[extropy-chat] Re: Encryption revolution

[Harvey Newstrom]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> > Our leaders aren't on the cutting edge of any technologies.
> 
> Cough.  Am I not trying to do that with Nano at Home and Robiobotics?

No offense, but "cough".  You think Nano at Home and Robiobotics are leading
nanotech initiatives?  Google finds about 350 pages that mention "Nano at Home"
and "nanotechnology, as compared with 75,000 that mention "IBM" and
"nanotechnology".  Robiobotics only has 19 references in Google.

Seriously, you tell me.  What achievements have you made in nanotechnology?
Are you mentioned in the nanotechnology FAQ?  Are you mentioned in any
nanotechnology history?  What exactly have you done in the field
nanotechnology researchers should know about?  Has Nano at home created a
recognized nanomachine?  Has it discovered something that other
nanotechnologists actually use?

> > While the companies actually working in these fields and the
> > governments actually guiding these advancements are paying 
> little if
> > any attention to us.
> 
> Hmmm... If I had a good reason for doing so I do not doubt
> that I could get Jim von Ehr on the phone.  I've spent some 
> amount of time each day of the last week on the phone to 
> Washington DC trying to determine precisely *who* turned the 
> nanotech study wording in HR 766 into the nanotech study 
> wording in S 189 (which was much less useful) this year.  I 
> just spent an hour on the phone with Prof. Pollack at 
> Brandeis (the man behind the DEMO project) explaining some 
> concepts of nanotech, retrosynthesis, the Zyvex Rotapod, etc. to him.

This is my point exactly.  You are an outsider.  Did you know this before it
was published?  Did they call you for advice?  Did you submit information
that they could use?  Are you listed in any bibliography, list of
information sources, or even in any survey of current nanotech initiatives?
Trying to find out who did what in the realm of nanotech legislation is an
indication that you are NOT involved with this stuff.

> Has not Aubrey defined and promoted not only the Methuselah
> Mouse project as well as the proposed IBG institute?

I expect Aubrey to do great things, and have no doubt of his excellent
expertise.  Please do not misconstrue anything I say to be negative toward
him.  However, offering to pay someone to make a breakthrough is not the
same thing as making a breakthrough.  It is a little off-topic for what I
wanted to see.  However, the creativity and approach of this project is
interesting.  However, I doubt that the meager amount of volunteer funding
available will entice much research toward anybody trying to claim this
prize.

> And I will not bother to rehash the history of Aeiveos
> Sciences Group and what it tried to do (perhaps prematurely 
> and with insufficient funding).

Then I won't bother to counter it.

> I would beg to differ Harvey.  I would like to see you assert
> that claim to me, Eugen, Anders, Eliezer, Brett, the various 
> people supporting longevity web sites and a host of others 
> trying to define how they may participate.

I would be very interested in hearing from these people to find out whether
they find their involvement with Extropians to enhance their work or detract
from it.  I believe Eugen, Eliezer and I have already commented on this.
Anders seems to busy with real work to participate lately.  I have no idea
what Brett would say.

-- 
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>