c3bec9$b12b3a50$6501a8c0@SHELLY> (spike66@comcast.net)
References: <003301c3bec9$b12b3a50$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <200312101428.hBAESds13994@igor.synonet.com>


> Of course.  I have a friend whose job it was to meet with
> African immigrant families to explain to them that it is
> illegal in this country to do female circumcision, not to
> mention cruel and ill-advised.  I have often inquired why
> she has no counterpart arguing the same for the male children.

Probably because while male circumcision may be cruel and ill-advised
it is nowhere near as cruel or ill-advised as the so-called female
circumcision (which is usually clitorectomy in practice).

Major

PS: I am old enough to have been circumcised at birth on medical
advice (apparently it didn't use to be ill-advised 8-).


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Dec 10 13:53:07 2003
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:53:07 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Communication vs transportation
Message-ID: <3FD72543.7080001@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:21 am Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:
> The transports need a revolution. When we had only horses, the trains 
> were revolutionary. Then the automobiles and finally airplanes.
> Nothing new since then. And there goes one hundred years.
>

Of course there has been much improvement in 100 years.
Automobiles are much improved from the Model T Ford.
Current research seems to be aiming towards driverless
(automatic-controlled) cars.

The 747 compares well with the Wright brothers craft and also flies on
auto-pilot for most of the time.

And existing technologies are finding more useful areas.

We have escalators to climb staircases.
We have travelators (moving pavements) at airports,
The Paris Metro has the worlds fastest beltway at 9 km/hour.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3001182.stm>

Skyscrapers have incredibly fast lifts nowadays.

In UK and Europe, electric urban Light Rail systems are becoming popular
in cities. They are cheaper to build than underground rail systems and
can follow the existing road system. They have priority over road 
traffic, so are not delayed by traffic jams.
<http://www.bathtram.org/tfb/tP20.htm>

We have monorail suspended rail systems and maglev 'floating' rail systems.

Container ships and huge lorries have revolutionised freight transport.

And the Segway, of course!

For more ideas, see:
<http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/>


BillK





From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec 10 13:55:40 2003
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] British Royal Society Workshop Commentary
In-Reply-To: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
References: <200312081943.hB8JheA10797@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20031210135539.GY4452@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:43:40AM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:

> I'd suggest that what we need today are works that get criticized.
> Criticism is how science advances.  Avoiding criticism, such as by
> the tactic I discussed earlier of shifting the burden of proof, is a
> counter-productive strategy which must be abandoned.  Your critic is
> your best friend.

The most critical area of machine-phase system is mechanosynthesis.
(Not tribo- and piezochemistry & Co, something like
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7840/7840notw5.html> )

(An exhaustive search would require several queries. If anyone
would want to compile an exhaustive list on the state of the 
art in experimental manipulative proximal probe for chemical
bond breaking and formation I'd appreciate if you'd post the
list here).

Due to lack of control at the tip the state of the art
is necessarily crude, and will remain so until we can build
intricate nanostructures by whatever means. Then, suddenly,
you fall into the bootstrap loop, and generate lots of fancy
papers, eventually resulting in a full self-rep closure device,
after which everybody goes wild, and produces lots of completely
novel designs we yet have no idea of.

Because of this machine-phase chemistry/mechanosynthesis is
limited to computational chemistry, which is still not regarded
as a real science by the synthetic chemist (at times people
actually do publish bogus results, which are difficult to
falsify in absence of experimental validation).

In a nutshell, this is why you don't get a lot of comments
on Drexler/Merkle nanotechnology from experts outside of the
circle. This is why it appears so sterile/snake oily to the
established science.

Which is why we're most likely to see bootstrap initiated
from the biopolymer/synthetic people, which don't have such
handicap, and have large b