From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 01:45:54 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:15:54 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] My fever theory for longevity
In-Reply-To: <20050731221816.58019.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <200507311913.j6VJDwR00812@tick.javien.com>
	<20050731221816.58019.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05073118453d881da6@mail.gmail.com>

That's an interesting idea, Mike. These diseases are relatively recent
evolutionarily (since we started farming animals) but maybe that's
been long enough for us to develop a bit of symbiosis with them? ie:
maybe you can get away with more chance of developing cancer (gaining
some other health benefits in return) when immersed in an environment
full of these bugs? Then we would select in that direction; disease
and health has been our major selection pressure for a long time
(rather than food shortage or murder/being killed). In that case, to
start fighting them off successfully would have unintended
consequences.

This reminds me of the recent theory that we have a symbiotic
relationship with gut worms, that they help our immune system in some
way, and that killing them off has led to the massive increase in
allergies and asthma.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


On 01/08/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been recently working on an article for Neal Stephenson's Metaweb
> (http://www.metaweb.com) regarding a character who is infected with
> stage 3 neurosyphilis, but contracts a sickness that causes a high
> fever that apparently kills the syphilis spirochete. Neal based this on
> a 19th century maritime anecdote he read, but it turns out that 'fever
> therapy' through inducing a mild curable form of malaria to cure
> syphilis has been in practice since the late 18th and early 19th
> centuries up until 1940 when penicillin was introduced.
> 
> It turns out that induced fevers using hot baths are now used,
> pioneered by a doctor named Issels, in conjunction with chemotherapy,
> to reduce the required dosage of drugs to a third to a half of normal
> dosages.
> 
> This led me to propose a theory, bringing in Robin Hanson's work
> demonstrating little benefit from health care, that vaccines for
> non-fatal or non-curable diseases, diseases which trigger high fevers,
> could cause people to be at higher risk of cancer.
> 
> If fever therapy weakens well developed tumors enough to improve
> chemotherapy performance, it follows that nascent cancerous cells or
> early tumors could be destroyed entirely by high fevers alone, and
> fever-inducing illness like flus, mono, etc. may explain many cases of
> mysterious remissions that doctors cannot explain otherwise.
> 
> If fever plays such a role naturally in reducing one's risk of cancer,
> this may be detectable in medical statistics. If it holds up, it may
> also explain why modern health care does not contribute measurably to
> longevity: the diseases you are protected from by vaccines may not kill
> you, but the cancers those disease fevers may otherwise destroy will,
> so they balance each other out.
> 
> There is another datapoint to this: compare national longevity to
> national prevalence of practices of taking long hot baths, spas, hot
> springs, and such which would raise body temps above 102 deg F.
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Aug  1 02:26:00 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:26:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom of mutual Consenting Cultural Activity
	accross National Boundaries?
In-Reply-To: <20050731215149.68318.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050731215149.68318.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42ED8838.8070108@sasktel.net>

All his activity was conducted via mail and internet originating  from 
Canada over a 10 year or longer period.
All his activity was broadcast via a specialty TV channel for several years.
All his activity was documented on a net site for several years.
His business in Canada  and Canada Post originated the product and 
carried the shipments.


Adrian Tymes wrote:

>Thing is...
>
>--- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Emery's alleged 
>>dealings in the U.S.
>>    
>>
>
>...if the guy really did travel to the US, did illegal-in-US business
>physically within US territory, then returned to Canada, then the US
>has every right to request his extradition.  Just like if someone went
>to Iran with a bunch of contraband-in-Iran sexual education materials,
>sold them there in violation of Iran's laws, then returned to the US.
>(Of course, the US is less cooperative with Iran than Canada is with
>the US, but that's a separate issue.)
>
>Of course, that's if he did do business physically within the US.  If
>he did business remotely (say, online) and had someone else ship the
>goods, his status is a bit murkier (although the shipper may be up on
>smuggling charges).
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050731/c56b1250/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Aug  1 02:33:47 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:33:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] My fever theory for longevity
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05073118453d881da6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200507311913.j6VJDwR00812@tick.javien.com>
	<20050731221816.58019.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05073118453d881da6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42ED8A0B.2070302@sasktel.net>

Makes me feel OK.  Over the last 30 years I have made it a practice to 
go under the covers and
get really hot and sweaty for  a few hours or more whenever a cold or 
other virus hit.

For me it seemed subjectively to shorten and lessen the whole affair.

Emlyn wrote:

>That's an interesting idea, Mike. These diseases are relatively recent
>evolutionarily (since we started farming animals) but maybe that's
>been long enough for us to develop a bit of symbiosis with them? ie:
>maybe you can get away with more chance of developing cancer (gaining
>some other health benefits in return) when immersed in an environment
>full of these bugs? Then we would select in that direction; disease
>and health has been our major selection pressure for a long time
>(rather than food shortage or murder/being killed). In that case, to
>start fighting them off successfully would have unintended
>consequences.
>
>This reminds me of the recent theory that we have a symbiotic
>relationship with gut worms, that they help our immune system in some
>way, and that killing them off has led to the massive increase in
>allergies and asthma.
>
>  
>



From scerir at libero.it  Mon Aug  1 05:50:36 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 07:50:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] crazy, but crazy enough?
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050731160320.01db0e78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000901c5965c$f11af300$05be1b97@administxl09yj>

Alex Kaivarainen also writes, in another
paper, that 'coherent physical theory of
Psi phenomena, like remote vision, telepathy,
telekinesis, clairvoyance is absent till now
due to its high complexity and multilateral
character. The original mechanism of Bivacuum
mediated Psi phenomena, proposed here, is based
on few stages of my long term efforts.
They include creation of new theories. [...]
The correctness of our Unified Theory (UT)
is confirmed by its ability to explain a lot
of experimental data, most of them unconventional,
like Kozyrev ones, remote genetic transmutation
and Psi phenomena.'

It seems a bit too crazy. (Nobody knows anything about
entanglements between vacua.)

'For almost a century, quantum mechanics was like 
a Kabbalistic secret that God revealed to Bohr, Bohr
revealed to the physicists, and the physicists revealed 
(clearly) to no one. So long as the lasers and transistors
worked, the rest of us shrugged at all the talk of 
complementarity and wave-particle duality, taking 
for granted that we'd never understand, or need to understand, 
what such things actually meant. But today - largely
because of quantum computing - the Schrodinger's cat 
is out of the bag, and all of us are being forced to
confront the exponential Beast that lurks inside our 
current picture of the world.'
-Scott Aaronson

[the exponential Beast is not, necessarily, Wheeler's
'dragon', it is just that a quantum superposition
is described by exponential functions.]






From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  1 07:34:34 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050801073435.47065.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:

> Without trying to nitpick too much, let me point out
> here that your unsupported assertion of an "unfair
> advantage" doesn't seem to bear out. First, it seems
> like your use of the term 'unfair' is the result of
> a value judgement, not an unbiased, rational
> criterion.  The statistics we've already seen about
> the longevity of family wealth is a powerful data
> point arguing against their being some 'unfair'
> advantage.

Actually, I have seen the error of my ways. Literally.
My analysis of the coin flip game that I talked about
was wrong. I could not where a similar problem was
treated by googling. But then, I came across a neat
Java applet that can simulate, the very game I was
speaking of. It turns out that if Player A and Player
B start out with A and B amounts of wealth
respectively, and they bet even money on flips of a
coin playing until one or the other is broke, the
probablity that A will win is simply A/(A+B). So there
is an advantage to starting with more money, but the
advantage scales linearly and not exponentially like
it did in my purely mathematical analysis.

     So all that being said, I hereby fully and
completely retract my proposal to cap inheritance. It
was based on faulty math that my own experiments
disproved... which goes to show you why I am a
scientist and not a mathematician. ;) Sorry for the
inconvenience.

P.S. The sim is really interesting and educational.
The problem being addressed is called "the Gambler's
Ruin". Check it out at:

http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~anistat/gamblers_ruin.html


 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Aug  1 15:32:08 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:32:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050801073435.47065.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050801110404.03c1aba0@unreasonable.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>I hereby fully and completely retract my proposal to cap inheritance. It 
>was based on faulty math that my own experiments disproved... which goes 
>to show you why I am a scientist and not a mathematician. ;)

That evidence can alter one's position is an attribute suggestive of a mensch.

>So there is an advantage to starting with more money, but the advantage 
>scales linearly and not exponentially like it did in my purely 
>mathematical analysis.

Of course, your game presupposes that both players have the same betting 
strategies and that all bets are at the same odds. There are psychological, 
genetic, and social factors that benefit high, middle, and low players to 
differing extents.


-- David Lubkin.



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  1 19:22:07 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:22:07 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <42EE765F.7090907@aol.com>


Brent:

Could you post the source for these statistics along with the relevant 
definitions?  My books say otherwise.

Thanks,

Robbie Lindauer




Brent Neal wrote:

> The statistics we've already seen about the longevity of family wealth is a powerful data point arguing against their being some 'unfair' advantage.
>  
>


>Further, even though there seems to be some disagreement as to how many wealthy people in this country are self-made, the fact that the low-end number I saw was 40% indicates that whatever advantage the born-wealthy have is, it is certainly not insurmountable.  And it most certainly does not "prevent people who are better at the game from winning it."  The fact that person A inherited a large sum of money does not prevent person B from starting a business from scratch and prospering.
>  
>



>In fact, as an anecdotal aside, it was noted that businesses that were strapped on start-up cash had a better success rate than businesses that were flush with venture capital.  "Lean and hungry" and all that jazz. The statistics were published in Forbes, back in 2001 or so. 
>
>B
>  
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  1 19:56:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42EE765F.7090907@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050801195654.97859.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> 
> Brent:
> 
> Could you post the source for these statistics along with the
> relevant definitions?  My books say otherwise.

What books are those? Chomsky's Revision of US History? The WWP
Handbook? I've posted several sources showing the data that 80-81% are
self made, while the 20% inherited wealthy also includes individuals
who had relatively small inheritances of rinky dink businesses that
they grew into much larger enterprises.

As an example, the McCaw brothers, like Ted Turner, inherited a single
cable television business. While Turner grew his cable business into a
television media empire that merged into the largest media
conglomerate, the McCaws used their meager assets to get in on the
ground floor of the cellphone frequency auctions, and grew over less
than a decade from owning a business worth 1-5 million into billionaire
status.

Now, a lot more people became millionaires besides the McCaw brothers
in their business. Cellular One made quite a number of their first
employees into millionaires, as did start-ups like Microsoft, Apple,
Google, Amazon, Monster, eBay, Lycos, Yahoo, etc. The fact that a
business inheritor or founder depends an immense amount on dozens of
early employees for their own success means that if they have profit
sharing or stock programs, those owning the business that grows
immensely bring along a lot of their employees into wealth as well.

The 60% figure applies to the percent of the general population who are
invested in the stock market, as well as the percent who own their own
homes (financed or not).

Now, I've heard a lot of Mr. Lindauers complaints about the banking
system 'enslaving' people. While this may be so with credit card debt,
nobody makes such people have credit cards. With respect to home
mortgages, at the interest rates paid today, there is no chance of such
lending being 'slavery'. 

While the Griffin argument that federal reserve related banks 'invent'
the money they lend you is generally accurate, it is more accurate to
say they lend you your own future earnings. Because it is impossible to
know exactly what your future earning potential is, there is risk
involved. You may get laid off, maimed, downsized, disabled, or become
an addict of some sort. You may go crazy in Vegas or max out your
credit cards at the Mall of America. You may get cancer or need an
organ replacement. You might get killed. These are all risks that the
bank is taking in lending you money and they have a right to demand
compensation for taking such risks, plus profit from the risk taking
they are assuming. They are betting that you will continue to earn a
good living in the future, while you are betting you won't. Every month
that you lose that bet, you pay the bank based on the odds they give
plus their vig.

That all being said, bank lending is, in sum, far more conducive to
making people more free in the end result by enabling them to live a
happier, more productive life in a higher standard of living than they
would otherwise be able to afford without the ability to borrow. 

One reason why more people are not able to buy their own home outright
when starting out in life is because people live longer so their
grandparents are far less likely to have kicked off by the time the
grandkids graduate college. Another reason is because inheritance taxes
tend to bite the most into the middle class people who do not prepare
their estates for their own deaths, leaving their wealth to the states
probate courts to parasitize off of, while the wealthy tend to prepare
wills, living revokable trusts, etc. to hold their property outside the
probate system and avoid many inheritance taxes.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  1 20:46:12 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:46:12 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050801195654.97859.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050801195654.97859.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EE8A14.9020804@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Brent:
>>
>>Could you post the source for these statistics along with the
>>relevant definitions?  My books say otherwise.
>>    
>>
>
>What books are those? Chomsky's Revision of US History? The WWP
>Handbook? I've posted several sources showing the data that 80-81% are
>self made, while the 20% inherited wealthy also includes individuals
>who had relatively small inheritances of rinky dink businesses that
>they grew into much larger enterprises.
>
>
>  
>
I must have missed the post where you posted the reference.  Could you 
repost?

Thanks,

Robbie Lindauer



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  1 22:26:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42EE8A14.9020804@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050801222638.79369.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Brent:
> >>
> >>Could you post the source for these statistics along with the
> >>relevant definitions?  My books say otherwise.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >What books are those? Chomsky's Revision of US History? The WWP
> >Handbook? I've posted several sources showing the data that 80-81%
> are
> >self made, while the 20% inherited wealthy also includes individuals
> >who had relatively small inheritances of rinky dink businesses that
> >they grew into much larger enterprises.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> I must have missed the post where you posted the reference.  Could
> you repost?

It is on the extro-freedom list, where Natasha asked that these
discussions go.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  2 00:08:41 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:08:41 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050801222638.79369.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050801222638.79369.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EEB989.30902@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I must have missed the post where you posted the reference.  Could
>>you repost?
>>    
>>
>
>It is on the extro-freedom list, where Natasha asked that these
>discussions go.
>  
>

Great, could you just post a link so that there's a record here of where 
the mystical sources were revealed, since you've decided to discuss this 
issue at length HERE after she asked that it be discussed elsewhere, 
without actually posting your references HERE.

Thanks,

Robbie Lindauer


From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Aug  2 01:25:59 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:25:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting stuff on insider trading that might be
	relevant to the fairness discussion
Message-ID: <000d01c59701$242cbb80$94893cd1@pavilion>

http://www.alexpadilla.org/Content.htm


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Aug  2 03:12:39 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:12:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: Ethanol [Small Farmer's Journal
	tag]
Message-ID: <42EEE4A7.3090407@mindspring.com>

Forwarding from another list...

Terry


My grandparents on both sides and several aunts and uncles farmed in 
southern Indiana.
None are farming now.  I came across the following web site when I read 
an article in
today's newspaper, "Horse-and-plow farming offers financial, other 
benefits."

< http://www.smallfarmersjournal.com/ >

I tried Googling the article but no joy.

Here is an excerpt:

"Lynn Miller, whose quarterly Small Farmer's Journal caters to 
horse-farming and
tracks it closely, figures there are about 400,000 people in America who 
depend
in some measure on animal power for farming, logging and other 
livelihoods, and
he says the number is on the rise."

Terry

*****
jay cole wrote:

> John
> I understand your feelings. I come from a family of farmers, both my 
> parents families farmed. I had at one time 2 uncles from my dads side 
> and 4 from my moms side that farmed. The only relatives I have now 
> still farming are one cousin from each side. Family farming as it was 
> when I grew up on an Iowa farm is long gone.
> Jay Cole
>
> John Ault wrote:
>
>     I just hate seeing family farms turned into corporate farms. Their
>     sheer size makes it tough on an independent family farm to compete.
>     John
>
>
>     --- In U-Tapao at yahoogroups.com, jay cole wrote:
>     > John
>     > My uncle died a couple of years ago. My aunt just sold the farm in
>     southeast Iowa(very good productive land) for $3000 an acre, and
>     that even included some timber acres. Before the farm crisis in the
>     80's(remember the movie "Country" with Jessica Lange?), another
>     uncle sold land for $3600 an acre, then it went down to $2000 or
>     less. It looks like it is rebounding.
>     > Jay Cole
>     >
>     > John Ault wrote:
>     > Jay --- Without question. And even if they don't become rich, they
>     > could at least save their farms instead of some conglomerate
>     picking
>     > them up at auction.
>     > John
>     >
>     >
>     > --- In U-Tapao at yahoogroups.com, jay cole wrote:
>     > > We have had previous discussions on the use of ethanol as fuel.
>     > There is a great article in the Tampa Tribune today by Marla
>     > Dickerson of the Los Angeles Times about the use of ethanol in
>     > Brazil. Cars in Brazil run gasoline with 25% ethanol, and some run
>     > 100% ethanol.  By the mid 80's virtually all cars sold in Brazil
>     ran
>     > exclusively on ethanol. Shortages of ethanol caused that percentage
>     > to drop. The article compares what Brazil has done to the United
>     > States. It states that all cars sold in the USA since the early
>     80's
>     > can run on a 10% mix of ethanol. We do have 5 million flexfule
>     > vehicles already on US roads that can burn a mixture of 85%
>     ethanol.
>     > I know the state of Iowa vehicles have bumper stickers saying they
>     > run on 85% ethanol.
>     > > This article is very positive about the use of ethanol. I know I
>     > would rather make American farmers very wealthy than a bunch of
>     > towel heads.
>     > > Jay Cole
>


-- 
"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 > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050801/44842b5b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  2 03:42:11 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 20:42:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: Ethanol [Small Farmer's
	Journaltag]
In-Reply-To: <42EEE4A7.3090407@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <200508020340.j723eAR09946@tick.javien.com>

John Ault wrote:

I just hate seeing family farms turned into corporate farms. Their 
sheer size makes it tough on an independent family farm to compete.
John


John, the transition from family farm to corporate farm
is misunderstood.  Because of inheritance tax laws, a farm
can be ruined by a single taxable transition from one 
generation to the next.  But if a corporate officer 
perishes, the farm merely elects the next one.

My parents recently bought a cattle ranch (in order to
extract brutal revenge for my unruly behavior during my 
misspent youth.)  My mother is the CEO, my stepfather the 
president, my wife and I are the vice presidents of 
the corporation that owns the farm, which is us.  The 
stockholder's meeting (or board of directors if you prefer)
takes place around the dinner table whenever we go up 
there to visit and curse the wretched cattle.

All the corporate farms up that way have boards of 
directors that are all related to each other.  None
of the CEOs wear business suits or meet in sky scrapers 
in New York City.

That transition from family farm to corporate farm
is only an artifact of tax law.

spike






From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug  2 08:43:24 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:43:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil's radio talk
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080201437c29120f@mail.gmail.com>

I am listening to a radio speech of Ray Kurzweil on Here and
Now<http://www.here-now.org/shows/2005/08/20050801_2.asp>.
He talks of the content of his forthcoming book and of the prospect of fast 
forwarding evolution through technology. Kurzweil does not like the term 
"transhumanism" and "transcending human nature" too much: he thinks that 
pushing beyond current limits is exactly what human nature is all about, and 
that we will still be humans after transcending biology. Therefore he 
prefers the term "transbiological".
Asked about the future of computing technology, Kurzweil, who has developed 
techniques to predict how technology evolves, says that we will have 
information processing inside our bodies and brains, and eventually manage 
to create non-biologic intelligences that will merge and co-evolve with us.
Abstract: Kurzweil invented the first print-to speech reading machine for 
the blind, the first music synthesizer, and, in the early 90's, he predicted 
a world wide computer network, the dominance of intelligent weapons in 
warfare, and the defeat of a human chess champion by a computer. So when 
Kurzweil speaks, people listen. Now he's saying that in the near future 
blood cell sized robots called nanobots will travel our bloodstreams making 
repairs. He sees this as one part of a larger trend of achieving immortality 
through technology.
Kurzweil's new book, which is coming soon, is titled "The Singularity is 
Near, When Humans Transcend
Biology<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670033847/wburorg-20/002-4766736-5240027>
."
 Here and Now is Public Radio's noon news magazine. Produced every weekday 
at WBUR <http://www.wbur.org/> in Boston, Here and Now is a fast-paced 
program that covers up-to-the-minute news and also provides regular features 
on food and cooking, science and technology, and personal finance, as well 
as cultural stories about film, theater, music and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050802/03c850f2/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug  2 10:50:24 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:50:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Rebuilt How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080203506c7f5b20@mail.gmail.com>

>From the IFTF <http://www.iftf.org/> (Institute for the Future) Future
Now<http://future.iftf.org/2005/07/its_out.html>blog, by Alex
Soojung-Kim Pang - "My
review<http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-pang31jul31,1,2568863.story?coll=la-headlines-bookreview>of
Michael Chorost's Rebuilt
: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More
Human<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=relevanthisto-20%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26creative=165953%26path=http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html%253fASIN=0618378294%2526tag=relevanthisto-20%2526lcode=xm2%2526cID=2025%2526ccmID=165953%2526location=/o/ASIN/0618378294%25253FSubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002>is
available on the
*L.A. Times* Web site... I'm finding the transhumanist argument- - or at 
least the more humanist incarnation represented by Naam and Chorost, and a 
few others - more and more compelling. Or to put it another way, they're 
trying to deal with questions that we're all going to be struggling with in 
the future". Alex Soojung-Kim Pang had previously written an excellent 
review<http://askpang.typepad.com/relevant_history/2005/03/hey_its_out.html>of
Ramez Naam's book
*More Than Human.*
>From the review the book seems a very interesting reading. The author, who 
had a data processing device implanted to correct a severe hearing loss, has 
a "mild transhumanist" approach focused on using advanced technology to 
corerct medical problems and improve quality of life. The reviewer 
concludes: "Chorost shows us the way. His awareness of life's fragility, 
gained after making a determined effort to overcome its challenges, strikes 
me as the perfect answer to opponents of implants and genetic modification 
who worry about the effect of such tinkerings on our selves and souls. 
Memoirs such as "Rebuilt" will be invaluable guides in this new territory".
>From the Amazon page for Rebuilt : How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More 
Human<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=relevanthisto-20%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26creative=165953%26path=http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html%253fASIN=0618378294%2526tag=relevanthisto-20%2526lcode=xm2%2526cID=2025%2526ccmID=165953%2526location=/o/ASIN/0618378294%25253FSubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002>:
A tiny device, the technological equivalent of a 286 computer, was 
surgically implanted behind the author's left ear. A magnetic headpiece 
sticks to his head over the implant, with a wire connected to a speech 
processor on his belt. As Chorost makes clear, his hearing wasn't restored; 
it was replaced. His body is now part "machine." The implant was only the 
first step of the author's learning to hear again, as his brain struggled to 
interpret the new electrical signals it was receiving.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050802/5dd82f60/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug  2 17:57:13 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:57:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: http://dtext.com/transition/
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050802125615.01d1cec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I've been asked to forward this to the extropy-chat list. I'm not otherwise 
involved.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anita Polzmacher <anita.polzmacher at florianfilm.de>
Date: Aug 2, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: http://dtext.com/transition/
To: t at dtext.com


Hello,
my name is Anita Polzmacher from Florianfilm GmbH Cologne, Germany. Our
company makes a film named: 25 and going down - Tracing the youth obsession
of our times. We are searching for a group of people, living with caloric
restriction or with the Methuselah Mouse Project. Is it possible to get some
informations and members about such a group or organisations, especially in
Europa? We are searching for a good story about people searching for her own
forever young.

Yours sincerely

Anita Polzmacher 



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug  2 18:09:20 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:09:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Interesting post on hacking the self
Message-ID: <42EFB6CF.70005@jefallbright.net>

An interesting blog entry on topic for this list.
- Jef

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[twister] Interesting post on hacking the self.
Date: 	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:21:53 -0400
From: 	Zachery Bir <zbir at urbanape.com>
To: 	twister <twister at sifter.org>



Phil Eby is an all-around keen guy, but I found today's post really  
interesting. Reminded me of Cory Doctorow's short story "0wnz0red" [1].

  <http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/multiple-self.html>

Zac

[1] <http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/28/0wnz0red/>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Aug  2 19:12:37 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:12:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: http://dtext.com/transition/
Message-ID: <380-22005822191237281@M2W110.mail2web.com>

It would be beneficial to work with him except for the choice of
"obsession" in his pitch, which makes superlongevity seem to be less than a
positive goal.


Cheers!
Nataha

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:57:13 -0500
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, anita.polzmacher at florianfilm.de
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: http://dtext.com/transition/


I've been asked to forward this to the extropy-chat list. I'm not otherwise 
involved.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anita Polzmacher <anita.polzmacher at florianfilm.de>
Date: Aug 2, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: http://dtext.com/transition/
To: t at dtext.com


Hello,
my name is Anita Polzmacher from Florianfilm GmbH Cologne, Germany. Our
company makes a film named: 25 and going down - Tracing the youth obsession
of our times. We are searching for a group of people, living with caloric
restriction or with the Methuselah Mouse Project. Is it possible to get some
informations and members about such a group or organisations, especially in
Europa? We are searching for a good story about people searching for her own
forever young.

Yours sincerely

Anita Polzmacher 

_______________________________________________
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 robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  2 19:26:17 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:26:17 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050801110404.03c1aba0@unreasonable.com>
References: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050801110404.03c1aba0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <42EFC8D9.5090609@aol.com>

David Lubkin wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> I hereby fully and completely retract my proposal to cap inheritance. 
>> It was based on faulty math that my own experiments disproved... 
>> which goes to show you why I am a scientist and not a mathematician. ;)
>
>
> That evidence can alter one's position is an attribute suggestive of a 
> mensch.
>

That evidence unpresented can alter one's position is a sign of foolishness.

Robbie


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Aug  2 19:31:25 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 20:31:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: http://dtext.com/transition/
In-Reply-To: <380-22005822191237281@M2W110.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22005822191237281@M2W110.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050802123112d71b37@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/2/05, nvitamore wrote:
> It would be beneficial to work with him except for the choice of
> "obsession" in his pitch, which makes superlongevity seem to be less than a
> positive goal.
> 
> 

:)   You have to remember she is translating from German to English.
The German word 'obsession' has a range of meanings, and can just mean
a craze or fad, typical of young people.

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  2 22:24:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42EFC8D9.5090609@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> David Lubkin wrote:
> 
> > The Avantguardian wrote:
> >
> >> I hereby fully and completely retract my proposal to cap
> inheritance. 
> >> It was based on faulty math that my own experiments disproved... 
> >> which goes to show you why I am a scientist and not a
> mathematician. ;)
> >
> >
> > That evidence can alter one's position is an attribute suggestive
> of a 
> > mensch.
> >
> 
> That evidence unpresented can alter one's position is a sign of
> foolishness.

That evidence avoided does not alter one's position is a sign of
willfull ignorance.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  2 22:45:18 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:45:18 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>That evidence avoided does not alter one's position is a sign of
>willfull ignorance.
>  
>

Why not just post your references?

Robbie



From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 01:38:13 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:38:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>
References: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>

"Why not just post your references?"

Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  Is it so hard to do?


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 01:44:32 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050803014432.77469.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >That evidence avoided does not alter one's position is a sign of
> >willfull ignorance.
> >  
> >
> 
> Why not just post your references?

Because that would be initiating force against the request of Natasha,
who I happen to hold in higher esteem than you.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 01:46:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050803014646.60490.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- John Calvin <john.h.calvin at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Why not just post your references?"
> 
> Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  Is it so hard to
> do?

It's called passive aggression, a conspicuous behavior of many once and
future libertarians (along with oppositional defiant disorder). They
figure if they aren't actually doing anything, that their action or
lack thereof is not an initiation of force.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug  3 01:55:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:55:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>
	<5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F02418.8080005@aol.com>

Why lend creedence to a neo-fascist quasi-republican statist appologist 
group?

He's found it interesting enough to say that there ARE references in 
this forum and then use that to support further argumentation, why not 
just say what they are?  What's the problem?

R

John Calvin wrote:

>"Why not just post your references?"
>
>Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  Is it so hard to do?
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug  3 01:58:13 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:58:13 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050803014432.77469.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050803014432.77469.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F024B5.4030402@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>Why not just post your references?
>>    
>>
>
>Because that would be initiating force against the request of Natasha,
>who I happen to hold in higher esteem than you.
>  
>


So let's get this straight, you're willing to continue to post arguments 
in this forum about this matter, both argumentation, conclusions and 
political standpoints BASED on the "references" which are to be found in 
a different forum, but when you're called on to simply provide the 
references in question, they can't be had except by joining your private 
little conversation group. 

Plus, you apparently find it worthwhile to chide me for asking for your 
references, thus further wasting the bandwidth of this forum, where 
simply posting your references would have been an adequate reply - in 
fact, would have been an adequate reply WEEKS ago.

Why play this game, why not just post your references?

Robbie Lindauer


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug  3 02:37:23 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:37:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] political sites
In-Reply-To: <42F024B5.4030402@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200508030235.j732ZNR18103@tick.javien.com>

...
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >>Why not just post your references?
> >
> >Because that would be initiating force against the request of Natasha...

etc.


Guys, there are good sites that focus on mostly political
and contentious issues.  For instance, rathergate.com has
an interest in media issues.  They allow ordinary proles
like us to post there if we wish, and there are few
restrictions.

http://www.rathergate.com/

It isn't so much that politics are irrelevant to extropians,
but rather that lately we have been hammering more
on ordinary boring here-and-now politics than on the good 
stuff, such as science, technology, progress, futurism,
longevity, health and so on.  Political commentary is allowed 
on the ExI main list, but do keep it interesting and relevant,
such as today's headlines regarding lawsuits hampering stem 
cell developments, and such as that.

I urge all who have not done so recently to read 
over Max's excellent Extropian principles:

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm

Mike is not trying to compete with ExI with his
Extro-freedom group, he is trying to help us, by
taking over there the special interest political
stuff.  Natasha asked him to take the libertarian
and political stuff there, and he is trying to do 
that.  Please work with him, thanks all.

spike






From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 02:46:33 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] political sites
In-Reply-To: <200508030235.j732ZNR18103@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050803024633.25732.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>

Someone told me at a party, "this is the post futurist era". But it could be a case of Midwestern partytalk. Perhaps it's worse than the South, the verbal equivalent of junk food-- much flavor, little nutrition. Never have no many said so little in so much time.
 
 
[...]good stuff, such as science, technology, progress, futurism,
longevity, health and so on. Political commentary is allowed 
on the ExI main list, but do keep it interesting and relevant,
such as today's headlines regarding lawsuits hampering stem 
cell developments, and such as that.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050802/67920651/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Aug  3 03:07:38 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: http://dtext.com/transition/
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050802123112d71b37@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-22005822191237281@M2W110.mail2web.com>
	<ee50357e050802123112d71b37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802215947.046de738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


>
>:)   You have to remember she is translating from German to English.
>The German word 'obsession' has a range of meanings, and can just mean
>a craze or fad, typical of young people.

Yes, good point.  Thanks for your objectivity.

It would be beneficial to research how superlongevity is affecting 
countries like Germany.  I seldom do any interviews with German 
magazines/papers/tv.  In fact, since Telepolis netzine in 2000 and 
Franffurter Allgemeine in 2002, it's null.

As an aside, but directly related: I'm thinking that the influence the 
teenagers such as Peaches Geldof will become broad in Europe. She was just 
here in Austin and we spent an afternoon together.  The has made several 
television documentaries on teenagers for Ten Alps television.  ("An 
unexpectedly excellent piece of television" (The Guardian)

If teenagers such as Peaches can make a positive impression on the youth of 
Europe, I would be delighted. When she left our home she put her hands up 
in the air and shouted "Transhumans!"

Our future could be in the hands of teenagers who are activists.

Best,
Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist, Designer
Studies of the Future, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler
Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050802/2296b1ea/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug  3 04:55:14 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:55:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <000d01c59701$242cbb80$94893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>


I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html?ex=1280635200&en
=c97b63d7bb47af82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

{8-[   Sigh.

spike






From ekkoseven at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 05:17:12 2005
From: ekkoseven at yahoo.com (ekkoseven)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional maturity
Message-ID: <20050803051712.39430.qmail@web32009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I've been lurking around the chatroom for a while and was wondering if the question of emotional maturity and aging has ever been debated on this list?  If so where?  
 
Specifically, I was wondering if 90 year old people, after they are 'regenerated' using MNT, would then have the emotional maturity of a 20 year old?  (I use ta' think that 'emotional maturity' was pure hubris spouted by the 40 something crowd, but now that I have reached the turning-white-haired crowd, I am not so sure)  Any thoughts?
 
BTW:  spike you have a truely wicked sense of humor.
ekkoseven

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050802/4bcd03fe/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 05:28:45 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:28:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Interesting post on hacking the self
In-Reply-To: <42EFB6CF.70005@jefallbright.net>
References: <42EFB6CF.70005@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050802222870775b09@mail.gmail.com>

That's quite neat -- thanks for sharing.

The NERO game mentioned in the article also seems quite interesting,
but I don't have access to a windows machine at the moment. It seems
to be a real-time strategy game where the player trains AI agents to
handle various situations. Has anybody tried it out yet?

Relevant link: http://nn.cs.utexas.edu/NERO/index.php?page=home

On 8/2/05, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> An interesting blog entry on topic for this list.
> - Jef
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        [twister] Interesting post on hacking the self.
> Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:21:53 -0400
> From:   Zachery Bir <zbir at urbanape.com>
> To:     twister <twister at sifter.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Eby is an all-around keen guy, but I found today's post really
> interesting. Reminded me of Cory Doctorow's short story "0wnz0red" [1].
> 
>   <http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/multiple-self.html>
> 
> Zac
> 
> [1] <http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/28/0wnz0red/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Aug  3 05:36:07 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:36:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance or Politics generally or whatever
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050802222446.90017.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42EFF77E.40804@aol.com>
	<5d74f9c7050802183819cfd4a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <315B5A28-F540-4DF0-AB7F-FA2DAA0C941A@mac.com>

What is this?  I have heard some think some subjects should go  
there.  I have also heard authoritative things (I thought) saying  
"political" subjects are not booted/routed to there.  I have also  
seen this particular subject go on far past its natural life and even  
the interest of the originator.  Don't we have better things to do?   
Really?

- samantha

On Aug 2, 2005, at 6:38 PM, John Calvin wrote:

> "Why not just post your references?"
>
> Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  Is it so hard to  
> do?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug  3 05:56:26 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:56:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional maturity
In-Reply-To: <20050803051712.39430.qmail@web32009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508030554.j735sIR04925@tick.javien.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ekkoseven
...?
Specifically, I was wondering if 90 year old people, after they are
'regenerated' using MNT, would then have the emotional maturity of a 20 year
old...?


I don't know, but I am eager to find out when I get
to be 90.  I can still do 20, when the situation calls
for it.  Example: recall downtown where we had the
Extro5.  They set up car races down there this past
weekend.  Went down there, it was wicked cool.  There
is nothing like race cars for converting money into
noise and testosterone.  

?
BTW:? spike you have a truly wicked sense of humor.
ekkoseven

You are too kind, ekkoseven.  Welcome to Extropians.  Do 
read the principles at your leisure:

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Philosophy/princip.html

We have gotten too far from these core values in the past
couple years I fear.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug  3 06:01:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:01:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance or Politics generally or whatever
In-Reply-To: <315B5A28-F540-4DF0-AB7F-FA2DAA0C941A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508030559.j735xkR05455@tick.javien.com>


> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Inheritance or Politics generally or whatever
> 
> What is this?  I have heard some think some subjects should go
> there...
> 
> - samantha
> 
...
> >
> > Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extro-freedom/


Mike's site is set up specifically for politics and
political activism.  And all political subjects are 
not only allowed, they are cheerfully encouraged. As 
an added bonus I think he allows posters to flame each 
other there if they wish.  Is that right Mike?  

spike





From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 07:53:17 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <42F024B5.4030402@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050803075317.32193.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> Why play this game, why not just post your
> references?

Because, Robbie, the lady who is nice enough to supply
this list to us, free of charge for most of us, asked
everyone, including YOU, politely not too. The list he
is asking you to join is a political forum and neither
of you have to wear kid gloves in your little debate.
This list is about building the future, not throwing
rocks at the present. Take it ELSEWHERE.




The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 08:39:13 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050803083913.45857.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would
> consider
> it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly
> no more
> forever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html?ex=1280635200&en
> =c97b63d7bb47af82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Cheer up Spike!

The design makes sense and it looks sound. Don't think
in terms of escaping the gravity well but in terms of
being in orbit. Me thinks that cargo booster could
caryy enough Dick Rutan sized shuttles to supply one
for each astronaut.

 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug  3 09:04:18 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:04:18 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050803075317.32193.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050803075317.32193.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01456daf08070f448f84e49c3680c8e5@aol.com>

I'm sorry to continue this, but I had long since stopped posting on 
this when you and the Lorrinator had mutually congratulated yourselves 
on having proved that the wealthy are all so because they worked hard 
for their money.  It seems that you were the ones disrespecting the 
lady's list-wish for whatever reason.  I merely interjected in your 
ongoing conversation that it'd be nice to see the references that were 
so convincing.

I still don't see why the post you put below was so worthy of 
extropy-list-putting whereas a simple reference to the source of the 
information in your ongoing debate would have just settled the matter.

I am genuinely not trying to annoy anyone, I'm genuinely interested in 
knowing where you or he got your or his information that was apparently 
so convincing and am nowise interested in having an ongoing debate with 
either you or Lorry about the matter having already determined you 
(both) to be ideologues of an incompatible nature (and consequently you 
can see why I have no interest in exo-freedom or whatever it is) and I 
do have an ongoing interest in cryonics and bionic and stem cell 
research and the occasionally political matters that interfere with or 
foster such researches.

Robbie


On Aug 2, 2005, at 9:53 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Why play this game, why not just post your
>> references?
>
> Because, Robbie, the lady who is nice enough to supply
> this list to us, free of charge for most of us, asked
> everyone, including YOU, politely not too. The list he
> is asking you to join is a political forum and neither
> of you have to wear kid gloves in your little debate.
> This list is about building the future, not throwing
> rocks at the present. Take it ELSEWHERE.
>
>
>
>
> The Avantguardian
> is
> Stuart LaForge
> alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
> "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they 
> haven't attempted to contact us."
> -Bill Watterson
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 09:16:43 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:16:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
References: <000d01c59701$242cbb80$94893cd1@pavilion>
	<200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05080302162c178319@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, spike wrote:
> 
> I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
> it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
> forever.
> 

This is wonderful news!  At last they have decided to scrap the
multi-billion dollar, thirty wasted year disaster that is the Shuttle.
And they are going back to designs from the 60s.

Now, I wonder what NASA is going to find for the thousands of ground
staff, subcontractors and bureaucracy to do?

>From <http://www.bobpark.org/>

Friday, July 29, 2005
1. SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN'T WORK.  IT NEVER DID WORK.
Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn't foam falling
off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch
things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it's the most
expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we're facing
now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially,
anything that went into space, including commercial and military
satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the
total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average
cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space
development before the Challenger disaster. Then it was declared to be
a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any
way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space
station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of
Columbia in 2003. The shuttle's only mission now is to supply the ISS.

BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Aug  3 11:04:11 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:04:11 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
References: <000d01c59701$242cbb80$94893cd1@pavilion>
	<200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050803110411.GU2259@leitl.org>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:55:14PM -0700, spike wrote:
> 
> I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
> it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
> forever.

Hooray!

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050803/3707bacd/attachment.bin>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Aug  3 11:58:09 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:58:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional maturity
In-Reply-To: <20050803051712.39430.qmail@web32009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050803051712.39430.qmail@web32009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050803064339.04640280@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 12:17 AM 8/3/2005, you wrote:
>I've been lurking around the chatroom for a while and was wondering if the 
>question of emotional maturity and aging has ever been debated on this 
>list?  If so where?
>
>Specifically, I was wondering if 90 year old people, after they are 
>'regenerated' using MNT, would then have the emotional maturity of a 20 
>year old?  (I use ta' think that 'emotional maturity' was pure hubris 
>spouted by the 40 something crowd, but now that I have reached the 
>turning-white-haired crowd, I am not so sure)  Any thoughts?

We have discussed "refined emotions" which includes emotional 
maturity.  But I like to think that 90 year olds would still have 
light-hearted and juvenile fun.  Here is something to look at if you like 
http://www.nesea.org/be05/N_Vita_More_txt.pdf

Emotional maturity is one quantifier for intelligence:  "Emotional Age, 
like social age, compares emotional maturity with chronological age. It 
asks the question; 'Does this person handle his emotions as well as he 
should for his [her] age?'"  http://www.betteryou.com/maturity.htm

Daniel Goleman wrote Emotional Intelligence : Why It Can Matter More Than 
IQ. 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553375067/103-0783670-4847867?v=glance

"There was a time when IQ was considered the leading determinant of 
success. In this fascinating book, based on brain and behavioral research, 
Daniel Goleman argues that our IQ-idolizing view of intelligence is far too 
narrow. Instead, Goleman makes the case for "emotional intelligence" being 
the strongest indicator of human success. He defines emotional intelligence 
in terms of self-awareness, altruism, personal motivation, empathy, and the 
ability to love and be loved by friends, partners, and family members. 
People who possess high emotional intelligence are the people who truly 
succeed in work as well as play, building flourishing careers and lasting, 
meaningful relationships. Because emotional intelligence isn't fixed at 
birth, Goleman outlines how adults as well as parents of young children can 
sow the seeds."

At Extro 5 (which Spike mentioned), Max More's talk was "Mind Morph: 
Technologically Refined Emotion and Personality" and that topic could have 
been on the list after the conference.  Mining the archives might pull this up.

Refined emotions includes emotional maturity and suggests other elements 
that would be compatible with developing a more extropic persona for 
transhumans.

Create recreate the future
Flex the mind flex the body
Relax.refresh.regenerate
Ageless thinking
Refined emotions


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist, Designer
Studies of the Future, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler
Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050803/b4144981/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug  3 13:45:05 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:45:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <44D49026-8E36-4E44-BA20-5C24CC998145@bonfireproductions.com>



This is wonderful, wonderful news.

Here is the original source of the article:
http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/study-summary.html
http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf


The fact that we are open now to something different is the best news  
that could come from NASA. The notion of using 'what works' as a gap  
filler to get us through development of new vehicles is great. A  
capsule based approach will let us toss 6+ people aloft with each SRM.

Just for book keeping: The Russian Energia can lift 118 tons to LEO,  
so the article making this the world-dominating HLLV isn't exactly  
so. That, and their is a Russian plan to build a super-heavy lift  
that is already past the design stage, and just needs money.  
Additionally, the SRM is approved for human transport, but not "human  
rated" yet. We have yet to run an SRM standalone, which will require  
different throttling. In a solid propellant device, this may also  
mean different propellant.

There is also a Russian Soyuz-replacement called the Klipper, that  
could be rolling out soon:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/



While we are re-hashing 60s and 70s design: our next big step should  
be nuclear, and we should go right for the Liberty Ship HLLV:

Main:
http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm
Gas Core info:
http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor

We have enough data and work on the NERVA and other projects to do  
this right.


]3


On Aug 3, 2005, at 12:55 AM, spike wrote:

>
> I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
> it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
> forever.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html? 
> ex=1280635200&en
> =c97b63d7bb47af82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
> {8-[   Sigh.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From max at maxmore.com  Wed Aug  3 14:09:43 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:09:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional maturity
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050803064339.04640280@pop-server.austin.rr.com
 >
References: <20050803051712.39430.qmail@web32009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050803064339.04640280@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050803090837.03bc2e98@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 06:58 AM 8/3/2005, Natasha wrote:

>At Extro 5 (which Spike mentioned), Max More's talk was "Mind Morph: 
>Technologically Refined Emotion and Personality" and that topic could have 
>been on the list after the conference.  Mining the archives might pull this up.

A slip of the keyboard, I think. I have that talk at Extro 3. The date was 
August 9 1997.

Max



_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________  



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 14:29:15 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:29:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional maturity
Message-ID: <380-22005833142915570@M2W048.mail2web.com>


From: Max More 

At 06:58 AM 8/3/2005, Natasha wrote:

>At Extro 5 (which Spike mentioned), Max More's talk was "Mind Morph: 
>Technologically Refined Emotion and Personality" and that topic could have 
>been on the list after the conference.  Mining the archives might pull
this up.

"A slip of the keyboard, I think. I have that talk at Extro 3. The date was 
August 9 1997."

I didn't see it on your website. Can you ftp the document so we can view it
online?

Thanks,
N

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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 14:39:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <200508030453.j734rCR31570@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050803143919.47880.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ja, the ESA is all in a tizzy, cause their contribution to the ISS is
supposed to be launched by the shuttle, now they are looking at
alternatives. Don't know if the biggest Ariane model can handle it (or
whether that model has a low enough failure rate.)

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
> it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
> forever.
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html?ex=1280635200&en
> =c97b63d7bb47af82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
> 
> {8-[   Sigh.
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 14:47:00 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance or Politics generally or whatever
In-Reply-To: <200508030559.j735xkR05455@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050803144700.50307.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Inheritance or Politics generally or
> whatever
> > 
> > What is this?  I have heard some think some subjects should go
> > there...
> > 
> > - samantha
> > 
> ...
> > >
> > > Why not just go to the Extro-Freedom Yahoo Group?  
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extro-freedom/
> 
> 
> Mike's site is set up specifically for politics and
> political activism.  And all political subjects are 
> not only allowed, they are cheerfully encouraged. As 
> an added bonus I think he allows posters to flame each 
> other there if they wish.  Is that right Mike?  

Lets just say it has a higher asbestos rating than this list. Heck, I
get flamed the most. No space shuttle tiles (or space shuttles).
Flaming ideas is specifically encouraged. Personal denounciations as
being such and so or not such and so go on so long as both parties can
take the heat.

Really, the only thing that really annoys me are people who are the
mental sock puppets of whatever political books or novels or emails
they read.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 15:09:21 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:09:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <01456daf08070f448f84e49c3680c8e5@aol.com>
References: <20050803075317.32193.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<01456daf08070f448f84e49c3680c8e5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803100518.01ce7b70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:04 PM 8/2/2005 -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote:

>I still don't see why the post you put below was so worthy of 
>extropy-list-putting whereas a simple reference to the source of the 
>information in your ongoing debate would have just settled the matter.

I am inclined to agree.

>I am genuinely not trying to annoy anyone, I'm genuinely interested in 
>knowing where you or he got your or his information that was apparently so 
>convincing

I'm not paying any attention to this thread, it's too ridiculous at this 
point, but I seem to recall that one of the key books cited was THE 
MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy by 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563523302//exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Thomas%20J.%20Stanley%20Ph.%20D/103-8337695-6869466>Thomas 
J. Stanley Ph. D, 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563523302//exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=William%20D.%20Danko%20Ph.D/103-8337695-6869466>William 
D. Danko Ph.D, Amazon says.

Damien Broderick




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 15:14:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <44D49026-8E36-4E44-BA20-5C24CC998145@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

There is no reason why an unmanned HLLV can't just be made with the
SRBs, the tank with engines mounted in its rear. This would essentially
allow nearly the entire weight of the Shuttle as cargo (about 122,000
kg). Assuming a 10k kg upper cowling, it could easily match the
performance of the Energia. Zubrin essentially proposed this with his
Ares concept: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm, to launch the
elements for his Mars Direct proposal, though this Thiokol concept
(http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hear2015.htm) is more like what I had
in mind.

NASA needs to, if it is going to remain in the launch business (which
IMHO it shouldn't) separate launching cargo from launching people.
Launching cargo should be done as cheaply as possible, while launching
people should be done as safely as possible. The Shuttle's 99.14%
safety record isn't good enough for human use. It is fine for cargo. It
should be optimized to launch as much cargo as possible with no people.

Generally speaking, the traditional booster makers should develop
private cargo launching companies and boosters, while the x-prize
generation of entrepreneurs, along with other entrants, should be
dealing in the people orbiting business. By 2010, IMHO, NASA should be
contracting the sending of its astronauts to the ISS with a private
entity like Virgin Galactic or any competitors that crop up. They can
meet up there with any elements of a NASA interplanetary program they
launch on cargo launchers.

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> This is wonderful, wonderful news.
> 
> Here is the original source of the article:
> http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/study-summary.html
> http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf
> 
> 
> The fact that we are open now to something different is the best news
>  
> that could come from NASA. The notion of using 'what works' as a gap 
> 
> filler to get us through development of new vehicles is great. A  
> capsule based approach will let us toss 6+ people aloft with each
> SRM.
> 
> Just for book keeping: The Russian Energia can lift 118 tons to LEO, 
> 
> so the article making this the world-dominating HLLV isn't exactly  
> so. That, and their is a Russian plan to build a super-heavy lift  
> that is already past the design stage, and just needs money.  
> Additionally, the SRM is approved for human transport, but not "human
>  
> rated" yet. We have yet to run an SRM standalone, which will require 
> 
> different throttling. In a solid propellant device, this may also  
> mean different propellant.
> 
> There is also a Russian Soyuz-replacement called the Klipper, that  
> could be rolling out soon:
> http://www.russianspaceweb.com/
> 
> 
> 
> While we are re-hashing 60s and 70s design: our next big step should 
> 
> be nuclear, and we should go right for the Liberty Ship HLLV:
> 
> Main:
> http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm
> Gas Core info:
> http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor
> 
> We have enough data and work on the NERVA and other projects to do  
> this right.
> 
> 
> ]3
> 
> 
> On Aug 3, 2005, at 12:55 AM, spike wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't wish to be a prophet of gloom, but I would consider
> > it reasonably likely that the space shuttle will fly no more
> > forever.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html? 
> > ex=1280635200&en
> > =c97b63d7bb47af82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
> >
> > {8-[   Sigh.
> >
> > spike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 15:15:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803100518.01ce7b70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050803151546.48437.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

Damien, you're spoiling the brat.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 15:22:22 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:22:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050803151546.48437.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803100518.01ce7b70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050803151546.48437.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803102108.01d4ee28@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:15 AM 8/3/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:

>Damien, you're spoiling the brat.

I'm more interested in spreading information and sources than in political 
bitch-slapping.

Damien Broderick 



From hemm at openlink.com.br  Wed Aug  3 15:25:42 2005
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:25:42 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
References: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Why not start thinking *seriously* about space elevators? I don't think anyone can feel confortable with the idea of being pushed to space by a huge bomb on his back.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article


(...)
> Generally speaking, the traditional booster makers should develop
> private cargo launching companies and boosters, while the x-prize
> generation of entrepreneurs, along with other entrants, should be
> dealing in the people orbiting business. By 2010, IMHO, NASA should be
> contracting the sending of its astronauts to the ISS with a private
> entity like Virgin Galactic or any competitors that crop up. They can
> meet up there with any elements of a NASA interplanetary program they
> launch on cargo launchers.



From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 15:29:28 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:29:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <44D49026-8E36-4E44-BA20-5C24CC998145@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b05080308295f6b80e6@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no reason why an unmanned HLLV can't just be made with the
> SRBs, the tank with engines mounted in its rear. This would essentially
> allow nearly the entire weight of the Shuttle as cargo (about 122,000
> kg). Assuming a 10k kg upper cowling, it could easily match the
> performance of the Energia. Zubrin essentially proposed this with his
> Ares concept: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm, to launch the
> elements for his Mars Direct proposal, though this Thiokol concept
> (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hear2015.htm) is more like what I had
> in mind.
> 

[snip]

> > While we are re-hashing 60s and 70s design: our next big step should
> >
> > be nuclear, and we should go right for the Liberty Ship HLLV:
> >
[snip]

So long as we fly paper spaceships--let's just cut to the quick and
build a fleet of Orion-style nuclear pulse drives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

An American ship should launch on July 4th, of course, with its first
few detonations timed to match the cannon shots at the end of the 1812
Overture.

When I loaned out my copy of Dyson's "Project Orion" to a co-worker
Monday, we played a little what-if about a launch of such a ship. He
claimed a surprise launch of any such ship by any major power (e.g.,
PRC) in the next five years would trigger a shooting war. I disagreed,
since MAD would still apply. Comments should go in their own thread.

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 15:37:05 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:37:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
References: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <5366105b050803083720b06850@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at openlink.com.br> wrote:
> Why not start thinking *seriously* about space elevators? I don't think anyone can feel confortable with the idea of being pushed to space by a huge bomb on his back.
> 

Risk vs. reward? It seems good to me, but YMMV.

Space elevators in general do seem best, even better than beamed power
lifting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion) They
share some similarities with it, and offer the advantage of momentum
transfer for payloads at the high end. Brad Edwards argues that the
first such elevator offers overwhelming advantages in space access,
and that it won't cost all that much.

If memory serves, the recent conferences identify a couple of problems
with the idea. Nothing insurmountable, I think. Active damping of
oscillations seemed the very hardest to do.

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 15:54:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually, I wouldn't mind riding a real bomb propulsion system. Orion
needs doing. Five moderate sized nukes could put an aircraft carrier
worth of cargo and spaceship into orbit. I think the trade off is worth
it.

Space elevators are a penultimate system to develop, but we've got to
build lots of rockets between now and then to get the mass into orbit
we need to build the tools to build the tools to build the space
elevator. Besides that, we don't even have buckycable yet. Baby steps.

--- Henrique Moraes Machado <hemm at openlink.com.br> wrote:

> Why not start thinking *seriously* about space elevators? I don't
> think anyone can feel confortable with the idea of being pushed to
> space by a huge bomb on his back.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
> 
> 
> (...)
> > Generally speaking, the traditional booster makers should develop
> > private cargo launching companies and boosters, while the x-prize
> > generation of entrepreneurs, along with other entrants, should be
> > dealing in the people orbiting business. By 2010, IMHO, NASA should
> be
> > contracting the sending of its astronauts to the ISS with a private
> > entity like Virgin Galactic or any competitors that crop up. They
> can
> > meet up there with any elements of a NASA interplanetary program
> they
> > launch on cargo launchers.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 16:30:09 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:30:09 -0500
Subject: Space Elevators, was Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
	<20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>

Probably time to change the subject line...

On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, I wouldn't mind riding a real bomb propulsion system. Orion
> needs doing. Five moderate sized nukes could put an aircraft carrier
> worth of cargo and spaceship into orbit. I think the trade off is worth
> it.
> 

The statistic I remember from "Project Orion" is something like more
mass to orbit in the first flight than in every shuttle flight
combined.

> Space elevators are a penultimate system to develop, but we've got to

Next to last? What trumps an elevator?

> build lots of rockets between now and then to get the mass into orbit

Yes, one or two presentations at the 2nd conference (available
on-line, check del.icio.us or Google) talked about what sort of
heavy-lift we need for it. Edwards and Westling's book, "The Space
Elevator"  discusses this on pages 73-86. They assume exotic
spaceships such as the Shuttle, the Delta IV Heavy, the Atlas V, and
one paper spaceship--a Shuttle C.


> we need to build the tools to build the tools to build the space

Edwards and Westling propose doing as much possible on Earth--that's
where the industrial base lies. The basic model is to lower a small
cable from GEO, use that to raise a slightly larger cable, use that to
raise a slightly larger cable, repeat. Once done, quickly build
another elevator to provide dedicated elevators for up and for down.

> elevator. Besides that, we don't even have buckycable yet. Baby steps.

Baby steps indeed. Again, Edwards and Westling suggest not the
six-meter thick diamondoid monster from Robinson's "Red Mars," but
something more like a ribbon of scotch tape reinforced by
aligned-through-extrusion nanotube fibers. Weird that you get
something that looks like strapping tape from the corner store, but
they develop the argument in very good detail on pages 19-37.

As I remember, the latest problem with a SE was vibration, harmonics,
and damping. Damien Broderick gave some attention to this during the
conferences. Any comments, D.B.?


Now for some more fun speculation. In some computer war-games I
played, building a space elevator was an offense punishable by
surprise cybernetic or nuclear attack. In game (and real-world) you
could do things such as fractional orbital bombardment at low cost.
Run your troop drop-ship up the elevator just high enough, release,
brake, and steer. While this would have been great for package
delivery and high-speed passenger traffic, in game you could only move
military units.

Just how destabilizing would an SE prove? The first group to do it
gets a big advantage. See Edwards and Westling [152-155]. This seems
to depend on surprise applications. Deployment of a ribbon to Mars,
while long-term, (first SE + ~8 years), gets predicted. What
inevitable surprises do you all think might happen?

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Aug  3 16:37:51 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:37:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] political sites
In-Reply-To: <200508030235.j732ZNR18103@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508030235.j732ZNR18103@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <F0D58502-B606-46EC-8B21-F4286EF80973@mac.com>

Libertarian stuff is to not be posted here?  This is plain wrong,  
bigoted and counter to the politics of many founding and current  
members.  I will not abide by any such restriction.  Do with it  
whatever you will.

- samantha

On Aug 2, 2005, at 7:37 PM, spike wrote:


> ...
>
>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
>>
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Why not just post your references?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because that would be initiating force against the request of  
>>> Natasha...
>>>
>>>
>
> etc.
>
>
> Guys, there are good sites that focus on mostly political
> and contentious issues.  For instance, rathergate.com has
> an interest in media issues.  They allow ordinary proles
> like us to post there if we wish, and there are few
> restrictions.
>
> http://www.rathergate.com/
>
> It isn't so much that politics are irrelevant to extropians,
> but rather that lately we have been hammering more
> on ordinary boring here-and-now politics than on the good
> stuff, such as science, technology, progress, futurism,
> longevity, health and so on.  Political commentary is allowed
> on the ExI main list, but do keep it interesting and relevant,
> such as today's headlines regarding lawsuits hampering stem
> cell developments, and such as that.
>
> I urge all who have not done so recently to read
> over Max's excellent Extropian principles:
>
> http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm
>
> Mike is not trying to compete with ExI with his
> Extro-freedom group, he is trying to help us, by
> taking over there the special interest political
> stuff.  Natasha asked him to take the libertarian
> and political stuff there, and he is trying to do
> that.  Please work with him, thanks all.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 16:56:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Space Elevators, was Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050803165624.49057.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Jay Dugger <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Probably time to change the subject line...
> 
> On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I wouldn't mind riding a real bomb propulsion system.
> Orion
> > needs doing. Five moderate sized nukes could put an aircraft
> carrier
> > worth of cargo and spaceship into orbit. I think the trade off is
> worth
> > it.
> > 
> 
> The statistic I remember from "Project Orion" is something like more
> mass to orbit in the first flight than in every shuttle flight
> combined.

Depends on the scale. Project researchers came up with several
spacecraft sizes ranging from a few thousand tons up to 8 million.

> 
> > Space elevators are a penultimate system to develop, but we've got
> to
> 
> Next to last? What trumps an elevator?

Well this is open to debate. They say that ten bucks in electricity
will get a person in orbit on a space elevator. Orion was estimated to
be able to orbit cargo at 5 cents per lb (in 1957 dollars).

The ultimate is of course teleportation... ;)


> 
> Just how destabilizing would an SE prove? The first group to do it
> gets a big advantage. See Edwards and Westling [152-155]. This seems
> to depend on surprise applications. Deployment of a ribbon to Mars,
> while long-term, (first SE + ~8 years), gets predicted. What
> inevitable surprises do you all think might happen?

The problem with a space elevator is that it eliminates the ability to
orbit anything in orbit below its center of mass for a long term. No
ISS. No Hubble, No Bigelows Budget Suites, and IMHO it puts access to
space in a monopoly position for those with the capital to build one
and creates a massive barrier to entry for medium to small operators
wanting private or commercial passenger space shuttles to LEO. SE is a
statist solution, not just because of this, but because disposing of
them once teleportation becomes reality will be problematic. I suppose
simply detaching them from earth and adding mass to the counterbalance
end would do to get it off earth? Where do you put it? You'd need to
disassemble it in situ.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug  3 17:03:05 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian != Libertarian (was: political sites)
In-Reply-To: <F0D58502-B606-46EC-8B21-F4286EF80973@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050803170305.79737.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Libertarian stuff is to not be posted here?

Without limit?  Yes.  This is not the Libertarian list, this is the
Extropian list.  There are some libertarian topics which are on-topic
here, but just because it's libertarian doesn't mean it's extropian.

If you see no difference between the two, please leave this list (and
join the extro-freedom list instead) until you understand how you could
post libertarian material that we would accept.  (Hint: the answer is
not, "it's impossible because we're bigots."  Neither is it, "defy the
rules and force others to receive emails with your views on politics
when they'd rather not discuss politics.")

Granted, this is just me making this request, not an official of ExI.
But I think others may echo my view.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 17:14:53 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:14:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
	<20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:30 AM 8/3/2005 -0500, Jay wrote:

>As I remember, the latest problem with a SE was vibration, harmonics,
>and damping. Damien Broderick gave some attention to this during the
>conferences. Any comments, D.B.?

I'm fairly clueless when it comes to the fine grain detail. All I recall is 
the suggestion by Clarke and others that the cable might be able to avoid 
satellites by harmonic twanging. I believe Spike had objections to this.

But the problem I have simply conceptualising this thing is that I still 
don't understand *how* the cable is lowered. My intuition tells me that if 
you simply extrude it toward the ground, it's going to rise slowly and 
majestically to the same height above ground as the station -- that is, 
back into geosynchronous orbit -- where it will hang in a nice curve up 
ahead of the station, while the ballast end will curve downward to hang 
behind it like a tail. Don't tell me gravity will keep the cable straight 
-- every part of the thing has the same GEO velocity it started with. Or am 
I missing something extremely obvious?

Damien Broderick 



From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 17:58:44 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:58:44 -0500
Subject: Space Elevators, was Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <20050803165624.49057.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050803165624.49057.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b05080310581df4e361@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- Jay Dugger <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Probably time to change the subject line...
> >
> > On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, I wouldn't mind riding a real bomb propulsion system.
> > Orion
> > > needs doing. Five moderate sized nukes could put an aircraft
> > carrier
> > > worth of cargo and spaceship into orbit. I think the trade off is
> > worth
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > The statistic I remember from "Project Orion" is something like more
> > mass to orbit in the first flight than in every shuttle flight
> > combined.
> 
> Depends on the scale. Project researchers came up with several
> spacecraft sizes ranging from a few thousand tons up to 8 million.
> 

Good point. My copy's out on loan--this might have gotten covered there.

> >
> > > Space elevators are a penultimate system to develop, but we've got
> > to
> >
> > Next to last? What trumps an elevator?
> 
> Well this is open to debate. They say that ten bucks in electricity
> will get a person in orbit on a space elevator. Orion was estimated to
> be able to orbit cargo at 5 cents per lb (in 1957 dollars).
> 
> The ultimate is of course teleportation... ;)
> 

Okay, smart guy. ;)

> 
> >
> > Just how destabilizing would an SE prove? The first group to do it
> > gets a big advantage. See Edwards and Westling [152-155]. This seems
> > to depend on surprise applications. Deployment of a ribbon to Mars,
> > while long-term, (first SE + ~8 years), gets predicted. What
> > inevitable surprises do you all think might happen?
> 
> The problem with a space elevator is that it eliminates the ability to
> orbit anything in orbit below its center of mass for a long term. No

I don't think so. It rules out any orbits that cross its' exact
location; those get called collisions. If you've a mobile Earth-side
platform like a Sea Launch or a large oil platform, you get the chance
to avoid such strikes and purely terrestrial hazards such as
hurricanes. What effect motion might have on cable dynamics requires
math skills beyond mine. Remember the cable is long, but thin.

Stick a pin on the equator of a Mercator projection of Earth. Call the
whole shaft of the pin "restricted space." Look at what you have left
over. Yes, the pin goes outward a very long way, about 10E5 km. If
your scale gets big enough, this starts to look one-dimensional.
Enough hand-waving on that. I don't know orbital dynamics well enough
to argue this. (Where's Szabo?)

Ocean basing allows its own advantages. For instance, transfer cargo
directly from container ships to SE and vice versa. If the economics
work out you might even see super-container ships far too large for
any canal that transfer to go up a Pacific SE, orbital transfer to an
Atlantic SE, down that SE, and transfer back to a container ship.
Totally speculative, I admit. No worse than teleportation, however. :)

> ISS. No Hubble, No Bigelows Budget Suites, and IMHO it puts access to

I see your point and agree with it, but I think your counter-examples
lack strength. Each of these precedes or likely precedes a SE. The SE
would also enable superior replacements in each case. You don't need
ISS if you can build space stations that take advantage of the SE. See
Edwards and Westling [176-188]. Inflatables get a little discussion in
that section. Who cares about Hubble if you can also cheaply build
telescopes at L1 or out of the ecliptic altogether?

> space in a monopoly position for those with the capital to build one

Yes, it sure does. I don't think this makes a fatal problem. Again,
Edwards and Westling [144] estimate the first ribbon might cost
US$6.1E9. The second, about US$1.9E9. E&W[166] assumes an eleven-fold
improvement in cargo capacity for the third and fourth SEs: 13T to
140T. Costs still drop to US$5E9 and US$4E9. Eighteen billion dollars
is much money, but within the reach of large private companies. Heck,
double the numbers if you want. What do those new big oil platforms
cost? I want to make the point that the required capital drops over
time into the range affordable by large companies, not nation-states.

> and creates a massive barrier to entry for medium to small operators
> wanting private or commercial passenger space shuttles to LEO. SE is a

I disagree. The first few SEs would get built near the equator for
various reasons. Ballistic hoppers or spaceplanes would prove very
valuable in an air-transportation system that incorporates a SE.
Suppose you go up the SE a little ways, release, brake, and steer. How
long does it take you to get anywhere on Earth's surface? If it turns
out less than eight hours, then long-range air travel dramatically
changes: Origin to SE, SE up, release, de-orbit to Destination.
Spaceplanes might cover the "origin to SE" part.

I admit this does nothing for concentration of the system at a SE
choke point. If it turns into a problem, market forces might encourage
multiple elevators. You still end up with a concentrated system, more
like railroads than privately owned cars on highways. I hadn't
considered the effects on personal freedom. Does opening up the solar
system compensate for it? I could say so, but the physical arguments
for elevators apply to other planets too. So long as one goes down a
planet's gravity well for mass, an elevator offers some advantage. If
you stay in wells too shallow for economic elevator operation then you
avoid that concentration, and all its dangers. What remains for real
estate? The Trojans, the belt, the NEAs, perhaps some of the rest of
the Jovian system.

> statist solution, not just because of this, but because disposing of

Inherently statist? It requires a large concentration of capital, and
the first one might only happen through public-private partnership.
Nationalization seems a bigger risk, though.

> them once teleportation becomes reality will be problematic. I suppose

I don't think teleportation lies in the near-term, or possibly ever.
At least you seem to think it more likely than I do. Please give
references.

For argument's sake, let's assume Niven-style transfer booths. The
difference between any two cities on Earth turns into fifty cents
worth of energy. That's a big inivitation for governments to crack
down on the technology--free movement of people so fast that it
resembles an ideal gas expanding to fill a container. That aside, you
don't have interplanetary transport. A SE still lets you do momentum
transfer. [B&W94--Figure 7.1] Varying the release height of a payload
on the SE, you can fire it off for various destinations, just like
using a sling.

> simply detaching them from earth and adding mass to the counterbalance
> end would do to get it off earth? Where do you put it? You'd need to
> disassemble it in situ.
> 

What? Are you suggesting design for disassembly? :) You've got some
green tendencies, after all. Just good sense, really.

If you had to dispose of one, and I don't think you would for the
reasons above, I guess you could detach the ribbon's terrestrial
anchor first. Then, from a midpoint at GEO, start reeling in both
ends. Once done, deorbit the reels for atmospheric incineration. No
counterweight to dipose of--an extension of the cable is its own
counterweight, and that gave you a longer moment arm for momentum
transfers. Would this work? Perhaps you could do something clever,
like electrodynamic braking for the deorbit, or just reel in from a
spot other than the midpoint. Would you send a reeled-up SE into deep
space if you moved its center of mass above GEO? I just don't know.

Heck, just sell it to those folks too superstitous to teleport.

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 18:05:30 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:05:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
	<20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b0508031105313b7bd2@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 11:30 AM 8/3/2005 -0500, Jay wrote:
> 
> >As I remember, the latest problem with a SE was vibration, harmonics,
> >and damping. Damien Broderick gave some attention to this during the
> >conferences. Any comments, D.B.?
> 
> I'm fairly clueless when it comes to the fine grain detail. All I recall is
> the suggestion by Clarke and others that the cable might be able to avoid
> satellites by harmonic twanging. I believe Spike had objections to this.
> 
> But the problem I have simply conceptualising this thing is that I still
> don't understand *how* the cable is lowered. My intuition tells me that if
> you simply extrude it toward the ground, it's going to rise slowly and
> majestically to the same height above ground as the station -- that is,
> back into geosynchronous orbit -- where it will hang in a nice curve up
> ahead of the station, while the ballast end will curve downward to hang
> behind it like a tail. Don't tell me gravity will keep the cable straight
> -- every part of the thing has the same GEO velocity it started with. Or am
> I missing something extremely obvious?
> 

I'd have to re-read Chapter 5 of E&W to answer this. I really had
other things planned for vacation!

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug  3 18:08:25 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:08:25 -0400
Subject: Space Elevators, was Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
	<20050803155455.40401.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39A350D8-07D4-41E3-BEA9-60242BDDC172@bonfireproductions.com>


And if you could, Damien (or anyone else) please address if there are  
issues with charge and temperature.

People working on exotic problems often ignore the mundane and  
equally problematic stuff. I see a charge differential issue with  
running a line from terra firma out of the atmosphere. Not to mention  
friction. Fullerenes or not.


Thanks!

]3


On Aug 3, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Jay Dugger wrote:

> As I remember, the latest problem with a SE was vibration, harmonics,
> and damping. Damien Broderick gave some attention to this during the
> conferences. Any comments, D.B.?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050803/f720b657/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug  3 18:24:04 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:24:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
References: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00d901c5983f$9cd12140$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <32F7AA0E-2236-4FE3-A62B-6AEC732162C2@bonfireproductions.com>



... as opposed to the bomb we drive or ride to work, go across  
country or on vacation on, water ski behind, etc. =)

It's the nature of stored energy. We're incredibly comfortable with  
the automobile containing 20 gallons of gasoline these days. In 1920,  
much less so.

Since this thread jumped from now to space elevators, I will say this  
again.

Gas Core reactor
Gas Core reactor
Gas Core reactor.

There. =)

We need a governmental body that has the stored work and ability to  
take 1% gnp and make the next big thing. Just like the Moon  
landings. /bait

Liberty Ship, as a concept LLV can take 1000 tons to Leo, bring 500  
tons back, and land under its own power, vertically, like Buck  
Rodgers or Flash Gordon.

So while science figures out how the Interplanetary Transit System  
Terminal (i.e. space elevator) is going to be built, then promptly  
monopolized, why not open space to the rest of us? I say Halfnium/ 
Microwave jet/ram/scram engine for atmospheric, then Gas Core/bulb  
reactor for flight. I'll go to Jupiter and skim fuel for myself.

If you're nice, I'll bring you back some too.

/rant



]3


On Aug 3, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:

> Why not start thinking *seriously* about space elevators? I don't  
> think anyone can feel confortable with the idea of being pushed to  
> space by a huge bomb on his back.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
>
>
> (...)
>
>> Generally speaking, the traditional booster makers should develop
>> private cargo launching companies and boosters, while the x-prize
>> generation of entrepreneurs, along with other entrants, should be
>> dealing in the people orbiting business. By 2010, IMHO, NASA  
>> should be
>> contracting the sending of its astronauts to the ISS with a private
>> entity like Virgin Galactic or any competitors that crop up. They can
>> meet up there with any elements of a NASA interplanetary program they
>> launch on cargo launchers.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug  3 18:27:52 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:27:52 -0400
Subject: Space Elevators, was Re: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <5366105b05080310581df4e361@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5366105b050803093032100012@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050803165624.49057.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5366105b05080310581df4e361@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41A22576-A3F3-4D6C-A1FF-D5E213F648EC@bonfireproductions.com>



(Bird-to-Stone ratio: 2)


There is a giant gap in Geo between roughly 150W and 170W.

I believe Hawaii is in it, among other things...


]3

On Aug 3, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Jay Dugger wrote:

>
> Stick a pin on the equator of a Mercator projection of Earth. Call the
> whole shaft of the pin "restricted space." Look at what you have left
> over. Yes, the pin goes outward a very long way, about 10E5 km. If
> your scale gets big enough, this starts to look one-dimensional.
> Enough hand-waving on that. I don't know orbital dynamics well enough
> to argue this. (Where's Szabo?)
>
> Ocean basing allows its own advantages. For instance, transfer cargo
> directly from container ships to SE and vice versa. If the economics
> work out you might even see super-container ships far too large for
> any canal that transfer to go up a Pacific SE, orbital transfer to an
> Atlantic SE, down that SE, and transfer back to a container ship.
> Totally speculative, I admit. No worse than teleportation, however. :)
>
>> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ISS. No Hubble, No Bigelows Budget Suites, and IMHO it puts access to

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050803/1c33a020/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Aug  3 19:16:53 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:16:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian != Libertarian (was: political sites)
In-Reply-To: <20050803170305.79737.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050803170305.79737.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FE96993A-BA6E-47BA-A7AD-232A23C194F1@mac.com>


On Aug 3, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Libertarian stuff is to not be posted here?
>>
>
> Without limit?  Yes.  This is not the Libertarian list, this is the
> Extropian list.  There are some libertarian topics which are on-topic
> here, but just because it's libertarian doesn't mean it's extropian.
>
> If you see no difference between the two, please leave this list (and
> join the extro-freedom list instead) until you understand how you  
> could
> post libertarian material that we would accept.

Q: Who exactly is "we"?  This former moderator has no idea how this  
is to be done peacefully and without rancor.  It looks objectionable  
to me.

- samantha



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 20:13:29 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050803201329.3049.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 11:30 AM 8/3/2005 -0500, Jay wrote:
> 
> >As I remember, the latest problem with a SE was vibration,
> harmonics,
> >and damping. Damien Broderick gave some attention to this during the
> >conferences. Any comments, D.B.?
> 
> I'm fairly clueless when it comes to the fine grain detail. All I
> recall is the suggestion by Clarke and others that the cable might
> be able to avoid satellites by harmonic twanging. I believe Spike
> had objections to this.
> 
> But the problem I have simply conceptualising this thing is that I
> still don't understand *how* the cable is lowered. My intuition tells
> me that if you simply extrude it toward the ground, it's going to
> rise slowly and majestically to the same height above ground as
> the station -- that is, back into geosynchronous orbit -- where
> it will hang in a nice curve up ahead of the station, while the
> ballast end will curve downward to hang behind it like a tail.
> Don't tell me gravity will keep the cable straight -- every part
> of the thing has the same GEO velocity it started with. Or am I
> missing something extremely obvious?

Yes, tidal lock will give the cable a 1 revolution per day spin, so
that its earth end will always travel at the velocity of the earth's
surface (a few hundred mph in absolute terms), and the end above GEO
will travel faster than GEO orbital velocity, such that the average
velocity over the entire length will be GEO velocity and that center of
mass will be at GEO, 22,300 miles.

Gravity at a small scale is weak. Over a large scale it exerts a rather
massive torque. It is, after all, the moons tidal torque that causes
the earth's surface to rotate 1 day less per year than its core. That
is a LOT of mass to drag around.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 20:44:58 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:44:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <20050803201329.3049.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050803201329.3049.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803153630.01eec8d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:13 PM 8/3/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:


>Yes, tidal lock will give the cable a 1 revolution per day spin, so

What tidal lock?

>that its earth end will always travel at the velocity of the earth's
>surface (a few hundred mph in absolute terms)

A thousand. So consider: I'm sitting in my geo-station, spooling out bucky 
thread. Mysteriously, it's going straight away from me toward the surface. 
After a while, the far end is hovering one inch above the ground. Even more 
mysteriously, it's travelling at only a thousand miles an hour, while I'm 
hurtling overhead at five miles a second. What's causing the lag? The sheer 
weight of the cable? But when I started spooling it out, the mass was 
negligible. Does it curl up for a while (precess?), and then start to 
straighten out?

Damien Broderick
[ not a physicist ]



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug  3 21:23:51 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803153630.01eec8d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050803212351.99631.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> So consider: I'm sitting in my geo-station, spooling out
> bucky 
> thread. Mysteriously, it's going straight away from me toward the
> surface. 
> After a while, the far end is hovering one inch above the ground.
> Even more 
> mysteriously, it's travelling at only a thousand miles an hour, while
> I'm 
> hurtling overhead at five miles a second. What's causing the lag?

Rotation...assuming you adjust your angular velocity accordingly while
spooling out the cable (an easy trick to do, especially if you're
careful to spool out an exact same amount straight away from the
surface at the same time).  The entire structure then spins 360 degrees
every 24 hours - which means the far ends of the cable traverse quite a
lot of distance in that time.  Your center of mass may be going five
miles a second, but the far end is travelling somewhat under five miles
a second backwards thanks to rotation; the net velocity relative to the
Earth's core happens to be about the same as the velocity of a certain
point on the Earth's surface (namely, the point it's hovering over).

Meanwhile, the end of the cable above you is travelling faster than
five miles per second: where the rotation opposed velocity below, it
adds to velocity above.  Fortunately, it's doing so through vacuum -
and, again, velocity is relative.  (How fast is Voyager going?  And yet
it's in little imminent danger of catastrophic collision.)


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Aug  3 21:47:42 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:47:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] good space shuttle article
In-Reply-To: <20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <44D49026-8E36-4E44-BA20-5C24CC998145@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050803151431.3413.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05080314477240efae@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/3/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> NASA needs to, if it is going to remain in the launch business (which
> IMHO it shouldn't) separate launching cargo from launching people.
> Launching cargo should be done as cheaply as possible, while launching
> people should be done as safely as possible. 

This is often claimed and seems rather intuitive, but I'm not sure
it's correct. Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings periodically
addresses the cargo vs. crew separation claim:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005491.html


> Generally speaking, the traditional booster makers should develop
> private cargo launching companies and boosters, while the x-prize
> generation of entrepreneurs, along with other entrants, should be
> dealing in the people orbiting business. By 2010, IMHO, NASA should be
> contracting the sending of its astronauts to the ISS with a private
> entity like Virgin Galactic or any competitors that crop up. They can
> meet up there with any elements of a NASA interplanetary program they
> launch on cargo launchers.

I can't remember if I've posted about this here, but this is pretty
much what NASA is doing. The plan is to purchase commercial
transportation of cargo to the ISS, followed by commercially-purchased
crew transportation after those systems have proven themselves.

Relevant links:

Space Review's "A Vision for Commercialization":
http://thespacereview.com/article/418/1

Announcement of NASA's Innovative Programs:
http://www.rocketforge.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=385&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

SpacePolitics "Commercialization becomes essential":
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000604.html


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug  3 22:22:07 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:22:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <20050803212351.99631.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803153630.01eec8d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050803212351.99631.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803170800.01d13dd8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 02:23 PM 8/3/2005 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

>Rotation...assuming you adjust your angular velocity accordingly while
>spooling out the cable (an easy trick to do, especially if you're
>careful to spool out an exact same amount straight away from the
>surface at the same time).

This don't make no lick o' sense to me, bubba.

Starting at the hind end -- I reckon you need to spool out a damned sight 
more from the farside spigot, on account o' the gravitational gradient 
weakening. Just a detail.

Now as for rotating -- what Mike called " tidally locked", although that's 
not what it is, just what it emulates -- obviously the station has to be 
spun so it rotates completely once a day, otherwise the cable would get 
wrapped around it. That is, you need to spin the station *before* you start 
feeding out the cable. But that doesn't explain (to me, anyway) how the 
cable sheds its five miles per second orbital velocity as it drops ever 
closer to the ground.

Damien Broderick
[ probably making a complete fool of myself here ]  



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 22:41:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803170800.01d13dd8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050803224153.47922.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 02:23 PM 8/3/2005 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> >Rotation...assuming you adjust your angular velocity accordingly
> while
> >spooling out the cable (an easy trick to do, especially if you're
> >careful to spool out an exact same amount straight away from the
> >surface at the same time).
> 
> This don't make no lick o' sense to me, bubba.
> 
> Starting at the hind end -- I reckon you need to spool out a damned
> sight more from the farside spigot, on account o' the gravitational
> gradient weakening. Just a detail.
> 
> Now as for rotating -- what Mike called " tidally locked", although
> that's not what it is, just what it emulates 

Uh, no, that IS what allows you to spool the cable out at all, unless
you electrically charge it. Tide is a difference of gravitational
potential exerting different amounts of force on an object at different
points on that object. 

The difference of gravitational potential is expressed orbitally as a
difference in required orbital velocities at different altitudes. While
LEO orbital velocity is mach 25, GEO orbital velocity is far less, only
a few thousand mph AFAIKR (which makes sense, as its orbital
circumference is 2xRx3.14159263 or thereabouts, in a 24 hour orbit,
orbital velocity should be about 6,000 mph).

Nor, as was asked previously, do you NEED to spool out cable above the
GEO point, that is just an added feature if you want to extract earth's
rotational energy to propel spacecraft across the solar system. You can
just as easily have a space station several times heavier than the
cable a short distance above the GEO point counterbalancing the cables
mass. You could still have an outer sling of some size, so long as its
mass is counted in the euqation and the whole systems center of mass is
at the GEO point. As you can see this is a very fragile balancing trick
that could induce dangerous harmonics in either cable, especially if
the cargoes transported are not an immensly small fraction of the total
system mass, and/or so long as an active counterweight system is not
used to adjust for shifts in center of mass. 

Ideally you'd build the cable as a loop and pully with multiple cars on
it, and so long as you send up about the same amount of mass as is sent
down, it will remain stable.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug  3 20:58:52 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:58:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803153630.01eec8d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050803201329.3049.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050803153630.01eec8d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <39558F46-5F47-4523-A781-CB5BA9824AF9@bonfireproductions.com>


uhm, After a while, you are going away from the Earth at a comperable  
speed to the mass you are repelling away from you?

Something doesn't click here... Without station keeping thrust, your  
mass changes and you are going to gain/lose altitude as you spool out  
the cable. And as it gets closer to the Earth (inserting previous  
gripe:) it starts to build an electrical differential with you on orbit?


Just thinking out loud.


]3


On Aug 3, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

>  Mysteriously, it's going straight away from me toward the surface.  
> After a while, the far end is hovering one inch above the ground.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050803/8209d5e4/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  3 23:19:58 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] definition
Message-ID: <20050803231958.60329.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

i feel bad about being so hard on the South, because
there is the Midwest:

A region where so many say so little in so many words.


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From hal at finney.org  Wed Aug  3 22:52:04 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  3 Aug 2005 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
Message-ID: <20050803225204.2833157EF5@finney.org>

I'm going to be speaking off the cuff here as I don't know that much
about orbital mechanics, just basic physics.

The question is, why does a cable stay oriented towards the earth as
you feed it out, rather than going into some other configuration.

Imagine that you have an orbital station (doesn't have to be
geosynchronous) that has some cable out that is pointing towards
the earth.  We'll ignore how it got that way, but we'll look at what
happens next.

First, the current situation is stable.  It is the lowest energy
configuration.  Also, the cable is in tension.  The bottom end of
the cable is moving at slower than orbital velocity, so it has a net
gravitational pull on it.

Now we feed out an incremental bit of cable.  What will happen is that
the lower end of the cable will tend to swing forward in the orbit.
You can see this as either a Coriolis force, in the rotating frame,
or the effect of it retaining its velocity while moving into a smaller
orbit, in the stationary frame.

However this is not a stable position, because it is not the lowest
energy configuration.  The cable will swing back towards vertical, like
a pendulum, back and forth.  It was hanging vertically originally, and
you gave it some energy that swung it forward, but it won't stay there,
it will oscillate around the low energy position.

If there are dissipative effects, such as friction with high altitude
gas molecules, or heat dissipation within the cable itself due to flexing
and motion, then this oscillation will die down and the cable will once
again be hanging straight towards the earth.

The net result, it seems to me, is that you can stably feed out cable as
long as you do it slowly enough that the motion due to Coriolis effects
gets dissipated.  If you do it too quickly the bottom end of the cable
will curve forward, and I'm not sure what shape it would end up in.

Hal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 01:48:33 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:48:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] political sites
In-Reply-To: <F0D58502-B606-46EC-8B21-F4286EF80973@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508040146.j741kNR04229@tick.javien.com>

Libertarian stuff is OK here.  Lets not make it
our main focus, do keep it interesting and relevant to
what extropians are, thanks.  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:38 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] political sites
> 
> Libertarian stuff is to not be posted here?  This is plain wrong,
> bigoted and counter to the politics of many founding and current
> members.  I will not abide by any such restriction.  Do with it
> whatever you will.
> 
> - samantha



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 02:19:10 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 19:19:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803170800.01d13dd8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508040217.j742H1R07418@tick.javien.com>

Damien!  This is such a cool thread, thanks.  {8-]

As it turns out, I did all the math on this as a result
of a story that youuuuu wrote, that sci-fi-ized children's
fairy tale about Jack and the beanstalk.  Good story!  Tell
the good proles how to get a copy please.  We will not consider
it spam.  {8^D

The math and physics on this is pretty simple.  In a round
orbit such as GEO, the R*omega^2 is equal to MG/R^2 where
M is the mass of the earth (about 6E24 if memory serves
correctly and G is 6.67E-11.)  Omega is 2 pi radians per
day.  

The reason the SE stays tidelocked is that the lower half
is closer to the earth, so R is smaller than GEO radius,
so MG/R^2 is greater than R*omega^2.  On the half that stretches
away from GEO, R is greater than GEO radius so MG/R^2 is
less than R*omega^2.  So if you parted the two halves at
GEO, the lower half would fall downward and the upper 
half would fall upward.  So it is stable pointing earthward.

If you take any long rigid pole, it will try to align itself
pointing earthward.  I think of it as kinda analogous to how
iron filings try to align themselves along the lines of magnetic
equipotential.

Nowthen, from your book, I realized that as the beanstalk 
is played out simultaneously upward and downward, it forms
kind of a giant integral symbol, since the total body wants
to conserve angular momentum, while gravity and centrifugal
force do what they do.  As the arms play outward, the moment
of inertia of the system increases.  Conservation of angular
momentum requires that I*omega is constant.  I is increasing.
So the trick is solved once you realize that angular momentum
is being transferred from the earth to the GEO object.

More later.

spike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:22 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
> 
> At 02:23 PM 8/3/2005 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> >Rotation...assuming you adjust your angular velocity accordingly while
> >spooling out the cable (an easy trick to do, especially if you're
> >careful to spool out an exact same amount straight away from the
> >surface at the same time).
> 
> This don't make no lick o' sense to me, bubba.
> 
> Starting at the hind end -- I reckon you need to spool out a damned sight
> more from the farside spigot, on account o' the gravitational gradient
> weakening. Just a detail.
> 
> Now as for rotating -- what Mike called " tidally locked", although that's
> not what it is, just what it emulates -- obviously the station has to be
> spun so it rotates completely once a day, otherwise the cable would get
> wrapped around it. That is, you need to spin the station *before* you
> start
> feeding out the cable. But that doesn't explain (to me, anyway) how the
> cable sheds its five miles per second orbital velocity as it drops ever
> closer to the ground.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> [ probably making a complete fool of myself here ]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 02:24:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 19:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <39558F46-5F47-4523-A781-CB5BA9824AF9@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050804022444.97885.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:

> 
> uhm, After a while, you are going away from the Earth at a comperable
>  speed to the mass you are repelling away from you?
> 
> Something doesn't click here... Without station keeping thrust, your 
> mass changes and you are going to gain/lose altitude as you spool out
> the cable. And as it gets closer to the Earth (inserting previous  
> gripe:) it starts to build an electrical differential with you on
> orbit?

Not quite. While you are moving away from the earth in reaction to
spooling the cable out, you are still attached to it, so you are all
one orbiting mass, orbiting at the velocity of your original orbit. As
the cable is fed out, the end of that cable is travelling at less than
the orbital velocity for that lower orbit, so it is gravitationally
attracted toward the earth. 

This is the tide. So long as the common center of gravity remains
inside your ship, all is well and the cable remains taut. As soon as
the common center of gravity is somewhere along the cable, then you are
going to have bunching problems, because the center of gravity will be
moving slower than your rate of feed. 

Because of this, it is at this point you should start feeding out your
counterbalance in the opposite direction, outward. As it is now
orbiting at a higher altitude, but at the orbital velocity of the point
of the common center of gravity, it experiences a centrifugal force
outward, and is drawn outward.

Electrical potential can be built along the length of the cable because
as a wire travelling through the electromagnetic field of earth, it
will do so. The question to ask is whether that field itself rotates in
a 24 hour period as well. If so, then there should be little or no
potential built for this reason. Tethers in LEO build potentials
because they orbit much faster than the 24 hour rotation time of earth.

Now, if there is a potential, then while drawing that potential out
will lower your altitude (because you are doing work by drawing that
potential out), if you feed current into the cable, you will raise your
orbit, so having a nuke reactor and/or solar panels on your cable feed
station will help to stabilize the system.

> 
> 
> Just thinking out loud.
> 
> 
> ]3
> 
> 
> On Aug 3, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> >  Mysteriously, it's going straight away from me toward the surface.
>  
> > After a while, the far end is hovering one inch above the ground.
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 03:35:08 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 20:35:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050803120801.01dcab40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508040332.j743WxR15129@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
> 
...
> 
> ... suggestion by Clarke and others that the cable might be able to avoid
> satellites by harmonic twanging. I believe Spike had objections to this...
> 
> Damien Broderick


Ja, Clarke used the first resonance trick in Songs of
Distant Earth to explain how the low orbit junk didn't 
hit the cable.  I worked out the equations and realized 
that this trick might help some but it wouldn't solve 
the problem.

To estimate the probability of a collision for a GEO space
cable, recall that every low orbit item must cross the equatorial 
plane twice each orbit.  If we make some educated guesses
on how much stuff is up there and its size, we can
get a pretty good single digit estimate of the probability
of a collision.  OK there are the Iridium satellites,
66 of those I think, and they are about two meter class,
so lumping the Hubble and the other biggie stuff together
with that, say about 100 objects in the 2 meter class,
about 1000 objects in the 10 cm class, 1E4 objects in
the 1 cm class, and I don't even know how much stuff
the commies launched, then neglect the rest, thats a 
cumulative cross section of about 400 meters of stuff in 
orbit below GEO, and 15 orbits per day is close enough,
so thats 30 crossings, and then you divide by the
sine of the angle of inclination, and we know that
a bunch of stuff is at 27 degrees (the latitude of
Cape Canaveral) some higher but some of the stuff
unfortunately was launched from Guiana which is
down around 5 degrees, so lets just say about 20
degrees is a typical average orbit inclination, and the
total equatorial plane length at a typical LEO
altitude is 2*pi*7Mm, or close enough to 4E7 meters,
and i get about a 30 percent chance of a collision
per year for Earth.

Nowthen, Clarke suggested a first mode resonance swinging
motion of the cable, but you might be better off simply 
placing the center of mass a couple degrees off the equator, 
and it would accomplish the same thing: nada.  Swinging the 
cable helps a little for stuff orbiting very near the equator, 
but doesn't really help for everything else.  (Too bad: Songs 
of Distant Earth is a good story which is kinda ruined by the 
space cable fumbles.  I was thinking of praying to Clarke 
about it but I'm pretty sure I need an intercessor of
some kind for my prayer to be heard, as I am a lowly 
sinner.  Someone would need to play Jesus for me: take 
my humble supplication to Arthur the Father, thru Damien 
the Son.)  

The first mode resonance trick also ignores the fact that 
the cable is not uniform in diameter all the way up, so 
that first mode wouldn't be stable anyway.

If you have a copy of Songs of Distant Earth, read it
over and see that Clarke actually made a more serious
error, which isn't hard to spot for space cable fans.  I
will post it here after a couple days so you get a chance
to think it over.

spike



 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 03:46:21 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 20:46:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Space Elevators
In-Reply-To: <200508040332.j743WxR15129@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200508040344.j743iBR16152@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike

> ...  OK there are the Iridium satellites,
> 66 of those I think, and they are about two meter class,
> so lumping the Hubble and the other biggie stuff together
> with that, say about 100 objects in the 2 meter class...
> 
> spike

I forgot about the space station.  That contributes about
40 meters of cross section all by itself.  If anyone knows
where we could get a reasonable estimate of the cumulative
cross section of all the stuff in LEO, do post.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 05:31:15 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:31:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] technology optimists vs pessimists
In-Reply-To: <200508040332.j743WxR15129@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200508040529.j745TFR24703@tick.javien.com>

Interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/03/broadband.tv.reut/index.html



This is the comment that really caught my attention:  

"The study defines a tech optimist as believing technology will make life
more enjoyable, while pessimists are indifferent or even hostile to
technology. Pessimists outnumber optimists 51 percent to 49 percent."


I was shocked!  Half the population are indifferent or 
even hostile to technology?  Oy freaking vey.  spike  



Study: Technology 'optimists' turn off TV

Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Posted: 2:56 p.m. EDT (18:56 GMT) 

LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Broadband Internet surfers
in North America watch two fewer hours of television per week than do those
without Internet access, while those using a dial-up connection watch 1.5
fewer hours of TV.

The data come from a Forrester Research study released Tuesday that uses
what it calls the longest-running survey of its kind, counting nearly 69,000
people in the U.S. and Canada as participants.

Broadband Internet users watch just 12 hours of TV per week, compared with
14 hours for those who are offline, according to the study, "The State of
Consumers and Technology: Benchmark 2005."

Forrester also predicts that the number of broadband households in the U.S.,
which already soared to 31 million at the end of last year from 2.6 million
in 1999, will swell to 71.4 million by 2010.

While its conclusion that Internet usage detract from other media is not
new, the study delves deeper than others, separating consumers into various
categories, including technology "optimists" and "pessimists" and "tenured
nomadic networkers."

Folks making up the latter category have had Internet access in their
networked homes for at least five years and own a laptop computer. These
nomads watch just 10.8 hours of TV each week.

While newspapers and magazines also suffer a bit from Internet competition,
radio and video games do not, the study concludes.

The study defines a tech optimist as believing technology will make life
more enjoyable, while pessimists are indifferent or even hostile to
technology. Pessimists outnumber optimists 51 percent to 49 percent.

"Online media attracts technology optimists in droves," says the report,
noting that they are three times more likely to use streaming media and
peer-to-peer file sharing and read blogs as are their pessimistic
counterparts.

Optimists play video games, read magazines and listen to the radio more than
do pessimists, while pessimists watch more television. Newspaper reading,
according to the study, is identical among the two groups.

Another conclusion reached by the study is that "consumers went device crazy
in 2004," snapping up all sorts of digital entertainment gadgets, with
adoption rates of many poised for more explosive growth in the next six
years.

Experiencing the most rapid growth might be digital video recorders, which
will be in 42.7 million U.S. households in 2010, up from 6.2 million at the
end of last year.

In the same time frame, DVD recorders will go to 56 million from 12.1
million; MP3 players to 40.1 million from 10.8 million; DVD players to 102.9
million from 76.2 million; and video game consoles to 48.8 million from 40.1
million.

The report, though, appears to give short shrift to satellite radio, not
including it in its U.S. household technology adoption forecast -- though it
does note in a section on in-car device ownership that cars equipped with
satellite radios will double to 5 percent in 2005 and that buyers of Audis
have the highest adoption rate of satellite radios. 

The same section notes that in-car MP3 players are most popular in Acuras,
Isuzus and Lexuses, while in-car video is most popular with GMC buyers.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug  4 05:54:21 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:54:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <200508040332.j743WxR15129@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200508040552.j745qGR26769@tick.javien.com>


Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask, since I am
likely to be preaching to the choir.  But I ask you,
what is so bad about pro athletes taking steroids?  I
can think of several good things about it: they will
map out the territory, by demonstrating what happens
with intense long-term use, point out the health
problems associated with them.  So why not?  

Trying to figure out ways to beat the urine and blood 
tests will push medical technology forward.  We may 
discover some great cures by trying to pump up athletes.  

The fans want to see big pumped up guys swat the
balls into the bleachers, so they can catch them
and auction them on eBay.  And what is so bad about 
preaching to the choir?  Couldn't a sinner infiltrate 
the choir?  Hey, that might actually be kinda cool, 
an under cover secret-agent sinner in the choir.  That 
would be the right place for her anyway, since there
she would be praught to, early and often.

Europeans, are your athletes doing steroids too?

spike






From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 08:52:34 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:52:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Snuppy, frst dog cloned
Message-ID: <470a3c520508040152324d7029@mail.gmail.com>

I love my doggy Sacha <http://prisco.info/sacha/> very much and would clone 
her if given the chance. And I think once pet cloning technology is refined 
and deployed commercially, there will be a profitable market niche for 
companies like Genetic Savings and Clone (link below). And, I don't see 
anything wrong with this. But of course, the main value of end-to-end 
cloning research will be a better understanding of biology that can be used 
to improve the quality of life of human patients.
The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050803/01>: Move over, 
Fluffy; cloning isn't just for
cats<http://www.the-scientist.com/2004/10/25/12/1>anymore. The South
Korean researchers who announced
earlier this year <http://www.biomedcentral.com/pubmed/14963337> that they 
had successfully derived stem cells from a cloned human embryo have now created 
the first-ever dog clone, a male Afghan hound, they
report<http://www.nature.com>in
*Nature* this week.
Hwang attributed his team's success to their ability to produce a nuclear 
transfer construct using in vivo matured oocytes, to transfer it into a 
surrogate mother at an early stage of development without in vitro embryo 
culture, and to optimize the conditions for transfer "through trial and 
error."
The team chose an Afghan hound because the dog was known to have a "gentle 
and docile pedigree," Hwang said. They also had access to a good collection 
of photos of the dog, which had unique fur color and appearance, when it was 
a puppy, he said, making it easier to distinguish whether the clone was 
identical. Microsatellite analysis of genomic DNA from the donor, the cloned 
dogs, and the surrogates confirmed that the clones were genetically 
identical to the donor.
Phil Damiani, chief scientific officer of Genetic Savings &
Clone<http://www.savingsandclone.com/>,
said that his company remained convinced that their technology - which 
relies on chromatin transfer <http://www.biomedcentral.com/pubmed/13679310>, 
rather than nuclear transfer, and egg and embryo assessment prior to cloning 
and transfer?would eventually make it possible to clone dogs
commercially<http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/1/31/41/1>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050804/535c6222/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 16:47:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Snuppy, frst dog cloned
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508040152324d7029@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050804164756.82748.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

A researcher interviewed on the Smuppy story on tv last night said
their success rate for the dog was 0.9%, i.e. they had about 109
failures before they got one right, and they still don't know if there
will be developmental problems with Smuppy as Ian Wilmut had reported
with Dolly.
One might attribute their failure rate to rookie inexperience and
presume they'll get the rate down significantly. We'll see.

Anything Genetic Savings and Clone announces should be taken with a
massive grain of salt...

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:

> I love my doggy Sacha <http://prisco.info/sacha/> very much and would
> clone 
> her if given the chance. And I think once pet cloning technology is
> refined 
> and deployed commercially, there will be a profitable market niche
> for 
> companies like Genetic Savings and Clone (link below). And, I don't
> see 
> anything wrong with this. But of course, the main value of end-to-end
> 
> cloning research will be a better understanding of biology that can
> be used 
> to improve the quality of life of human patients.
> The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050803/01>: Move
> over, 
> Fluffy; cloning isn't just for
> cats<http://www.the-scientist.com/2004/10/25/12/1>anymore. The South
> Korean researchers who announced
> earlier this year <http://www.biomedcentral.com/pubmed/14963337> that
> they 
> had successfully derived stem cells from a cloned human embryo have
> now created 
> the first-ever dog clone, a male Afghan hound, they
> report<http://www.nature.com>in
> *Nature* this week.
> Hwang attributed his team's success to their ability to produce a
> nuclear 
> transfer construct using in vivo matured oocytes, to transfer it into
> a 
> surrogate mother at an early stage of development without in vitro
> embryo 
> culture, and to optimize the conditions for transfer "through trial
> and 
> error."
> The team chose an Afghan hound because the dog was known to have a
> "gentle 
> and docile pedigree," Hwang said. They also had access to a good
> collection 
> of photos of the dog, which had unique fur color and appearance, when
> it was 
> a puppy, he said, making it easier to distinguish whether the clone
> was 
> identical. Microsatellite analysis of genomic DNA from the donor, the
> cloned 
> dogs, and the surrogates confirmed that the clones were genetically 
> identical to the donor.
> Phil Damiani, chief scientific officer of Genetic Savings &
> Clone<http://www.savingsandclone.com/>,
> said that his company remained convinced that their technology -
> which 
> relies on chromatin transfer
> <http://www.biomedcentral.com/pubmed/13679310>, 
> rather than nuclear transfer, and egg and embryo assessment prior to
> cloning 
> and transfer?would eventually make it possible to clone dogs
> commercially<http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/1/31/41/1>.
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 16:54:00 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
Message-ID: <20050804165400.68236.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

https://www.freemarketnews.com/nview.php?nseq=621

FROM COMPUTER TO GOD

Aug 04, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

by staff reports

Moore?s Law states, that at the rate of our technological development,
the complexity of an integrated circuit will double about every 24
months. This implies that computers will continue to get faster,
cheaper and more capable at an exponential rate. Jonan Lanier comments
on the belief of ?cybernetic totalists? who believe that the
distinction between the human brain and a computer will thus continue
to narrow. ?They predict?, Lanier states, ?that computers will
eventually turn into brains, and then surpass brains.? In an interview
with The Sun magazine, he continues, ?More than that, they predict that
this exponential change in computational speed and miniaturization is
leading toward a ?singularity?: at some point, the rate of improvement
in computers will become so fast that people won?t even be able to
perceive it. In the blink of an eye, computers will become godlike and
transcend human understanding. Artificial life will inherit the earth.?

These computer designers use the analogy of evolution to show how this
artificial intelligence will come into being ? though it could some day
come about in an instant, rather than through a process of natural
selection. This outlook makes it easy to see how programmers, along
with the society at large, could slip over to the other side of
reality. Lanier notes, ?Since they?re already living in that future
world in their heads, they tend to design software today to reflect
that imagined destination of tomorrow. This software encourages us to
see the computer as a friend or partner, an entity that we talk to and
treat as an equal, instead of as a tool. ?I find this philosophy of
life to be very shallow, nerdy, dull and antihuman,? he says, ?and it?s
being spread to other people who are using the software developed in
this narrow scientific community.? 

Lanier doesn?t see technology per se as the problem. He believes that
technology ?has enabled new types of cruelty, but, on balance, there is
less.? He notes that the technology of printing books has brought forth
good and bad ones, but on balance, ?books have certainly been good for
humanity.? Eschewing an either/or outlook on the computer age he
concludes, ?What I?m saying is that technology is of such vital
importance that scientists have a profound moral duty to get it right
and not simply trust that some algorithm will make it all ok.? -DS 



Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Aug  4 19:26:03 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:26:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
Message-ID: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>

Jaron is showing systems of behavior of someone who had once been
recognized as an original thinkers and who got stuck in his own genre.  

Some futurist thinkers advance at one point in their lives and then get
rigid and become irrationally prejudiced about others whose ideas branch
out further than their own.

I remember this with FM-2030.  He is an outstanding visionary who could not
escape his own resistance to change when he refused to use email and
advance beyond being a 20th century bachelor.  Ray Kurzweil's lack of
appreciation about transhumanism is another example of not accepting a
cultural movement that can advance beyond his own ideas.  Betty Freidan
could not escape her own emotional shortsightedness.  John Naisbitt had
every option to get into superlongevity and transhumanism and, instead,
side-stepped it and reverted to a lack luster repetition of his former
works.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More


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




From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 19:30:35 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:30:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/4/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Jaron is showing systems of behavior of someone who had once been
> recognized as an original thinkers and who got stuck in his own genre.
> 
> Some futurist thinkers advance at one point in their lives and then get
> rigid and become irrationally prejudiced about others whose ideas branch
> out further than their own.
> 
[examples snipped]

Problem identified. How do we avoid it? Examples of particular
dangers? How do we self-diagnose, and how do we solve it?

(Still waiting for Mike's teleportation references too.)
-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From max at maxmore.com  Thu Aug  4 19:41:33 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:41:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Ray Kurzweil interviewed on Charlie Rose show
 tonight on PBS
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804144036.03bd19b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Talking of Ray....

Charlie Rose may be the best interviewer on TV for those interested in 
ideas rather than gossip.

Max

>Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:28:48 -0400
>From: Ray Kurzweil <ray at kurzweiltech.com>
>Subject: Ray Kurzweil interviewed on Charlie Rose show tonight on PBS
>
>Ray Kurzweil will be interviewed tonight (Wednesday, August 3) on the 
>Charlie Rose national PBS show.  In most areas, the show airs at 11 pm in 
>all time zones.  Ray's interview will be early in the program and is about 
>20 minutes.  He will be discussing both books: Fantastic Voyage, Live Long 
>Enough to Live Forever by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D. (Rodale, 
>November 2004), and the upcoming The Singularity is Near, When Humans 
>Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil (Viking, September, 2005).
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>You're invited to visit
>[]
><http://www.kurzweilai.net/>KurzweilAI.net, award-winning home of the big 
>thinkers. Also, subscribe to our free (daily or weekly) e-newsletter, your 
>guide to accelerating intelligence (just enter your email address at 
>bottom of home page). PRIVACY STATEMENT: we don't share your email address 
>with anyone.
>
>

_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: d59d2e.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 690 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050804/7392bb61/attachment.jpg>

From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 19:48:57 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:48:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Ray Kurzweil interviewed on Charlie Rose show
	tonight on PBS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804144036.03bd19b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804144036.03bd19b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b0508041248692be921@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/4/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Talking of Ray....
> 
> Charlie Rose may be the best interviewer on TV for those interested in
> ideas rather than gossip.
> 

For those of you who missed it, you can purchase (US$35) a DVD at this link.

http://www.charlierose.com/shop/showTapesbydate.asp?m=8&d=3&y=2005

Anyone know if it exists as streaming video?

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Aug  4 20:16:14 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:16:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
References: <200508040552.j745qGR26769@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c59931$5d4c35d0$0300a8c0@Nano>

It can cause cancer. G`
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: spike 
  To: 'ExI chat list' 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:54 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] roids



  Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask, since I am
  likely to be preaching to the choir.  But I ask you,
  what is so bad about pro athletes taking steroids?  I
  can think of several good things about it: they will
  map out the territory, by demonstrating what happens
  with intense long-term use, point out the health
  problems associated with them.  So why not?  

  Trying to figure out ways to beat the urine and blood 
  tests will push medical technology forward.  We may 
  discover some great cures by trying to pump up athletes.  

  The fans want to see big pumped up guys swat the
  balls into the bleachers, so they can catch them
  and auction them on eBay.  And what is so bad about 
  preaching to the choir?  Couldn't a sinner infiltrate 
  the choir?  Hey, that might actually be kinda cool, 
  an under cover secret-agent sinner in the choir.  That 
  would be the right place for her anyway, since there
  she would be praught to, early and often.

  Europeans, are your athletes doing steroids too?

  spike




  _______________________________________________
  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/20050804/07bd9691/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 20:51:37 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 21:51:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation
Message-ID: <ee50357e05080413516490cc79@mail.gmail.com>

Many quantum physics researchers seem to be playing with quantum
teleportation and spooky entanglement effects at a distance.

Teleportation: Express Lane Space Travel by Leonard David
Senior Space Writer,  posted: 08 July 2005
<http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050708_teleportation.html>
Quote "Over the last few years, however, researchers have successfully
teleported beams of light across a laboratory bench. Also, the quantum
state of a trapped calcium ion to another calcium ion has been
teleported in a controlled way."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation>

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0818_040818_teleportation.html>
Teleportation Takes Quantum Leap
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News, April 18, 2004

Quote: "Austrian researchers have teleported photons (particles of
light) across the Danube River in Vienna using technology that calls
to mind Scotty beaming up Captain Kirk in the science fiction series."

<http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040617/040617-1.html>
Quantum teleportation with atoms

And, finally,
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/>
Has enough quantum weirdness to make your remaining hairs stand on end.

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Aug  4 21:02:35 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:02:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05080413516490cc79@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05080413516490cc79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050804160144.01dc4380@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:51 PM 8/4/2005 +0100, BillK wrote:

>Has enough quantum weirdness to make your remaining hairs stand on end.

Certainly not:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0508/0508021.pdf

It is common belief among physicists that entangled
states of quantum systems lose their coherence
rather quickly. The reason is that any interaction
with the environment which distinguishes
between the entangled sub-systems collapses the
quantum state. Here we investigate entangled
states of two trapped Ca+ ions and observe robust
entanglement lasting for more than 20 seconds.







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 21:04:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <002d01c59931$5d4c35d0$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Broccoli can cause cancer, so what? Most of the things we do in life
have cancer risk. Lets just prohibit cancer? I realize this may hit
home a bit and don't mean to offend.

--- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

> It can cause cancer. G`
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: spike 
>   To: 'ExI chat list' 
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:54 PM
>   Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
> 
> 
> 
>   Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask, since I am
>   likely to be preaching to the choir.  But I ask you,
>   what is so bad about pro athletes taking steroids?  I
>   can think of several good things about it: they will
>   map out the territory, by demonstrating what happens
>   with intense long-term use, point out the health
>   problems associated with them.  So why not?  
> 
>   Trying to figure out ways to beat the urine and blood 
>   tests will push medical technology forward.  We may 
>   discover some great cures by trying to pump up athletes.  
> 
>   The fans want to see big pumped up guys swat the
>   balls into the bleachers, so they can catch them
>   and auction them on eBay.  And what is so bad about 
>   preaching to the choir?  Couldn't a sinner infiltrate 
>   the choir?  Hey, that might actually be kinda cool, 
>   an under cover secret-agent sinner in the choir.  That 
>   would be the right place for her anyway, since there
>   she would be praught to, early and often.
> 
>   Europeans, are your athletes doing steroids too?
> 
>   spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _______________________________________________
>   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
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 21:17:46 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:17:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <002d01c59931$5d4c35d0$0300a8c0@Nano>
	<20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508041417379e041@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Broccoli can cause cancer, so what? Most of the things we do in life
> have cancer risk. Lets just prohibit cancer? I realize this may hit
> home a bit and don't mean to offend.
> 

This is a really silly comment, Mike.
Are you trying to equate the effects of steroids with the effects of broccoli?
I mean, really??

Actually, to be strictly correct, steroids don't cause cancer. They
destroy the immune system, which in turn means you get cancers and
other illnesses.

"Another serious steroid problem is that we all need aggressive immune
systems to fight infections and cancers, but steroids knock that out.
People on high doses of steroids for medical reasons can die from
chest infections and cancers of many kinds. We see these patterns in
those who receive organ transplants, who need often need huge doses of
steroids to stop the body from destroying the donated tissue. Cancers
often develop, which shows us how important our white cells are in
keeping us cancer-free, and how often all of us develop cancer in our
daily lives. Most of us may have two or three tiny cancers inside us
at any time. Taking high dose steroids makes it more likely one of
these will develop rapidly."

Whereas, if you google on 'broccoli cancer'
you will see that research is finding that broccoli protects you
against some cancers.


Eat your greens - it's good for you!

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Aug  4 21:57:55 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:57:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0508041417379e041@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002d01c59931$5d4c35d0$0300a8c0@Nano>
	<20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0508041417379e041@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050804165705.01d9be70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
> > Broccoli can cause cancer, so what?



>This is a really silly comment, Mike.
>Are you trying to equate the effects of steroids with the effects of broccoli?
>I mean, really??
>
>Actually, to be strictly correct, steroids don't cause cancer. They
>destroy the immune system, which in turn means you get cancers and
>other illnesses.

Not to mention the dreaded `roid rage' psychosis.

Damien Broderick 



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 21:58:46 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <200508040552.j745qGR26769@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050804215846.97101.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask, since I am
> likely to be preaching to the choir.  But I ask you,
> what is so bad about pro athletes taking steroids? 
> I
> can think of several good things about it: they will
> map out the territory, by demonstrating what happens
> with intense long-term use, point out the health
> problems associated with them.  So why not?  

The election of RR in 1980 marked the launch of the
right wing culture-war anti-drug jihad whose motto was
Nancy R's famous "Just say no." (As in "Don't think
about it, that'll only confuse you.  In fact don't
think at all, no need.  We already know everything you
need to know, so just do/think what we tell you.")  
As the right rose, the left faded.  They faded, in my
view, because they--the 60's/70's
sex-drugs-rock'n'roll, hippie, personal freedom
culture warriors--realized, upon graduating from
college, that a successful career in the larger
America meant "putting on a suit" and buttoning their
lips.  

So the "drug war" was launched **AND THE MEME-SPACE
UTTERLY DOMINATED BY ANTI-DRUG RHETORIC**.  When the
meme-space is all one way, the promoted view rises
beyond "conscious" truth--the sort of truth that is
accessible to critical examination--to become a
foundational "reality"--a fundamental assumption,
'preconscious' and inaccessible to critical review. 
Religion.

Drugs are evil.  Therefore performance enhancing drugs
are evil.  God's way, the natural way, is the only
way.  All else is the work of evildoers, the minions
of Satan.

Wave bye bye to science, rationality, and the
reality-based community.

Best, Jeff Davis

"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental
ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of
our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we
should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and
love of power." - P. J. O'Rourke




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From max at maxmore.com  Thu Aug  4 22:24:33 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:24:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Web video Link: View Charlie Rose interview
 with Ray Kurzweil
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804172415.03ca5280@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


>Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:56:43 -0400
>From: Ray Kurzweil <ray at kurzweiltech.com>
>Subject: Web video Link: View Charlie Rose interview with Ray Kurzweil
>
>You can view the video at:
>
><http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/wmv/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/pub/CharlieRosePBS/rose.wmv>http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/wmv/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/pub/CharlieRosePBS/rose.wmv
>
>Ray Kurzweil was interviewed last night (August 3) on the Charlie Rose 
>national PBS show.  Ray's interview is about 20 minutes.  Charlie and Ray 
>discuss both of Ray's recent books: Fantastic Voyage, Live Long Enough to 
>Live Forever by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D. (Rodale, November 
>2004), and the upcoming The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend 
>Biology by Ray Kurzweil (Viking, September, 2005).
>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Aug  4 22:38:28 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:38:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Web video Link: View Charlie Rose interview with Ray
	Kurzweil
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050804173735.01d8aa08@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Ray says: You can view the video at

<http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/wmv/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/pub/CharlieRosePBS/rose.wmv>http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/wmv/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/pub/CharlieRosePBS/rose.wmv

Ray Kurzweil was interviewed last night (August 3) on the Charlie Rose 
national PBS show.  Ray's interview is about 20 minutes.  Charlie and Ray 
discuss both of Ray's recent books: Fantastic Voyage, Live Long Enough to 
Live Forever by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D. (Rodale, November 
2004), and the upcoming The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend 
Biology by Ray Kurzweil (Viking, September, 2005).




From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Thu Aug  4 22:53:25 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:53:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050804165705.01d9be70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <002d01c59931$5d4c35d0$0300a8c0@Nano>
	<20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0508041417379e041@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050804165705.01d9be70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c705080415534bc5bd8d@mail.gmail.com>

Welcome to the Enhanced Sports League.

Here at ESL, we promote the improvement of the Human condition through
the combination of Science and sports.

We now include enhanced versions of Football, American Football,
Rugby, Baseball, Basketball, Wrestling, Fencing, Golf, and Chess.

We encourage our athletes to take advantage of "performance enhancers"
of both the pharmaceutical and technological varieties.  We also
require that they have monthly physical exams, and attend
psychotherapy to ensure the safety and efficacy of the performance
enhancers that they use.

We have had some radical successes, such as Enhanced Baseball Star
Arlo Sosara who uses not only some of the latest in performance drugs,
but also has a surgically attached cybernetic exo-skeleton.  Mr. Sosa
regularly hits the ball up to three times farther than his MLB
counterparts.

Two years ago our American Football teams began using Augmented
Reality and Wearable computers.  Using Personal Area Networks in the
Huddle the Quarterback can now communicate her chosen Play
instantaneously to her teammates, and the wide reciever can see in his
headsup display the route he is to take.  We also have replaced the
old style bulky pads with a new lightweight ultra tough body armor.   
Both of these things are now being used by a number of law enforcement
and first responder agencies with great effect.

We here in the ESL are very serious about the safety of our athletes,
and require that they undergo constant medical supervision to insure
that they remain in the best of health both physically and mentally. 
As a result we have worked with several companies to develop always on
medical monitoring systems that are lightweight, comfortable and easy
to use.  The NIH has credited these new devices with saving thousands
of lives as people have been alerted to the very early signs of Heart
Attacks and Strokes.

Come on down to your next ESL sporting event and see what Humans can do.

ESL  "The Future in Sports"


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  4 23:11:53 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <20050804210422.34769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050804231153.45967.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

the standard response i get is: "steroids are against the law for pro athletes"
 


 
> Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask, since I am
> likely to be preaching to the choir. But I ask you,
> what is so bad about pro athletes taking steroids? I
> can think of several good things about it: they will
> map out the territory, by demonstrating what happens
> with intense long-term use, point out the health
> problems associated with them. So why not? 
> 
> Trying to figure out ways to beat the urine and blood 
> tests will push medical technology forward. We may 
> discover some great cures by trying to pump up athletes. 
> 
> The fans want to see big pumped up guys swat the
> balls into the bleachers, so they can catch them
> and auction them on eBay. And what is so bad about 
> preaching to the choir? Couldn't a sinner infiltrate 
> the choir? Hey, that might actually be kinda cool, 
> an under cover secret-agent sinner in the choir. That 
> would be the right place for her anyway, since there
> she would be praught to, early and often.
> 
> Europeans, are your athletes doing steroids too?
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050804/bd48f48d/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 00:18:52 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <20050804215846.97101.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050805001852.63243.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> Drugs are evil.  Therefore performance enhancing drugs
> are evil.  God's way, the natural way, is the only
> way.  All else is the work of evildoers, the minions
> of Satan.
> 
> Wave bye bye to science, rationality, and the
> reality-based community.

Since when has the left ever been based on any rationality or reality?
And science, after all is a subjective practice of patriarchal
phallocentric white males, or so my leftist friends all tell me...

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Aug  5 01:01:09 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:31:09 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/08/05, Jay Dugger <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > Jaron is showing systems of behavior of someone who had once been
> > recognized as an original thinkers and who got stuck in his own genre.
> >
> > Some futurist thinkers advance at one point in their lives and then get
> > rigid and become irrationally prejudiced about others whose ideas branch
> > out further than their own.
> >
> [examples snipped]
> 
> Problem identified. How do we avoid it? Examples of particular
> dangers? How do we self-diagnose, and how do we solve it?
> 
> (Still waiting for Mike's teleportation references too.)
> --
> Jay Dugger
> BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
> HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
> LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
> Sometimes the delete key serves best.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

I recognise this trait in myself sometimes. In software development
it's a constant problem, because the world moves so quickly. Anyone
who's been working in tech for a long time (hello just about everyone
on this list!) will understand the impulse to fight the new and stick
with what you understand.

In the computing world I really feel the speedup; things change much
more quickly now than they did at the start of my career. Also,
fundamental changes sneak up quietly while you are only noticing the
surface technology changes, and blindside you. To work in the computer
industry is either to have a shelf life, or to live with an ongoing
and perhaps increasing level of future shock (like Manfred Macx in
Accelerando).

Many people advise in programming that you have to be a constant
learner, come at it with beginner's mind, and I think that's a
no-brainer. However, I think that to really have longevity, you need
to be an expert forgetter, which is the really tough thing. It means
letting go of hard won knowledge, and what comes with it (especially
the status/prestige of the expert).

What I've noticed in recent times is an irrational predjudice toward
certain technologies, either in other areas from where I normally
focus (for me, the Linux world is this because I work in MS
technologies), or toward new stuff (where I tell myself "oh, it's just
the same old stuff being peddled out again, better to stick with the
tried and true").

That's the same problem the futurists have that Natasha describes. As
change overwhelms you, undermines your expert credibility and slowly
erodes your ability to relevantly contribute, it is a natural human
reaction I think to fight the change, even in those of us who
explicitly embrace change.

Self diagnosis with stuff like this best comes from periodically
explicitly examining your mental state. For this problem, you simple
want to ask "Do I have unusually high levels of fear and loathing? Do
I have perceived enemy *paradigms*? Are those paradigms pretty much
unexamined (see the process I outline below)? Is this more the case
than, say, a couple of years ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago?". If the
level has increased, you may have this problem.

I'm a big fan of finding concrete ways to address what are essentially
emotional issues. For self diagnosis and addressing the problem, you
need unambiguous detection techniques and unambiguous solutions,
especially if you are the kind of intelligent person who can otherwise
rationalise the most irrational course of action (which most of us
here probably can!).

The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of tech
/ architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
simply, I try to embrace them.

I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
building something using one or more of them.

Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
for a while (maybe a few weeks). I find I need to change my POV like
this to really get a feeling for the deep meaning behind whatever the
thing is. And often I suddenly see things from that other point of
view, and learn something!

Or, at this point I can reject the idea if it still seems like crap,
or if I can see why it is not good, but why its supporters would think
it is good (because I've tried being one).

This technique takes a lot of work; you've got to learn stuff under
your own steam. OTOH, I'm assuming that people on this list do that as
a matter of course anyway, so think of it as a way of directing your
ongoing self-education.

One warning though, doing this with Linux when you work in a Microsoft
shop earns you no friends, take it from me :-)

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Aug  5 02:13:56 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:43:56 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Shallow learning (was PR: Lanier trashing >Hism
	again...)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050804183224420182@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050804201350.01dbc488@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc050804183224420182@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050804191335a1d4b5@mail.gmail.com>

An email I sent to Damien, which he advised I should forward to the list...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
Date: 05-Aug-2005 11:02
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
To: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>


Thanks. Yes, I find myself working on the bleeding edge at the moment,
which is incredibly fascinating, but not completely fun,
interestingly. I'm surrounded by future shocked collegues who cope
varyingly from not at all well to ok.

A really interesting observation (to me) is that the main way of
coping is via shallow learning. When things change really quickly, and
you can get by with a technology by looking up a few webpages and
cribbing a bit of code from someone else, it becomes increasingly
difficult to justify (on a day to day basis) actually learning
something so that you really understand it. I had a couple of guys
giving me shit the other day because I have decided to spend the next
year getting to know everything about one of the more basic
technologies that we use; they just couldn't understand why you would
do that, when you can just cobble along (very successfully I might
add) by grabbing examples and so on from the web written by other
people who understand. One guy eventually concluded that I wanted to
"give back", purely altruistically, and said "yeah, I guess it would
be nice to do that" with the subtext "jeezus you are some kind of
circus freak".

When I started programming, you couldn't do this because there was no
web. You had to actually learn things yourself the hard way. These
days it is exactly opposite; people in general do not have deep
understanding. And this is a good thing, because you cannot speed up
the industry without it; the people who leech rather than know can
move at a blinding speed using bits and pieces from everywhere. This
is one feedback loop at the heart of accelerating technology; the
usefulness of people needing to know less gives rise to technologies
that enable that, which in turn makes it mandatory to know less, which
makes improvements in the enabling technologies even more important,
etc. Even the people who really know some stuff, are clueless about
other stuff and likewise leech. It's how technology works now, and a
really good clue as to how dumb meatbrains will ever get to the
singularity.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 03:30:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Shallow learning (was PR: Lanier trashing >Hism
	again...)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050804191335a1d4b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050805033042.22341.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even the people who really know some stuff, are clueless about
> other stuff and likewise leech. It's how technology works now, and a
> really good clue as to how dumb meatbrains will ever get to the
> singularity.

I hereby predict that the first uploaded mind will be a pointy haired manager....

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Aug  5 03:52:46 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:52:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c705080415534bc5bd8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508050350.j753ogR21553@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Calvin
...
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] roids
> 
> Welcome to the Enhanced Sports League...
> Come on down to your next ESL sporting event and see what Humans can do.
> 
> ESL  "The Future in Sports"
...

You have the right idea John.  I offer the following modest
proposal that should take care of everyone.

We split the major sports into three leagues or divisions, 
call them traditional, enhanced and retro:  

The traditional league stays the same as current sports, 
no drugs or roids allowed.

The enhanced league is no-holds-barred, do any kind of
drug or body enhancement the athletes wish to do.

The retro league is no drugs and no practice, no exercise,
no training, no doing anything that would contribute to one's 
game in any way.  They can play the game, but no practicing or 
workouts allowed.  This would be kinda like the way sports 
would have been done a couple hundred years ago when people 
needed to tend the farm, not play games with their time.

The market will pick the winner: sets see which league 
sells the tickets.

spike 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Aug  5 06:30:08 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:30:08 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Shallow learning (was PR: Lanier trashing
	>Hismagain...)
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com><5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050804201350.01dbc488@pop-server.satx.rr.com><710b78fc050804183224420182@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc050804191335a1d4b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c59987$20639900$0d98e03c@homepc>

Emlyn, I completely agree re shallow learning.

Except, er, that acronymn, "dumb meatbrain" really has me
stumped, I googled and got nowhere  ;-)

Brett Paatsch




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Aug  5 13:56:56 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:56:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again... 
Message-ID: <380-2200585513565621@M2W031.mail2web.com>


> > Jaron is showing systems of behavior of someone who had once been 
> > recognized as an original thinkers and who got stuck in his own genre. 
> > 
> > Some futurist thinkers advance at one point in their lives and then get 
> > rigid and become irrationally prejudiced about others whose ideas
branch 
> > out further than their own. 
> > 
>[examples snipped] 
> 
>Problem identified. How do we avoid it? Examples of particular 
>dangers? How do we self-diagnose, and how do we solve it? 

Good.  I like the proactive approach.

Let's discuss this.  (I am using "you" as all of us, not any specific
person.)

I think an active way to avoid becoming stuck is to have a solid base of
friends/colleagues who take the time to observe and suggest. These people
will help spot us when we develop characteristics of rigid thinking.  They
do not let you get away with BS, but care enough about us or our work to
alert us to the behavior and also help us avoid it.

Most people choose friends who either make them feel good or make them feel
bad.  Either choice is not advantageous if the motive is not to help us.  
But, herein, we have to tell our friends to be honest with us because most
of us get a bit uneasy about telling each other what we really think.

Max and I have discussed this a lot and we agree that transhumanism needs
clear headed, critical thinkers who are advocates of reason and will speak
up and explore all sides of an issue.  We need what I can "spotters"
(gymnastic term) to both assist us and help us over the bar.  Often time we
are hooraying each other rather than working to consider the consequences,
the effects, how others are affected, and where we are headed.**

Warning:  These same people are not the ones who have an irrational motive
but assert themselves as being objective.  

[An aside:  We have to leave ourselves and our work open to critique.  In
the art world this is a common practice. We artists critique each other's
work and we are very open and honest about it.  It is a skill we develop
and learn how to administer with finesse as well as well-versed references
and research about why we form an opinion in the critiquing process.  Film
critics critique films, but they get off on being "personalities" or
developing a "reputation" that reflects themselves rather than, for the
most part, being true critical thinkers.]

So, the first thing we need to do is practice the art of critical
assessment and also develop the wherewithal to accept objective critiquing.

(Perhaps on an adjacent thread we could discuss specific issues in
transhumanism where critiquing would be wise and what
ideas/projects/people/organizations/ideas, etc. would be well served by
allowing themselves to be critiqued.)

2.  The second suggestion is to work to develop a ** framework for
transhumanism (which I have started, vis a vis my talk at TV05), and a
series of ** scenarios (which I would love to work on with anyone!).

But this does not have to be so expansive.  It can be done for each person
or his/her organization or company.

3.  A third suggestion is to use the TransColloquium which was not
supported by many organizations or people but which I think can still serve
a substantial purpose for transhumanism.

The above are early morning thoughts which need to be expanded upon.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More










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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 14:18:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] roids
In-Reply-To: <200508050350.j753ogR21553@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050805141838.35770.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> The retro league is no drugs and no practice, no exercise,
> no training, no doing anything that would contribute to one's 
> game in any way.  They can play the game, but no practicing or 
> workouts allowed.  This would be kinda like the way sports 
> would have been done a couple hundred years ago when people 
> needed to tend the farm, not play games with their time.

They'd have to use 1900 baseball gloves, padding, shoes and wool
uniforms. No flying to games, they'd have to ride Ford Buses or ride
the train (or go by steamship) or horse and buggy. They could work out,
but using 1900 exercise equipment and 1900 era ideas of nutrition (and
1900 quality canning technology). Oh, and they'd all have to have those
Abner Doubleday handlebar moustaches...

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Aug  5 15:35:46 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:35:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805103351.01ca2c60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


Nice line from 
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/080505/loc_column001.shtml :

Although this kind of announcement might have generated genuine outrage, it 
isn't the first time the president has said this kind of thing. So, it only 
generated some lazy anger, perhaps best summed up by The Editors at 
Thepoorman.net, with this:

"The silver lining is that school is going to be a lot less stressful when 
the answer to every question on the midterm is 'because it is God's will.' 
So there is that."



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Aug  5 16:50:56 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:50:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E3324A75-CD27-49BF-AADD-FCFE03CA88C4@mac.com>


On Aug 4, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Emlyn wrote:
> I recognise this trait in myself sometimes. In software development
> it's a constant problem, because the world moves so quickly. Anyone
> who's been working in tech for a long time (hello just about everyone
> on this list!) will understand the impulse to fight the new and stick
> with what you understand.
>

The part of the "new" in software that I am most troubled by is the  
highly hyped partial rehash of things thought through more thoroughly  
a decade or two ago.   There is on the other hand much that is truly  
new that I am delighted by.   Then there are new ways of development  
and fast changing sets of tools that are interesting but hard to  
fully evaluate or even find time to lightly explore.

> In the computing world I really feel the speedup; things change much
> more quickly now than they did at the start of my career. Also,
> fundamental changes sneak up quietly while you are only noticing the
> surface technology changes, and blindside you. To work in the computer
> industry is either to have a shelf life, or to live with an ongoing
> and perhaps increasing level of future shock (like Manfred Macx in
> Accelerando).

In computer languages I am not shocked at all.  I am usually  
disappointed and bored by the languages per se although much good  
exploration of many features not terribly practical on low cost  
hardware until recently is making things somewhat interesting.

>
> Many people advise in programming that you have to be a constant
> learner, come at it with beginner's mind, and I think that's a
> no-brainer.

Actually it is more useful to come at it with a well organized  
conceptual map developed and modified over time.  Only with the map  
and the ability to refine it can the wheat be separated from the  
chaff in the "new".


> However, I think that to really have longevity, you need
> to be an expert forgetter, which is the really tough thing. It means
> letting go of hard won knowledge, and what comes with it (especially
> the status/prestige of the expert).
>

I don't  believe that real expertise at the level of fundamental  
knowledge, aesthetics  and, dare I say, wisdom is something any of us  
can afford to forget.

> What I've noticed in recent times is an irrational predjudice toward
> certain technologies, either in other areas from where I normally
> focus (for me, the Linux world is this because I work in MS
> technologies), or toward new stuff (where I tell myself "oh, it's just
> the same old stuff being peddled out again, better to stick with the
> tried and true").

There is truth and falsehood in that thought.  Not all change is for  
the good.  Some of it involves large scale forgetting of very  
important things and their painful relearning in a somewhat [often  
superficial] different context.

>
> Self diagnosis with stuff like this best comes from periodically
> explicitly examining your mental state. For this problem, you simple
> want to ask "Do I have unusually high levels of fear and loathing? Do
> I have perceived enemy *paradigms*? Are those paradigms pretty much
> unexamined (see the process I outline below)? Is this more the case
> than, say, a couple of years ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago?". If the
> level has increased, you may have this problem.
>
> I'm a big fan of finding concrete ways to address what are essentially
> emotional issues.

That doesn't always work when the important thing being examined is a  
set of fundamental useful abstractions.   Much is called an  
"emotional issue" which real conceals some important abstraction[s]  
that the parties are having difficulties capturing, communicating and  
considering.
The emotion often then grows out of frustration.

> For self diagnosis and addressing the problem, you
> need unambiguous detection techniques and unambiguous solutions,
> especially if you are the kind of intelligent person who can otherwise
> rationalise the most irrational course of action (which most of us
> here probably can!).

Much that is important is full of subtle ambiguity.

>
> The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of tech
> / architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
> simply, I try to embrace them.
>
> I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
> idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
> always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
> building something using one or more of them.
>

That can be worthwhile.  Often you learn what is good in the tech in  
question.  Often you also learn what is objectionable about it and  
have your discomfort further justified.

> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks).

This (the artificial pretense) does not seem like a rational course  
to me.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050805/df5b238a/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Aug  5 16:54:54 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:54:54 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805103351.01ca2c60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805103351.01ca2c60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42F399DE.2020302@aol.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

>
> Nice line from 
> http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/080505/loc_column001.shtml :
>
> Although this kind of announcement might have generated genuine 
> outrage, it isn't the first time the president has said this kind of 
> thing. So, it only generated some lazy anger, perhaps best summed up 
> by The Editors at Thepoorman.net, with this:
>
> "The silver lining is that school is going to be a lot less stressful 
> when the answer to every question on the midterm is 'because it is 
> God's will.' So there is that."
>
Not that different from "because it gives them an evolutionary advantage".

Robbie





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug  5 17:10:23 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F399DE.2020302@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050805171023.73380.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Nice line from 
> > http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/080505/loc_column001.shtml :
> >
> > Although this kind of announcement might have generated genuine 
> > outrage, it isn't the first time the president has said this kind
> of 
> > thing. So, it only generated some lazy anger, perhaps best summed
> up 
> > by The Editors at Thepoorman.net, with this:
> >
> > "The silver lining is that school is going to be a lot less
> stressful 
> > when the answer to every question on the midterm is 'because it is 
> > God's will.' So there is that."
> >
> Not that different from "because it gives them an evolutionary
> advantage".

Not really.  "Evolutionary advantage" has to be useful in some manner.
(Granted, there can be and are all manner of odd uses, but they are
uses; this excludes some paths of development.)  "God's will" is a
looser requirement (it does not get across the concept of "can" versus
"can't": absolutely anything can be justified as "God's will",
including things that are provably useless - which then extends to
non-evolutionary things, for instance "kill the heathens" can be
justified as "God's will" when, if viewed without a supernatural lens,
it would be clear that it's just murder which is going to make a bunch
of people angry).


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Fri Aug  5 17:43:16 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:43:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Barnett offers preview copies of "Blueprint
	for Action."
Message-ID: <5366105b05080510437e1fd3a2@mail.gmail.com>

Friday, 05 August 2005

Hello all:

The author of "The Pentagon's New Map" offered preview copies of his
upcoming book, "Blueprint for Action," on his blog.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002102.html

Demand is high, and an interested party needs to write him to plead
the case. I lack impressive credentials, and so wait for Amazon. Some
list-members have better reputations, and so might do better.

Barnett and his book, for all the controversy, really do focus on
making the world work for everyone. (If he hasn't read Fuller, I'll
eat a ounce of salt.) The recent New Map Game bore more than a little
resemblance to RBF's World Game. His idea set has interesting
intersections with some hereabouts, and I would like to see what
others think--esp. if you can get an advance copy of the new book.

As usual--this post means to suggest action and stimulate discussion.
I will filter flames.

-- 
Jay Dugger
BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/
HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger
Sometimes the delete key serves best.


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Fri Aug  5 17:54:55 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:54:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <E3324A75-CD27-49BF-AADD-FCFE03CA88C4@mac.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
	<E3324A75-CD27-49BF-AADD-FCFE03CA88C4@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f05080510543cfe578a@mail.gmail.com>

> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks).
> 
> This (the artificial pretense) does not seem like a rational course to me. 

If you take into account how often people dismiss ideas before truly
understanding them, it seems quite rational.

-- 
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 18:16:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F399DE.2020302@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050805181653.79937.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we might as well demand
equal time and insist that the Simulation Argument be taught in schools
as well. At least it is logically consistent.

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nice line from 
> > http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/080505/loc_column001.shtml :
> >
> > Although this kind of announcement might have generated genuine 
> > outrage, it isn't the first time the president has said this kind
> of 
> > thing. So, it only generated some lazy anger, perhaps best summed
> up 
> > by The Editors at Thepoorman.net, with this:
> >
> > "The silver lining is that school is going to be a lot less
> stressful 
> > when the answer to every question on the midterm is 'because it is 
> > God's will.' So there is that."
> >
> Not that different from "because it gives them an evolutionary
> advantage".
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Aug  5 18:33:17 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:33:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050805181653.79937.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <42F399DE.2020302@aol.com>
	<20050805181653.79937.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805132945.01d72058@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:16 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, Mike L. wrote:

>Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we might as well demand
>equal time and insist that the Simulation Argument be taught in schools
>as well. At least it is logically consistent.

And Pythagorean astronomy, and astrology. And Mormon North American 
history. And Scientology cosmogony. And Christian science medical theory. 
"It's good for the children to hear the other side." Apparently there's 
only one other side.

Damien Broderick 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 18:45:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805132945.01d72058@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

hey, why not. If Bush is going to use a liberal principle of open
mindedness to justify teaching a radically conservative religious
theory, perhaps it needs to be taken to its logical absurd
conclusion.... of course the astrology is the work of the devil (;))
but the Simulation Argument is both logically consistent and doesn't
step on any Christian toes, other than the idea that each simulated
universe has a unique creator....

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 11:16 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, Mike L. wrote:
> 
> >Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we might as well demand
> >equal time and insist that the Simulation Argument be taught in
> schools
> >as well. At least it is logically consistent.
> 
> And Pythagorean astronomy, and astrology. And Mormon North American 
> history. And Scientology cosmogony. And Christian science medical
> theory. 
> "It's good for the children to hear the other side." Apparently
> there's 
> only one other side.
> 
> Damien Broderick 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Aug  5 18:58:38 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:58:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805132945.01d72058@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805135238.01ca1da0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>of course [for Xians] the astrology is the work of the devil (;)

How is that possible? (1) We are born precisely when God wishes us to be 
born; (2) the planets and stars are where they are at any given moment 
because that is God's design. The only thing that could be the work of the 
devil is the interpretative apparatus, which just means that diabolical 
astrology must be replaced as urgently as possible by wholesome Xian 
astrology. Is it possible, though, that despite (1) and (2), there is no 
diagnostic or prophetic link between the two? Well, before entertaining 
such an outlandish hypothesis, let's not forget that the three Magi were 
drawn to Bethlehem by their accurate astrological diagnosis.

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 19:03:39 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA: Mens brains wired to ignore women....
Message-ID: <20050805190339.26530.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=63452&pt=n

FRIDAY 05/08/2005 12:54:46      
Male brains 'not wired' to listen to women

Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse.    
  
Scientists have found that women`s voices are more difficult for men to
listen to than men`s.

Researchers at the University of Sheffield tracked activity in the
brains of 12 men while playing recordings of different voices.

There were startling differences in the way the brain responded to male
and female sounds.

Men deciphered female voices using the auditory part of the brain that
processes music.

Male voices engaged a simpler mechanism at the back of the brain.

Researcher Dr Michael Hunter said today: "The female voice is actually
more complex than the male voice, due to differences in the size and
shape of the vocal cords and larynx between men and women, and also due
to women having greater natural `melody` in their voices. This causes a
more complex range of sound frequencies than in a male voice.

"When a man hears a female voice the auditory section of his brain is
activated, which analyses the different sounds in order to `read` the
voice and determine the auditory face.

"When men hear a male voice the part of the brain that processes the
information is towards the back of the brain and is colloquially known
as the `mind`s eye`. This is the part of the brain where people compare
their experiences to themselves, so the man is comparing his own voice
to the new voice to determine gender."

The findings, published in the journal NeuroImage, may help explain why
people suffering hallucinations usually hear male voices, say the
scientists.

It could be that the brain finds it much harder to conjure up a false
female voice accurately than a false male voice.
 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug  5 19:05:21 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Barnett offers preview copies of "Blueprint
	for Action."
In-Reply-To: <5366105b05080510437e1fd3a2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050805190521.71755.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Jay Dugger <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:
> The author of "The Pentagon's New Map" offered preview copies of his
> upcoming book, "Blueprint for Action," on his blog.
> 
> http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002102.html
> 
> Demand is high, and an interested party needs to write him to plead
> the case.

It's so high, that in a later post (the next day!), he says he's out
of preview copies, but may send advance copies.  Pleading the case may
be easy, though, given the requirements he lists on the post.  (Even
you might be able to, Jay: claim that you want to review it on behalf
of the Extropy Institute - posting a review to this list would
technically fulfill that obligation - and explain ExI in terms he'd
recognize as wanting to play a role in the world he's mapping out.)

Possible sign of approaching Singularity: when moving fast enough, is
no longer fast enough.  (Not that it's mostly Sing-related in this
case: he's just that popular.  He boasts of having gotten a request
from a senior advisor to a member of the UK's Parilament after having
run out of preview copies.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug  5 19:13:46 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Interesting post on hacking the self
In-Reply-To: <42EFB6CF.70005@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050805191346.11871.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

Hmm...it seems accurate (if leaving out a few things) to summarize his
post as:

"You", the conscious fraction of your brain, are the meaning of life
for the rest of yourself.  If you fail to provide direction and
guidance for yourself, as many people do, you will find yourself
walking down whatever path that happened to be started during
childhood.

(I wonder if this has much to do with the "don't grow up" memes I
occasionally see, which get quenched when they are confused with
desires to be immature.  Being emotionally mature enough to make sense
of one's hormones, and to comprehend others' feelings and act upon
them, merely happens to come at about the same age when people start
being able to act largely on what they've learned rather than on
forging their own path through life.  The two need not be the same,
even if many people think they are because they happen at the same
time, and that to return to a mode where one directs oneself is
necessarily to give up on being able to act as an adult, and thus
largely be unable to act in society given as one is now in an adult
body.)

--- Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> An interesting blog entry on topic for this list.
> - Jef
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[twister] Interesting post on hacking the self.
> Date: 	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:21:53 -0400
> From: 	Zachery Bir <zbir at urbanape.com>
> To: 	twister <twister at sifter.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Eby is an all-around keen guy, but I found today's post really  
> interesting. Reminded me of Cory Doctorow's short story "0wnz0red"
> [1].
> 
>   <http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/multiple-self.html>
> 
> Zac
> 
> [1] <http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/28/0wnz0red/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  5 19:19:12 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <E3324A75-CD27-49BF-AADD-FCFE03CA88C4@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050805191912.80051.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com>

Being rigid in tech is wrong, not that I know anything about tech; being rigid in one's employment is sometimes wrong however if you're a very conservative businessman or woman selling grain or widgets then being rigid might be a plus. Old fashioned families are extremely rigid by 21st century standards but they are functional in that they can raise children well enough. If we'd listened to rigid (e.g. conservative) --yet-wealthy advisors when we were very young we all might be very wealthy by now.
So being rigid can work for some, it can even save one's life in certain circumstances.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050805/06b66af3/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Aug  6 00:09:47 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:39:47 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0508051709509d9b55@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
	<E3324A75-CD27-49BF-AADD-FCFE03CA88C4@mac.com>
	<710b78fc0508051709509d9b55@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0508051709ab1b632@mail.gmail.com>

> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks).
>
> This (the artificial pretense) does not seem like a rational course to me.
>
> - samantha
>

It's just what I do; your milleage may vary.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 00:42:55 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050806004256.1778.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



> --- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > At 11:16 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, Mike L. wrote:
> > 
> > >Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we
> might as well demand
> > >equal time and insist that the Simulation
> Argument be taught in
> > schools
> > >as well. At least it is logically consistent.
> > 
> > And Pythagorean astronomy, and astrology. And
> Mormon North American 
> > history. And Scientology cosmogony. And Christian
> science medical
> > theory. 
> > "It's good for the children to hear the other
> side." Apparently
> > there's 
> > only one other side.

Of COURSE there is only one other side. EVERYBODY
knows that Odin created the Earth from the slain
corpse of Ymir the Frost Giant. Ymir's bones became
the mountains, his blood the oceans, and his skull the
vault of heaven. Moreover Odin was crucified for 3
days and nights as a sacrifice of himself to himself
on the trunk of Yggdrasil. That's how he learned to
see into the future. So as long as the schools get the
TRUTH straight, it should all be fine. ;)

I am actually somewhat curious as to what you would
TEACH about ID? I mean they don't really have a theory
or any real doctrine as far as I know. I mean what
more is there to say about ID other than well, "stuff
is real complicated so maybe SOMEBODY created it all."
So will it just be remembering bible verses? Or is
there a new bible that explains creation in scientific
terms. Like whether the 7 days it took to create the
earth were solar days or sidereal days? What time of
day was the platypus created and what was God thinking
at the time? "Verily, HIS workshop runneth over with
spare parts and it being near evening of the fifth
day, HE smoketh of the hemp and fashioned the platypus
and saw that it was good." ;)
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Aug  6 01:33:00 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:33:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050805135238.01ca1da0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508060134.j761YjR26530@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
> 
> ... let's not forget that the three Magi were
> drawn to Bethlehem by their accurate astrological diagnosis.
> 
> Damien Broderick


How do you know there were three?

spike

You don't need to answer Doc, I always use that line hoping
to get someone to say myrrh.  Then the fun starts.  {8^D







From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug  6 02:11:48 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:11:48 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050805171023.73380.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050805171023.73380.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F41C64.6060609@aol.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>
>
>Not really.  "Evolutionary advantage" has to be useful in some manner.
>(Granted, there can be and are all manner of odd uses, but they are
>uses; this excludes some paths of development.)  "God's will" is a
>looser requirement (it does not get across the concept of "can" versus
>"can't": absolutely anything can be justified as "God's will",
>including things that are provably useless - which then extends to
>non-evolutionary things, for instance "kill the heathens" can be
>justified as "God's will" when, if viewed without a supernatural lens,
>it would be clear that it's just murder which is going to make a bunch
>of people angry).
>

Obviously this is an inappropriate place for a complete discussion of 
the important issues you raise, but briefly:

1)  "useful" is always purpose relative and consequently important only 
in terms of the context being discussed.  One says "the jackal's toes 
are useful for digging...and this gives them a competetive advantage 
over other animals that might have taken its ecological niche 
and/or...." where the counterfactuals of what might have been and what 
makes the jackal better suited than the infinitely many other 
possibilities takes the place of the metaphysics of God.  The other says 
"God wanted the jackal to be able to dig" - the difference is one of 
metaphysics, not biology.
2)  What is a valid interpretation of God's will is as loose a 
requirement as "evolutionarily beneficial".  Obviously, whatever is 
current is better than what may have been 'evolutionarily' since what 
could have been but isn't obviously didn't survive whereas what is 
current did.  At the same time, one could say, that whatever God's will 
is is obviously current (actual).  Both are vaccuous and unfriendly 
interpretations of the other.  But what's good for the goose is good for 
the gander.  Unless one has a substantive theory of God's will and a 
substantive theory of evolution (e.g. something more than "whatever is 
fit survives, what has survived has survived because it is fit), both 
sound vacuous.  Obviously both theology and evolution have a lot of work 
to do in both regards.  It's worth thinking about it, of the infinite 
possibilities for jackal toes (even given its ancestry), on has to 
wonder how exactly that configuration of toes was the one that brought 
it today rather than the, again infinite, other possibilities which 
could have been more efficient for any given purpose (again, 
context-relative purposes, of course).  I think you can see this is a 
bigger job than is commonly undertaken by actual biologists or 
histo-biologists.
3)  The justification of "it's god's will to kill the heathens" has a 
long history and is directly contradicted in Christianity ("love your 
enemy and bless those that curse you") and Buddhism.  So any substantive 
theory of God's will that says that God wants people to kill the 
heathens must obviously rule out Christianity and Buddhism at least. 

Best wishes,

Robbie Lindauer





From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug  6 02:15:03 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:15:03 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>

I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to have a 
complete comparative religion (obviously including Agnosticism and 
Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to teach all children 
logic and soviet history (as an example of another history which is 
commonly read differently in the US than in the Soviet Union).  
Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school curricula.  
So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably just do away with 
public education.  But only after we do away with taxation!  After all, 
if we're going to be paying for something, it may as well be something 
we want.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>hey, why not. If Bush is going to use a liberal principle of open
>mindedness to justify teaching a radically conservative religious
>theory, perhaps it needs to be taken to its logical absurd
>conclusion.... of course the astrology is the work of the devil (;))
>but the Simulation Argument is both logically consistent and doesn't
>step on any Christian toes, other than the idea that each simulated
>universe has a unique creator....
>
>--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>At 11:16 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, Mike L. wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we might as well demand
>>>equal time and insist that the Simulation Argument be taught in
>>>      
>>>
>>schools
>>    
>>
>>>as well. At least it is logically consistent.
>>>      
>>>
>>And Pythagorean astronomy, and astrology. And Mormon North American 
>>history. And Scientology cosmogony. And Christian science medical
>>theory. 
>>"It's good for the children to hear the other side." Apparently
>>there's 
>>only one other side.
>>
>>Damien Broderick 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>extropy-chat mailing list
>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>Mike Lorrey
>Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
>Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
>http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
>Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>
>
>        
>____________________________________________________
>Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
> 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 02:38:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050806023849.64619.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Many a catholic school kid has learned both comparative religion,
logic, extensive history, as well as latin, calculus, and a lot more,
on a tuition much less than what the average family pays in property
taxes for public diseducation (and they do it in less time). Home
schooled kids get even better educations for an average of $95 per year
(US Dept of Ed report) with even less time.

I've suspected for a long time that Bush was seeking to bankrupt the
federal government, but this is getting into issues that would get
booted to the extro-freedom list...

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to
> have a 
> complete comparative religion (obviously including Agnosticism and 
> Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to teach all children 
> logic and soviet history (as an example of another history which is 
> commonly read differently in the US than in the Soviet Union).  
> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school curricula. 
> 
> So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably just do away
> with 
> public education.  But only after we do away with taxation!  After
> all, 
> if we're going to be paying for something, it may as well be
> something 
> we want.
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >hey, why not. If Bush is going to use a liberal principle of open
> >mindedness to justify teaching a radically conservative religious
> >theory, perhaps it needs to be taken to its logical absurd
> >conclusion.... of course the astrology is the work of the devil (;))
> >but the Simulation Argument is both logically consistent and doesn't
> >step on any Christian toes, other than the idea that each simulated
> >universe has a unique creator....
> >
> >--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>At 11:16 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, Mike L. wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Well, if they are going to be teaching ID, we might as well demand
> >>>equal time and insist that the Simulation Argument be taught in
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>schools
> >>    
> >>
> >>>as well. At least it is logically consistent.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>And Pythagorean astronomy, and astrology. And Mormon North American
> 
> >>history. And Scientology cosmogony. And Christian science medical
> >>theory. 
> >>"It's good for the children to hear the other side." Apparently
> >>there's 
> >>only one other side.
> >>
> >>Damien Broderick 
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>extropy-chat mailing list
> >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >Mike Lorrey
> >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >        
> >____________________________________________________
> >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Aug  6 09:25:00 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:25:00 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080602252a0ccf96@mail.gmail.com>

I have long been persuaded that the best way to promote a positive and 
hopeful attitude toward future developments in science and technology is 
through movies. Apparently the idea has been taken up by the US 
establishment.
Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/1413200&from=rss>: 
*According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is funding classes in 
screenplay writing for 15
scientists<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
The idea is to encourage kids to go into science and engineering through 
mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster long-term US national 
security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, 
and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of 
anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book. Will glamorizing science in 
the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
*In the New York Times
article<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
idea is using movies to make science sexy again so that American kids
chose technical careers and replenish a pool of US experts on technologies 
for national security. Professional scientists and science communicators are 
asked to contribute to film making as they are the ones who can develop 
realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the cinematic suspension of 
disbelief with the scientific method and with their basic purpose of 
bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching screenwriting to scientists was 
the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor of electrical engineering at 
the University of Southern California and sometime Hollywood technical 
adviser. Recently, he was asked to review screenplays by the Sloan 
Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific accuracy, and found most to 
be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought was, since scientists have to 
write so much, for technical journals and papers, why not consider them as a 
creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
I believe the same concepts can be used to promote a friendlier attitude 
toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific advances and their deployment in 
society through technological (and legal) developments. We need movies set 
in believable and "accurate" future scenarios and with a positive or at 
least non-threatening view of future technologies such as radical life 
extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and eventually mind uploading.
I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a very dark atmosphere and 
made viewers actually scared of the future. There are many excellent science 
fiction novels that could be turned to good pro-science, "transhumanist" 
movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry with ideas and scenarios.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/7663d2e4/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Aug  6 09:37:26 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 02:37:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
Message-ID: <CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>


On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to  
> have a complete comparative religion (obviously including  
> Agnosticism and Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to  
> teach all children logic and soviet history (as an example of  
> another history which is commonly read differently in the US than  
> in the Soviet Union).

And I suppose we want to teach all of this as part of *science* eh?   
The most objectionable part of ID proposals is requiring ID to be  
taught as some kind of alternate scientific theory when it fails to  
hold up or even be remotely useful if it ever is considered  
scientifically.  Whether or not ID is something nice for kids to know  
about isn't the primary question.  As non-science it does not belong  
in a science curriculum.  Nor does the speculation of the Sim  
Universe belong is science curriculum except as pure speculation.   
Even then it doesn't belong in any of the subjects that evolution is  
relevant to.  Evolution is what makes all of biology hold together.   
To not teach that is to fail to teach what is known at all.

> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school  
> curricula.  So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably  
> just do away with public education.  But only after we do away with  
> taxation!  After all, if we're going to be paying for something, it  
> may as well be something we want.

Huh?

- samantha



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 13:49:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 06:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205080602252a0ccf96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050806134912.97207.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I concur. Such movies should also, besides portraying science and
transhumanism positively, show the true dark underbelly of luddism. One
movie I think actually did this quite well was "AI", which portrayed
the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its fears of AI negatively.

I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel "Fallen
Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie. Neal Stephenson's
"Cryptonomicon" would do well also.

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have long been persuaded that the best way to promote a positive
> and 
> hopeful attitude toward future developments in science and technology
> is 
> through movies. Apparently the idea has been taken up by the US 
> establishment.
>
Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/1413200&from=rss>:
> 
> *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is funding classes in 
> screenplay writing for 15
>
scientists<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
> The idea is to encourage kids to go into science and engineering
> through 
> mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster long-term US national
> 
> security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers
> involved, 
> and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of 
> anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book. Will glamorizing
> science in 
> the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
> *In the New York Times
>
article<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
> idea is using movies to make science sexy again so that American kids
> chose technical careers and replenish a pool of US experts on
> technologies 
> for national security. Professional scientists and science
> communicators are 
> asked to contribute to film making as they are the ones who can
> develop 
> realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the cinematic suspension of
> 
> disbelief with the scientific method and with their basic purpose of 
> bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching screenwriting to scientists
> was 
> the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor of electrical
> engineering at 
> the University of Southern California and sometime Hollywood
> technical 
> adviser. Recently, he was asked to review screenplays by the Sloan 
> Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific accuracy, and found
> most to 
> be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought was, since scientists
> have to 
> write so much, for technical journals and papers, why not consider
> them as a 
> creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
> I believe the same concepts can be used to promote a friendlier
> attitude 
> toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific advances and their
> deployment in 
> society through technological (and legal) developments. We need
> movies set 
> in believable and "accurate" future scenarios and with a positive or
> at 
> least non-threatening view of future technologies such as radical
> life 
> extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and eventually mind
> uploading.
> I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a very dark atmosphere
> and 
> made viewers actually scared of the future. There are many excellent
> science 
> fiction novels that could be turned to good pro-science,
> "transhumanist" 
> movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry with ideas and
> scenarios.
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 17:04:50 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
Message-ID: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

There were too many reasons, or depending on your polemic, excuses to go to war in Iraq to go into. But can't you detractors of the war do better than, "the war is a thieving grab for resources & power in the Mideast"? Do you ever listen to Air America's Randy Rhoads weigh in against the administration?--
"This Bush is just, oh, I can't stand that thing in the white House; it is disgusting, shameful to America that he could ever be elected. I just can't stand it. This administration is a new low...,just when you think it cannot get lower... it just gets more & more frightening. It makes you want to scream 'How Did We Ever Get Into This Mess' thanks to this most corrupt, lying administration ever. It makes me sick... I can't stand this administration, what are we going to do..." 
Sounds like she's going to have a miscarriage right in front of the microphone.
 
"Bush Evil. Bush Bad. Administration No Good. mutter mutter gnash gnash".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/d408d20b/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 17:22:23 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:22:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

> There were too many reasons, or depending on your polemic, excuses to 
> go to war in Iraq to go into. But can't you detractors of the war do 
> better than, "the war is a thieving grab for resources & power in the 
> Mideast"? Do you ever listen to Air America's Randy Rhoads weigh 
> in against the administration?--
> "This Bush is just, oh, I can't stand that thing in the white House; 
> it is disgusting, shameful to America that he could ever be elected. I 
> just can't stand it. This administration is a new low...,just when you 
> think it cannot get lower... it just gets more & more frightening. It 
> makes you want to scream 'How Did We Ever Get Into This Mess' thanks 
> to this most corrupt, lying administration ever. It makes me sick... I 
> can't stand this administration, what are we going to do..."
> Sounds like she's going to have a miscarriage right in front of the 
> microphone.
>  
> "Bush Evil. Bush Bad. Administration No Good. mutter mutter gnash gnash".

Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when  elections are 
held... er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is made... 
er... when the new constitution is created... er... when more elections 
are held... er...

How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.

FFF 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 17:31:47 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050806173148.24171.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> There were too many reasons, or depending on your polemic, excuses to
> go to war in Iraq to go into. But can't you detractors of the war do
> better than, "the war is a thieving grab for resources & power in the
> Mideast"? Do you ever listen to Air America's Randy Rhoads weigh in
> against the administration?--
> "This Bush is just, oh, I can't stand that thing in the white House;
> it is disgusting, shameful to America that he could ever be elected.
> I just can't stand it. This administration is a new low...,just when
> you think it cannot get lower... it just gets more & more
> frightening. It makes you want to scream 'How Did We Ever Get Into
> This Mess' thanks to this most corrupt, lying administration ever. It
> makes me sick... I can't stand this administration, what are we going
> to do..." 
> Sounds like she's going to have a miscarriage right in front of the
> microphone.
>  
> "Bush Evil. Bush Bad. Administration No Good. mutter mutter gnash
> gnash".

And the news comes out that Air America wrangled a $50 million subsidy
from the government in order to stay in business, their ratings are so
bad. They make NPR look moderate (perhaps the whole reason for AA in
the first place). Where are those on the left decrying the corporate
welfare of Air America?

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 17:35:04 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806173504.64045.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

Maybe the insurgency (or for those who think the war is totally wrong 'the struggle against US & British imperialism in Iraq') will foil the plans. But isn't it a little more than just an Oil and Power Grab in the region?


Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
Al 
Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when elections are 
held... er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is made... 
er... when the new constitution is created... er... when more elections 
are held... er...

How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.

FFF 
Dirk
		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/bdcb3712/attachment.html>

From artillo at comcast.net  Sat Aug  6 17:50:09 2005
From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:50:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002201c59aaf$49af0b90$650fa8c0@bjsmain2>

<sarcasm>
You're right. We should invade China next, they actually HAVE nukes. :D
</sarcasm>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:05 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?


There were too many reasons, or depending on your polemic, excuses to go to
war in Iraq to go into. But can't you detractors of the war do better than,
"the war is a thieving grab for resources & power in the Mideast"? Do you
ever listen to Air America's Randy Rhoads weigh in against the
administration?--
"This Bush is just, oh, I can't stand that thing in the white House; it is
disgusting, shameful to America that he could ever be elected. I just can't
stand it. This administration is a new low...,just when you think it cannot
get lower... it just gets more & more frightening. It makes you want to
scream 'How Did We Ever Get Into This Mess' thanks to this most corrupt,
lying administration ever. It makes me sick... I can't stand this
administration, what are we going to do..." 
Sounds like she's going to have a miscarriage right in front of the
microphone.
 
"Bush Evil. Bush Bad. Administration No Good. mutter mutter gnash gnash".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/3ec05661/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 17:52:14 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:52:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806173504.64045.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806173504.64045.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F4F8CE.4020706@neopax.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

> Maybe the insurgency (or for those who think the war is totally wrong 
> 'the struggle against US & British imperialism in Iraq') will 
> foil the plans. But isn't it a little more than just an Oil and Power 
> Grab in the region?
>
Sure.
Bush family pride "They tried to kill my Daddy!"
A permanent foothold in the ME.
Knocking over and keeping down Israel's enemies.
Looking tough by hitting a severely weakened Iraq with the expectation 
of a quick and hassle free war.
Money for Bush's pals eg Haliburton
Threatening other 'rogue states' with what could happen if...

Lot's of reasons.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 17:55:28 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806173148.24171.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050806175528.45796.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

 AA almost exists, it appears, for egotistically babbling talk show hosts to preen on air and sell sell sell. It's factoidtainment, all the disadvantages of conservative radio & none of the advantages. Sure, the airwaves need diversity of opinion-- but high quality diversity of opinion, not Randy Rhodes' menopausal shrieking
EIB is funny, AA is strident, even when they try hard to be humorous they have an edge to their voices.


>And the news comes out that Air America wrangled a $50 million subsidy
>from the government in order to stay in business, their ratings are so
>bad. They make NPR look moderate (perhaps the whole reason for AA in
>the first place). Where are those on the left decrying the corporate
>welfare of Air America?

>Mike Lorrey
>Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
>Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
>http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
>Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/c6b32f26/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 17:56:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806175620.86211.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> 
> How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.
> 

You forgot "when the Baathist Party is back in power and all
pro-western collaborators have been publicly executed and their women
raped and beheaded." Is that what you would call a "Consensus"?

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 18:01:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F8CE.4020706@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806180133.43482.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Al Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Maybe the insurgency (or for those who think the war is totally
> wrong 
> > 'the struggle against US & British imperialism in Iraq') will 
> > foil the plans. But isn't it a little more than just an Oil and
> Power 
> > Grab in the region?
> >
> Sure.
> Bush family pride "They tried to kill my Daddy!"
> A permanent foothold in the ME.

But isn't Israel a 'permanent foothold'? I guess you want all them jews
run into the sea and executed...

> Knocking over and keeping down Israel's enemies.

Why not? Israel is the only country in the area with a government that
actually tries to reach a "Consensus".

> Looking tough by hitting a severely weakened Iraq with the
> expectation of a quick and hassle free war.

The war was quick and hassle free. Its hanging on to the peace that is
a bitch, and defeatists like you don't help any.

> Money for Bush's pals eg Haliburton

Why does anybody do anything? For money of course, like France's
Total/ELF oil conglomerate, the largest oil company in Iraq....

> Threatening other 'rogue states' with what could happen if...

Then that totally justifies it. Nice of you to fail to notice when
rogue states threaten others what could happen if... keep up that consistency.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From dgc at cox.net  Sat Aug  6 17:58:56 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:58:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>
> Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
> over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when  elections are 
> held... er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is made... 
> er... when the new constitution is created... er... when more 
> elections are held... er...
>
> How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.
>
Granted, Bush started the war for ideological reasons, and fooled 
himself into thinking there was a way to win this war, also based on 
ideology rather than facts. Reasoning from idology rather than facts 
will lead you astray no matter what your ideology is.

But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract ourselves 
witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out as fast as 
physically possible may be the least bad solution, but it will not stop 
the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.

I've come to the conclusion that the least bad solution would be a 3-way 
partition of Iraq, leaving the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis with separate 
areas with their own governments. The Shiites would come under Iranian 
control, The Sunnis under Saudi control, and the Kurds would remain an 
independent state This would be a really, really bad solution, but I 
cannot think of a better one that has any chace of success.




From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 18:08:07 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:08:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806175620.86211.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806175620.86211.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F4FC87.2090508@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>You forgot "when the Baathist Party is back in power and all
>pro-western collaborators have been publicly executed and their women
>raped and beheaded." Is that what you would call a "Consensus"?
>
>
>  
>
No, I'd call that 'Rummy's friends' back doing their thing like when 
they were the West's best pals.

Central Iraq its either going to be the Baath Party or an Islamic fundie 
state.
North will be an independant Kurd homeland.
South will be the Shia Iraq, close ally of Iran.

Unless, of course, the US installs a dictatorship just as vicious as 
Saddam's.
Which would not surprise me give the usual US hypocrisy when it comes to 
'democracy and human rights'.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 18:09:26 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:09:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806175937.45903.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806175937.45903.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F4FCD6.5050400@neopax.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

> All the below are correct. But isn't there more to it? Wasn't the 
> invasion a mixture of bad AND good intentions?
>
>     Sure.
>     Bush family pride "They tried to kill my Daddy!"
>     A permanent foothold in the ME.
>     Knocking over and keeping down Israel's enemies.
>     Looking tough by hitting a severely weakened Iraq with the
>     expectation
>     of a quick and hassle free war.
>     Money for Bush's pals eg Haliburton
>     Threatening other 'rogue states' with what could happen if...
>
>     Lot's of reasons.
>
>     -- 
>     Dirk
>
Not, IMO, at the level of Bush and his pals.
The best they could be accused of is wishful thinking to complement 
their selective blindness.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 18:13:00 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:13:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com> <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42F4FDAC.1050407@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
>> over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when  elections are 
>> held... er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is 
>> made... er... when the new constitution is created... er... when more 
>> elections are held... er...
>>
>> How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.
>>
> Granted, Bush started the war for ideological reasons, and fooled 
> himself into thinking there was a way to win this war, also based on 
> ideology rather than facts. Reasoning from idology rather than facts 
> will lead you astray no matter what your ideology is.
>
> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract ourselves 
> witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out as fast as 
> physically possible may be the least bad solution, but it will not 
> stop the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that the least bad solution would be a 
> 3-way partition of Iraq, leaving the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis with 
> separate areas with their own governments. The Shiites would come 
> under Iranian control, The Sunnis under Saudi control, and the Kurds 
> would remain an independent state This would be a really, really bad 
> solution, but I cannot think of a better one that has any chace of 
> success.
>
I don't see that as bad at all, if it's what the people there actually 
want (which I think it is).
However, I can see why the US might think it a bad idea and why no Iraqi 
lives will be spared to stop it from happening unless a lot more US 
soldiers are killed and public opinion is turned massively against the 
war. Still, Iraq is what Britain and the US have made all on their own. 
Karma.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 18:32:35 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FC87.2090508@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806183235.57059.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Sure it's hypocrisy. All foreign policy everywhere is based on hypocrisy except...where? Monaco?  I'm glad you discuss American hypocrisy because I live in a red state and the attitude here is "up yours, pinko". Yet I also want to be informed more about what other nations besides the US and British are doing, for instance we are told very little about murderous French hypocrisy in N. Africa. Are African lives worth less than Iraqi lives? are the French kinder gentler executioners? do they let captured insurgents drink a bottle of wine before they are shot?


Unless, of course, the US installs a dictatorship just as vicious as 
Saddam's.
Which would not surprise me give the usual US hypocrisy when it comes to 
'democracy and human rights'.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005

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


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/8fc1fcf4/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 18:37:47 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:37:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FF93.8050602@cox.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com> <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
	<42F4FDAC.1050407@neopax.com> <42F4FF93.8050602@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42F5037B.5050601@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>> I've come to the conclusion that the least bad solution would be a 
>>> 3-way partition of Iraq, leaving the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis with 
>>> separate areas with their own governments. The Shiites would come 
>>> under Iranian control, The Sunnis under Saudi control, and the Kurds 
>>> would remain an independent state This would be a really, really bad 
>>> solution, but I cannot think of a better one that has any chace of 
>>> success.
>>>
>> I don't see that as bad at all, if it's what the people there 
>> actually want (which I think it is).
>> However, I can see why the US might think it a bad idea and why no 
>> Iraqi lives will be spared to stop it from happening unless a lot 
>> more US soldiers are killed and public opinion is turned massively 
>> against the war. Still, Iraq is what Britain and the US have made all 
>> on their own. Karma.
>>
> It a really bad idea because the three groups are extensively 
> co-mingled in many areas. The human costs of a partition would be 
> high. Look at the partition of India as the prime example. (the only 
> example?)
>
Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia.

> We cannot speak of "the Iraqi people." There is no such group, and 
> this is the single most glaring mistake of the Bush ideology. Thus, we 
> cannot ask if "the Iraqi people" want a partition.
>
We can speak of 'the people in Iraq'.
So there will be ethnic cleansing - so what? It's going to happen 
anyway, so why not make it a lot easier for all concerned by properly 
organising it?
It would be a lot less costly if the US dealt in real estate 
transactions than bombs.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 18:40:26 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:40:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806183235.57059.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806183235.57059.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F5041A.2030904@neopax.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

> Sure it's hypocrisy. All foreign policy everywhere is based on 
> hypocrisy except...where? Monaco?  I'm glad you discuss American 
> hypocrisy because I live in a red state and the attitude here is "up 
> yours, pinko". Yet I also want to be informed more about what other 
> nations besides the US and British are doing, for instance we are 
> told very little about murderous French hypocrisy in N. Africa. Are 
> African lives worth less than Iraqi lives? are the French kinder 
> gentler executioners? do they let captured insurgents drink a bottle 
> of wine before they are shot?
>
>     *//*
>
I assume you are referring to Ivory Coast?
AFAIK the French have not been killing tens of thousands of people, most 
of them civilians like the US in Iraq.
Neither, for that matter, have the British in Sierra Leone.

If you want the info go get it - it's all on the Net.
Of course, if you are referring to the French colonial period then I'd 
agree.
It was certainly comparable to what the US is doing now.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 19:14:04 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F5037B.5050601@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806191404.5430.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer" and for  "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in this most politically polarized town I live in. There is something to what they are saying, one picks a side based on the best information one has and forthrightly try to defend the position; one doesn't change position every time winds blow in contrary directions. But still, can't we have polemics and also have diversity of opinion where all aspects are discussed? One side says, "imperialist Bush administration are thieves", the other says, "you car-driving coddled ingrate protesters". 
Air America is a real disappointment, you'd think AA would want to look at both sides, but no, they would rather grandstand about Evil Bush's Empire Striking Back. Where is diversity in dissemination of information? Is it necessary for us to be spoonfed info in such an important 'issue' as war and peace?




		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/eb9e7c2a/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug  6 19:40:25 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:40:25 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
Message-ID: <ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>


On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to 
>> have a complete comparative religion (obviously including Agnosticism 
>> and Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to teach all 
>> children logic and soviet history (as an example of another history 
>> which is commonly read differently in the US than in the Soviet 
>> Union).
>
> And I suppose we want to teach all of this as part of *science* eh?  
> The most objectionable part of ID proposals is requiring ID to be 
> taught as some kind of alternate scientific theory when it fails to 
> hold up or even be remotely useful if it ever is considered 
> scientifically.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts of ID don't hold 
up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define "useful for what" being a 
purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the chicken and the egg 
problem adequately meanwhile giving us an understanding of the big bang 
and a variety of other problem.  For the sake of science and 
histo-biology it is an historical theory, like the Permian Extinction 
and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was a meteor, it certainly would 
explain why the dinosaurs disappeared in such great numbers.  MAYBE 
Zeus struck them down, that would explain it too.  Which is the correct 
explanation?  Well, which one fits in the best with the rest of -our 
world view-?  Well, it depends on which -world view- you have, doesn't 
it?

A person convinced of steady-state cosmology and the existence of the 
ether will not regard the big bang as something that needs explaining, 
rather that the evidence is neeed of some ad hoc explanation.  
Similarly someone convinced of evolution is, ipso facto, convinced that 
life can arise spontaneously and will regard the absence of evidence to 
that effect as something that needs ad hoc explanation.  One makes 
choices in science.  It's fair and right to show what the choices are.  
Otherwise it's not science.

>   Whether or not ID is something nice for kids to know about isn't the 
> primary question.  As non-science it does not belong in a science 
> curriculum.

Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or not Theology is a 
science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in yours.  Who gets to 
decide which book we use?

>   Nor does the speculation of the Sim Universe belong is science 
> curriculum except as pure speculation.  Even then it doesn't belong in 
> any of the subjects that evolution is relevant to.  Evolution is what 
> makes all of biology hold together.

Not really.

> To not teach that is to fail to teach what is known at all.

Not at all.

Microbiology and chemical biology except for the various failed 
attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise from inert matter 
are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for those cases where 
there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the speciation problem 
or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case, it's not relevant to 
talk about evolution when showing how, for instance, chemical receptors 
inside of a given bacteria are received and what process ensues.  Nor 
is it relevant, for the most part, to cancer research.  One -could- 
come up with a theory of how evolution is affecting cancer rates and 
what-not but nothing would prevent an ID theorist for accepting that - 
just the two major points - speciation and spontaneous generation.   ID 
theorists aren't restricted from recognizing that competition and 
adaptation are important factors for expression of genetic features, 
they just reject that changes in gene-pools happen "accidentally" - 
like changing the number of chromosomes in Humans, for instance, is 
generally deadly and always mule-making - and that ooze becomes life if 
you stare at it long enough.

The only branch of biology for which evolution is really relevant is 
Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing theories.  It's 
not even necessarily the likeliest one given the relative dearth of 
missing links and missing micro-biological evidence/theory.  
Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous generation in evolutionary 
theory, you get "something magical happens -here-" at the point where 
two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and are able to reproduce 
and that mutation is beneficial AND at the point where the ooze starts 
reproducing itself.  But you KNOW this.  It's relevant to point these 
things out in class, I think.  I took a couple of biology classes at 
USC and UCLA and it was among the annoying things that during the 
undergrad classes the professors were so adamantly against even 
mentioning the holes in the theory.  One teacher actually refused to 
take further questions on those two points during a discussion of 
evolution and the wolf/dog distinction when a student asked how 
non-reproductive-compatible speciation happens.  I thought this would 
have been the major subject!

Where's the healthy scientific skepticism?  Big thinking in science 
comes from rejecting the accepted wisdom.  That's why we don't have the 
ether and the steady state universe anymore - someone decided that 
there could be evidence that proved or disproved them and went looking 
for it.

I think this is how evolution came along too - Darwin decided that 
there may be another way.   Subsequent generations decided that it 
would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as far as we can 
tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.  No missing links, no 
spontaneous generation mechanisms, no mule-speciation mechanisms, none 
of the -really important- stuff, has any real verification.  A great 
and elegant theory without any verification is, well, a great and 
elegant theory.  There are LOTS of those.  I take it this wouldn't be 
the forum for discussing positive evidence for design :)  I believe 
that reasons.org has a good compilation.

>> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school curricula.  
>> So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably just do away 
>> with public education.  But only after we do away with taxation!  
>> After all, if we're going to be paying for something, it may as well 
>> be something we want.
>
> Huh?

Well, public money is used to educate your child and mine.  Their 
curricula is decided by the public, e.g. the legislature.  When the 
majority overrules the minority, the minority gets pissed and feels 
disenfranchised.  The best way, in my opinion, to prevent such 
occasions is to limit the strength and power of the government so as to 
not enable the domination of one group by another, for instance, in 
education.

Here's a good example of how it works.  You don't want your kids to 
learn about Intelligent Design.  BUT now, because some hotheads have 
hijacked the white house and the legislature appears to have been 
-mostly- fairly one and the court was stacked by conservatives, if 
they're going to public school, they may be forced to learn it as a 
competing theory.  This makes you unhappy.  You can pull your kid out, 
but then you're still paying for stuff you don't agree with (in my 
case, it's -the war machine-).  How do you prevent the majority or 
federal power-structure from dominating the minority or weak like this? 
  Get rid of the government.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug  6 19:43:35 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:43:35 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806191404.5430.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806191404.5430.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <27a97a5da5a6993a6fc8bea1b4b7b839@aol.com>

I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?


On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and for 
> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in this 
> most politically polarized town I live in. There is something to what 
> they are saying, one picks a side based on the best information one 
> has and forthrightly try to defend the position; one doesn't change 
> position?every time?winds blow in?contrary directions. But still, 
> can't we have polemics and also have diversity of opinion where all 
> aspects are discussed? One side says, "imperialist Bush administration 
> are thieves", the other says, "you car-driving coddled ingrate 
> protesters".
> Air America is a real disappointment, you'd think AA would want to 
> look at both sides, but no, they would rather?grandstand about Evil 
> Bush's Empire Striking Back. Where is diversity in dissemination of 
> information? Is it necessary for us to be spoonfed info in such an 
> important 'issue' as war and peace?
>
>
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
> page_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 19:52:56 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] you are right, Rob
In-Reply-To: <27a97a5da5a6993a6fc8bea1b4b7b839@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050806195256.89436.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

you know come to think of it, it does belong on extrofreedom. i'll drop it, have reached the end of the string-- have exhausted the thread on this one. but we'll be back to it later, WONT WE gentlemen?

Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?



		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/95c634d1/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Aug  6 20:36:56 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:36:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <27a97a5da5a6993a6fc8bea1b4b7b839@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200508062038.j76KcxR05400@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> 
> I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?


Let's let it sputter on a while.  Doesn't look like it is
going anywhere in particular.  spike

> 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and for
> > ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in this
> > most politically polarized town I live in...



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 20:48:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806183235.57059.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050806204821.13388.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sure it's hypocrisy. All foreign policy everywhere is based on
> hypocrisy except...where? Monaco?  I'm glad you discuss American
> hypocrisy because I live in a red state and the attitude here is "up
> yours, pinko". Yet I also want to be informed more about what other
> nations besides the US and British are doing, for instance we are
> told very little about murderous French hypocrisy in N. Africa. Are
> African lives worth less than Iraqi lives? are the French kinder
> gentler executioners? do they let captured insurgents drink a bottle
> of wine before they are shot?
> 
> Dirka al Bruere spaketh:
> >Unless, of course, the US installs a dictatorship just as vicious as

> >Saddam's.
> >Which would not surprise me give the usual US hypocrisy when it
comes
> >to 'democracy and human rights'.

Better yet: did the French go into Africa with a UN mandate? With any
allies? Nyet, non. Why doesn't the "international community" think less
of them for it? Where is the outrage, Dirka al Bruere? Where is the
outrage at the hypocrisy of those who condemn the US and its allies
enforcing UN resolutions, but stand silent over the internationally
'illegal' French actions in Africa? Where is the outrage, mister
principle?

On a related note, I see that John "level the top six floors of the UN
Building and make the world a better place" Bolton has arrived on site
at Hate America, SA/Gmbh/Ppty Ltd. Most diplomats, when asked by
liberal US reporters what they thought of Bolton's legitimacy, given he
was recess appointed by Bush after Congress dawdled its way out of town
for vacation, and given most diplomats asked at the UN were appointed
by leaders who typically came to power by shooting, hanging,
defenestrating, disappearing, or merely exiling their equally dubiously
legitimate predecessors, said, "He obviously has an immense amount of
respect and trust from President Bush, who feels it is very important
that he be here, so that is all we need to know."

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Aug  6 20:56:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:56:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com> <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net>

How then do you split the oil revenue and debt owed to other countries?

We have this discussion in Canada every time  the Province of Quebec 
wants to split off to be its own country.
Everone wants the other guy to take the debt bit everybody wants as much 
of the new money
as they can get.

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
>> over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when  elections are 
>> held... er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is 
>> made... er... when the new constitution is created... er... when more 
>> elections are held... er...
>>
>> How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.
>>
> Granted, Bush started the war for ideological reasons, and fooled 
> himself into thinking there was a way to win this war, also based on 
> ideology rather than facts. Reasoning from idology rather than facts 
> will lead you astray no matter what your ideology is.
>
> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract ourselves 
> witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out as fast as 
> physically possible may be the least bad solution, but it will not 
> stop the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that the least bad solution would be a 
> 3-way partition of Iraq, leaving the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis with 
> separate areas with their own governments. The Shiites would come 
> under Iranian control, The Sunnis under Saudi control, and the Kurds 
> would remain an independent state This would be a really, really bad 
> solution, but I cannot think of a better one that has any chace of 
> success.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Aug  6 22:03:43 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:03:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <24F42621-9AEF-4091-A235-652126924D2A@mac.com>

I vote this post up as the Zero Content post of the month.

- s

On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> There were too many reasons, or depending on your polemic, excuses  
> to go to war in Iraq to go into. But can't you detractors of the  
> war do better than, "the war is a thieving grab for resources &  
> power in the Mideast"? Do you ever listen to Air America's Randy  
> Rhoads weigh in against the administration?--
> "This Bush is just, oh, I can't stand that thing in the white  
> House; it is disgusting, shameful to America that he could ever be  
> elected. I just can't stand it. This administration is a new  
> low...,just when you think it cannot get lower... it just gets more  
> & more frightening. It makes you want to scream 'How Did We Ever  
> Get Into This Mess' thanks to this most corrupt, lying  
> administration ever. It makes me sick... I can't stand this  
> administration, what are we going to do..."
> Sounds like she's going to have a miscarriage right in front of the  
> microphone.
>
> "Bush Evil. Bush Bad. Administration No Good. mutter mutter gnash  
> gnash".
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 22:19:48 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net> <42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <42F53784.50909@neopax.com>

Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

> How then do you split the oil revenue and debt owed to other countries?
>
So, how does the debt compare to the $80billion a year being spent by 
the US fighting the war?
As far as oil revenue goes, the territories of the new nations will be 
the deciding factor. If they want, they can have a war over boundaries, 
like real nations do in order to establish real borders.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Aug  6 22:23:35 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:23:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806204821.13388.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050806204821.13388.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F53867.3060609@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sure it's hypocrisy. All foreign policy everywhere is based on
>>hypocrisy except...where? Monaco?  I'm glad you discuss American
>>hypocrisy because I live in a red state and the attitude here is "up
>>yours, pinko". Yet I also want to be informed more about what other
>>nations besides the US and British are doing, for instance we are
>>told very little about murderous French hypocrisy in N. Africa. Are
>>African lives worth less than Iraqi lives? are the French kinder
>>gentler executioners? do they let captured insurgents drink a bottle
>>of wine before they are shot?
>>
>>Dirka al Bruere spaketh:
>>    
>>
>>>Unless, of course, the US installs a dictatorship just as vicious as
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>Saddam's.
>>>Which would not surprise me give the usual US hypocrisy when it
>>>      
>>>
>comes
>  
>
>>>to 'democracy and human rights'.
>>>      
>>>
>
>Better yet: did the French go into Africa with a UN mandate? With any
>allies? Nyet, non. Why doesn't the "international community" think less
>of them for it? Where is the outrage, Dirka al Bruere? Where is the
>outrage at the hypocrisy of those who condemn the US and its allies
>enforcing UN resolutions, but stand silent over the internationally
>'illegal' French actions in Africa? Where is the outrage, mister
>principle?
>
>  
>
Are you referring to the colonial period in comparison to the US empire 
building in Iraq?
Or the recent Ivory Coast intervention?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/ivor-f12.shtml

"France has received international backing for its intervention in its 
former colony, Ivory Coast (C?te d?Ivoire) where a civil war has been 
raging for five months. The United Nations Security Council passed a 
resolution that ?welcomes the deployment of Ecowas (Economic Community 
of West African States) forces and French troops? and endorses the peace 
agreement signed by both the government and rebels in the current civil 
war."

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 04/08/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Aug  6 22:25:56 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:25:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>

Go here, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html , to  
clean up your misconceptions about what evolution is and is not about  
and the known facts.  After that perhaps we can chat on the topic  
more productively.  I have my doubts though since you claim that  
theology is science.

- samantha

On Aug 6, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

>
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to  
>>> have a complete comparative religion (obviously including  
>>> Agnosticism and Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to  
>>> teach all children logic and soviet history (as an example of  
>>> another history which is commonly read differently in the US than  
>>> in the Soviet Union).
>>>
>>
>> And I suppose we want to teach all of this as part of *science*  
>> eh?  The most objectionable part of ID proposals is requiring ID  
>> to be taught as some kind of alternate scientific theory when it  
>> fails to hold up or even be remotely useful if it ever is  
>> considered scientifically.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts of ID don't  
> hold up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define "useful for  
> what" being a purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the  
> chicken and the egg problem adequately meanwhile giving us an  
> understanding of the big bang and a variety of other problem.  For  
> the sake of science and histo-biology it is an historical theory,  
> like the Permian Extinction and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was  
> a meteor, it certainly would explain why the dinosaurs disappeared  
> in such great numbers.  MAYBE Zeus struck them down, that would  
> explain it too.  Which is the correct explanation?  Well, which one  
> fits in the best with the rest of -our world view-?  Well, it  
> depends on which -world view- you have, doesn't it?
>
> A person convinced of steady-state cosmology and the existence of  
> the ether will not regard the big bang as something that needs  
> explaining, rather that the evidence is neeed of some ad hoc  
> explanation.  Similarly someone convinced of evolution is, ipso  
> facto, convinced that life can arise spontaneously and will regard  
> the absence of evidence to that effect as something that needs ad  
> hoc explanation.  One makes choices in science.  It's fair and  
> right to show what the choices are.  Otherwise it's not science.
>
>
>>   Whether or not ID is something nice for kids to know about isn't  
>> the primary question.  As non-science it does not belong in a  
>> science curriculum.
>>
>
> Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or not Theology is  
> a science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in yours.  Who  
> gets to decide which book we use?
>
>
>>   Nor does the speculation of the Sim Universe belong is science  
>> curriculum except as pure speculation.  Even then it doesn't  
>> belong in any of the subjects that evolution is relevant to.   
>> Evolution is what makes all of biology hold together.
>>
>
> Not really.
>
>
>> To not teach that is to fail to teach what is known at all.
>>
>
> Not at all.
>
> Microbiology and chemical biology except for the various failed  
> attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise from inert  
> matter are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for those  
> cases where there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the  
> speciation problem or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case,  
> it's not relevant to talk about evolution when showing how, for  
> instance, chemical receptors inside of a given bacteria are  
> received and what process ensues.  Nor is it relevant, for the most  
> part, to cancer research.  One -could- come up with a theory of how  
> evolution is affecting cancer rates and what-not but nothing would  
> prevent an ID theorist for accepting that - just the two major  
> points - speciation and spontaneous generation.   ID theorists  
> aren't restricted from recognizing that competition and adaptation  
> are important factors for expression of genetic features, they just  
> reject that changes in gene-pools happen "accidentally" - like  
> changing the number of chromosomes in Humans, for instance, is  
> generally deadly and always mule-making - and that ooze becomes  
> life if you stare at it long enough.
>
> The only branch of biology for which evolution is really relevant  
> is Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing theories.   
> It's not even necessarily the likeliest one given the relative  
> dearth of missing links and missing micro-biological evidence/ 
> theory.  Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous generation in  
> evolutionary theory, you get "something magical happens -here-" at  
> the point where two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and  
> are able to reproduce and that mutation is beneficial AND at the  
> point where the ooze starts reproducing itself.  But you KNOW  
> this.  It's relevant to point these things out in class, I think.   
> I took a couple of biology classes at USC and UCLA and it was among  
> the annoying things that during the undergrad classes the  
> professors were so adamantly against even mentioning the holes in  
> the theory.  One teacher actually refused to take further questions  
> on those two points during a discussion of evolution and the wolf/ 
> dog distinction when a student asked how non-reproductive- 
> compatible speciation happens.  I thought this would have been the  
> major subject!
>
> Where's the healthy scientific skepticism?  Big thinking in science  
> comes from rejecting the accepted wisdom.  That's why we don't have  
> the ether and the steady state universe anymore - someone decided  
> that there could be evidence that proved or disproved them and went  
> looking for it.
>
> I think this is how evolution came along too - Darwin decided that  
> there may be another way.   Subsequent generations decided that it  
> would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as far as we can  
> tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.  No missing links, no  
> spontaneous generation mechanisms, no mule-speciation mechanisms,  
> none of the -really important- stuff, has any real verification.  A  
> great and elegant theory without any verification is, well, a great  
> and elegant theory.  There are LOTS of those.  I take it this  
> wouldn't be the forum for discussing positive evidence for  
> design :)  I believe that reasons.org has a good compilation.
>
>
>>> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school  
>>> curricula.  So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably  
>>> just do away with public education.  But only after we do away  
>>> with taxation!  After all, if we're going to be paying for  
>>> something, it may as well be something we want.
>>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>
> Well, public money is used to educate your child and mine.  Their  
> curricula is decided by the public, e.g. the legislature.  When the  
> majority overrules the minority, the minority gets pissed and feels  
> disenfranchised.  The best way, in my opinion, to prevent such  
> occasions is to limit the strength and power of the government so  
> as to not enable the domination of one group by another, for  
> instance, in education.
>
> Here's a good example of how it works.  You don't want your kids to  
> learn about Intelligent Design.  BUT now, because some hotheads  
> have hijacked the white house and the legislature appears to have  
> been -mostly- fairly one and the court was stacked by  
> conservatives, if they're going to public school, they may be  
> forced to learn it as a competing theory.  This makes you unhappy.   
> You can pull your kid out, but then you're still paying for stuff  
> you don't agree with (in my case, it's -the war machine-).  How do  
> you prevent the majority or federal power-structure from dominating  
> the minority or weak like this?  Get rid of the government.
>
> Robbie Lindauer
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Aug  6 22:22:59 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:22:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net> <42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <42F53843.2000402@cox.net>

Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

> How then do you split the oil revenue and debt owed to other countries?
>
> We have this discussion in Canada every time  the Province of Quebec 
> wants to split off to be its own country.
> Everone wants the other guy to take the debt bit everybody wants as 
> much of the new money
> as they can get.
>
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> I've come to the conclusion that the least bad solution would be a 
>> 3-way partition of Iraq, leaving the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis with 
>> separate areas with their own governments. The Shiites would come 
>> under Iranian control, The Sunnis under Saudi control, and the Kurds 
>> would remain an independent state This would be a really, really bad 
>> solution, but I cannot think of a better one that has any chace of 
>> success.
>>
As I said, it's a bad solution whose only redeeming feature it that it 
has a realistic chance of success.

Debt: US pays. It's the cheapest exit strategy.
Oil revenue: The physical partition also partitions the oil wells. The 
Kurds lose, the Shiites lose, the Sunnis win, mostly. Still, The Shiites 
and Kurds are no longer oppressed by the Sunnis, so they are better off 
than they were under Saddam Hussein, and Kurds and Shiites each get at 
least a modest oil field out of the deal.

You Canadians are far too civilized. Montreal may be the most harmonious 
multicultural city on the face of the earth.  The debt and oil problems 
are trivial by comparison to the loss of life and refugee problems 
associated with a partition. Think of dead bodies, blood in the dirt, 
and people forcibly displaced from home where their families have lived 
for more than a millineum. It's still the least bad solution.

Sorry about the non-extropian topic, but I'm at least trying for what I 
feel is an appropriate Extropian approach: define the actual problem 
(facts, not ideology,) and identify actual solutions.


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 22:30:20 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F8CE.4020706@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050806223020.36394.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Al Brooks wrote:

> >But isn't it a little more than just an Oil and 
> >Power Grab in the region?
> >

To which Dirk Bruere replied:

> Sure.
> Bush family pride "They tried to kill my Daddy!"
> A permanent foothold in the ME.
> Knocking over and keeping down Israel's enemies.
> Looking tough by hitting a severely weakened Iraq
> with the expectation 
> of a quick and hassle free war.
> Money for Bush's pals eg Haliburton
> Threatening other 'rogue states' with what could
> happen if...
> 
> Lot's of reasons.

To this list I would add:

(1) George Bush's personal emotional need to "prove
himself", as in the familiar criticism directed at 
poor impulse control and general excesses of the
insecure and immature, to wit: "He has something to
prove."

Put another way, the astonishing "smallness" of the
man who has come to occupy the most prestigious and
powerful political position on the planet, and the
catastrophic consequences for his six billion victims.

In the article:

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in
2000 by Russ Baker
(http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

Baker cites Mickey Herskowitz, the
Bush-family-authorized biographer follows:

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a
lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an
accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he
saw the opportunity to emerge from his father?s
shadow. 

Talk about "Global Terrorism".

The only "success" GWB ever achieved **ON HIS OWN**
(ie, without the help of his family or their political
machine) was to spend the greater portion of his adult
life as a drunk.  

It seems clear to me that invading Iraq and destroying
Saddam was emotionally compelling--irresistible--to
GWB.  It allowed him to succeed where his father had
failed, thus proving GWB the better man.  The
"smallness" of a man who would use the presidency and
the US military--sacrifice tens of thousands of lives,
loot the US treasury, and in the name of the American
people tell the entire world to get fucked,  to salve
his own feelings of inadequacy--exceeds every
conceivable metric of arrogance and criminality.
 
(2) The monstrous and craven Bush strategy for
political success.  Start a war so as to markedly
increase his political support/power: the "extortion"
of political power through fear-mongering and
manipulated patriotism.  

>From the article cited above, a GWB quote:

" ?One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is
to be seen as a commander-in-chief.? And he said, ?My
father had all this political capital built up when he
drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.? He
[GWB] said, ?If I have a chance to invade..., if I had
that much capital, I?m not going to waste it. I?m
going to get everything passed that I want to get
passed and I?m going to have a successful presidency.?
"

                ***********************

Though I have no mercy for GWB, the ultimate fault
lies at the feet of the American people.  Their
intellectual and ethical laziness has brought the
country (and the world) to this impasse.  The lessons
of history unlearned.  "The impostume of too much
wealth and peace." (Hamlet)

Best, Jeff Davis

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of
the people. On some great and glorious day the plain
folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at
last and the White House will be adorned by a
downright moron..."  H. L. Mencken


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  6 23:38:17 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806223020.36394.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050806233817.6430.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

Jeff, this explanation works well as far as it goes, however it is the sort of intriguing amateur psychoanalysis of a fairly complicated individual that I like very much-- so it ought to be mistrusted. It's too pat to reduce someone we don't like to that which we can understand.. 
he wants to prove himself to the world; he wants to prove himself to his father & his family;
he wants to best his father; and so forth.
Besides if Bush is such a little person how can he himself be held responsible for the war? If the smallness of Bush is so remarkable then the war's responsibility would lie with more significant persons than he. The respnsibility would lie with us for being-- as you say-- intellectually & ethically lazy. Perhaps all of we Americans ought to be put on trial at the Hague?

>Put another way, the astonishing "smallness" of the
>man who has come to occupy the most prestigious and
>powerful political position on the planet, and the
>catastrophic consequences for his six billion victims.

>In the article:

>Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in
>2000 by Russ Baker
>(http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

>Baker cites Mickey Herskowitz, the
>Bush-family-authorized biographer follows:

>Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a
>lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an
>accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he
>saw the opportunity to emerge from his father?s
>shadow. 

>Talk about "Global Terrorism".

>The only "success" GWB ever achieved **ON HIS OWN**
>(ie, without the help of his family or their political
>machine) was to spend the greater portion of his adult
>life as a drunk. 

>It seems clear to me that invading Iraq and destroying
>Saddam was emotionally compelling--irresistible--to
>GWB. It allowed him to succeed where his father had
>failed, thus proving GWB the better man. The
>"smallness" of a man who would use the presidency and
>the US military--sacrifice tens of thousands of lives,
>loot the US treasury, and in the name of the American
>people tell the entire world to get fucked, to salve
>his own feelings of inadequacy--exceeds every
>conceivable metric of arrogance and criminality.

>(2) The monstrous and craven Bush strategy for
>political success. Start a war so as to markedly
>increase his political support/power: the "extortion"
>of political power through fear-mongering and
>manipulated patriotism. 

>From the article cited above, a GWB quote:

>" ?One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is
>to be seen as a commander-in-chief.? And he said, ?My
>father had all this political capital built up when he
>drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.? He
>[GWB] said, ?If I have a chance to invade..., if I had
>that much capital, I?m not going to waste it. I?m
>going to get everything passed that I want to get
>passed and I?m going to have a successful presidency.?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/f2143e58/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug  7 00:27:27 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:27:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>

As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to give up 
freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this direction 
anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the (non-existent) right 
to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.

Survielance cameras are relatively cheap. Monitoring surveilance cameras 
is relatively expensive. Let's put cameras damn near everywhere, and 
allow anyone who so desires to monitor them. Ten million snoopy little 
old ladies (LOLs) can easily monitor a million cameras, and they will do 
it on a volunteer basis. Each LOL monitors ten cameras at once for 15 
minutes/day. A US population of 380M must have at least 38M available 
LOLs (some are actually men.) Teenagers and adults might want to 
participate also, and many LOLs will take multiple 15-minute shifts. We 
can trade hours with European and Asian so nobody needs to monitor at 
night unless they want to.

When a LOL sees something suspicious, they push the "alert" button. The 
problem is flashed to a hundred other LOSs at random, and if at least 
ten of then agree that a problem exists, the alert for the camera is 
flashed to the professionals.

As the program becomes more mature, we can use really dumb automatic 
filtering to remove most of the cameras from consideration most of the 
time. Even a simple motion detector would increase the LOL productivity 
by a factor of ten or more.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 00:34:39 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F53867.3060609@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050807003439.56712.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Are you referring to the colonial period in comparison to the US
> empire building in Iraq? Or the recent Ivory Coast intervention?
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/ivor-f12.shtml
> 
> "France has received international backing for its intervention in
> its former colony, Ivory Coast (C?te d?Ivoire) where a civil war has
> been raging for five months. The United Nations Security Council
> passed a resolution that ?welcomes the deployment of Ecowas (Economic
> Community of West African States) forces and French troops? and
> endorses the peace agreement signed by both the government and rebels
> in the current civil war."

So you admit that France PREEMPTIVELY invaded a sovereign nation
(ECOWAS showed up after the fact), then RETROACTIVELY got the approval
of the UN?

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Aug  7 00:50:41 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:50:41 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com><42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
	<42F523FC.2090807@sasktel.net> <42F53843.2000402@cox.net>
Message-ID: <007201c59aea$091011c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Sorry about the non-extropian topic, 

>..... but I'm at least trying for
> what I  feel is an appropriate Extropian approach: define the 
> actual problem (facts, not ideology,) and identify actual solutions.

I noticed that. Kudos for trying.

Brett Paatsch



From p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 01:33:08 2005
From: p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com (Paul)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:33:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
Message-ID: <9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/6/05, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to give up
> freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this direction
> anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the (non-existent) right
> to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.
> 
> 
More or less what will happen anyway, with the government's blessing or not. 
Think of the digitization of virtually all information that's underway with 
Google, and the continual growth of the blogosphere. There was this woman in 
South Korea, her dog made a bit of a mess on a train, and she refused to 
clean it. Thanks to camera phones, her picture was placed on the Internet, 
and she was recognized in the street. 

Your LOLs won't be little old ladies, they might be the guy in the subway 
fiddling with his cell phone, or later, someone recording what they see 
through their glasses or contact lenses. This will be more or less fair, as 
everyone will be watching everyone else. Everyone is the watchers, and the 
watchers watch everyone.


-- 
Paul
http://lockeinghobbes.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050806/0049ff2d/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Aug  7 02:20:13 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:20:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
Message-ID: <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>

On Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:27 PM Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net wrote:
> As a society we in the US have shown a
> distressing tendency to give up freedoms
> to counter terrorists.

Or for any emergency, real or imagined.  Nowadays, terrorism is the big
excuse.  A few years ago, it used to be anything "to protect the
children."  Those who crave power will ever find ways to persuade others
to give it to them.

> As long as we are going in this direction
> anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give
> up the (non-existent) right to privacy in public,
> we can make it much harder on terrorists.

The problems, of course, are a) defining just what is public and b)
allowing this will erode other freedoms.  On the former, the legal
authorities have a tendency to define rather broadly when it suits the
desires of the powerful.  On the latter, remember, there are many things
that might be used against people.  Just a few years ago, two gay guys
meeting in, say, Central Park to have a date -- not sex in public, but
just a date -- would've been considered illegal.  With such a system of
omnipresent surveillance and a total unconcern for privacy, don't you
fear that the outcome will be more oppression?

> Survielance cameras are relatively cheap.
> Monitoring surveilance cameras is relatively
> expensive. Let's put cameras damn near
> everywhere, and allow anyone who so
> desires to monitor them. Ten million snoopy
> little old ladies (LOLs) can easily monitor a
> million cameras, and they will do it on a
> volunteer basis. Each LOL monitors ten
> cameras at once for 15 minutes/day. A US
> population of 380M must have at least 38M
> available LOLs (some are actually men.)
> Teenagers and adults might want to participate
> also, and many LOLs will take multiple 15-minute
> shifts. We can trade hours with European and
> Asian so nobody needs to monitor at night
> unless they want to.
>
> When a LOL sees something suspicious, they
> push the "alert" button. The problem is flashed
> to a hundred other LOSs at random, and if at
> least ten of then agree that a problem exists,
> the alert for the camera is flashed to the
> professionals.
>
> As the program becomes more mature, we
> can use really dumb automatic filtering to
> remove most of the cameras from
> consideration most of the time. Even a simple
> motion detector would increase the LOL
> productivity by a factor of ten or more.

What's to stop the system from being abused?  I can just see
criminals -- including the government -- selectively blacking out areas.
I can also see attention being directed at undesirables of all sorts.
Such a system is likely to only add power to already too powerful nation
states.  Now, you might claim this is not so bad, that we can trust the
current crop of politicians and functionaries not to abuse such power
too much.  But what happens with the next crop?  And the one after that?
What happens when, after you've laid the foundations for a totalitarian
state, one is actually erected upon those foundations?  I predict that
then the terrorism will not be retail but wholesale, but none will be
calling it such.

I'm amazed so few others on this list have such concerns.  I expected a
storm of protest.  Along with libertarianism, has a healthy protective
attitude toward liberty been exorcised from the list?

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  -- Attributed to
Benjamin Franklin



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 02:46:15 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806233817.6430.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050807024615.81825.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

geesh, meant to impart below I like amateur
psychoanalysis very much-- not George W. Bush, in the
event there was a confusion in anyone's mind. Bush is
not the simpleton he is portrayed as being. Bush is no
monster, either but-- on the other hand-- he is
certainly not the innocent Jesus loving guy his hacks
wouldn't mind you thinking he is. I personally am
counting the days until he is out of office; we need
more than even a Lincoln, we sure don't need the son
of Reagan's vice president.
Oh to be young in 2008.

> Jeff, this explanation works well as far as it goes,
> however it is the sort of intriguing amateur
> psychoanalysis of a fairly complicated individual
> that I like very much-- so it ought to be
> mistrusted. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From riel at surriel.com  Sun Aug  7 03:05:03 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 23:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com> <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508062303190.4457@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract ourselves 
> witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out as fast as 
> physically possible may be the least bad solution, but it will not stop 
> the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.

I'm not convinced.  Most of the "insurgents" appear to be foreigners,
who came to Iraq specifically to fight the Americans and the British.

If the Americans and the British go elsewhere, I suspect these
islamic fundamentalists will simply follow them and continue to blow
them up in their new location.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 03:28:38 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 04:28:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net> <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050806202877de5cf3@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> What's to stop the system from being abused?  I can just see
> criminals -- including the government -- selectively blacking out areas.
> I can also see attention being directed at undesirables of all sorts.
> Such a system is likely to only add power to already too powerful nation
> states.  Now, you might claim this is not so bad, that we can trust the
> current crop of politicians and functionaries not to abuse such power
> too much.  But what happens with the next crop?  And the one after that?
> What happens when, after you've laid the foundations for a totalitarian
> state, one is actually erected upon those foundations?  I predict that
> then the terrorism will not be retail but wholesale, but none will be
> calling it such.

I agree completely. The more efficient law enforcement becomes, the
greater the extent to which the state itself - even a democratic one -
becomes a greater threat than those it is intended to protect against.

- Russell


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Aug  7 03:53:34 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:53:34 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com><42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508062303190.4457@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <012a01c59b03$95d7eb50$0d98e03c@homepc>

Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract
>> ourselves witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out
>> as fast as physically possible may be the least bad solution, but
>> it will not stop the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.
>
> I'm not convinced.  Most of the "insurgents" appear to be foreigners,
> who came to Iraq specifically to fight the Americans and the British.
>
> If the Americans and the British go elsewhere, I suspect these
> islamic fundamentalists will simply follow them and continue to blow
> them up in their new location.

Haven't promises now also been made to those Iraqi's that are not
fighting as insurgents and who did vote for another less US disapproved
government?

And if so are those promises to now be put aside, and to be seen as
being put aside by the world that is watching via the media?

Colin Powell said to George Bush in relation to Iraq, the Pottery Barn
rule applies here, if you break it you will own it.

Brett Paatsch 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 04:00:28 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:00:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
> 
> On Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:27 PM Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net wrote:
> 
...
> 
> The problems, of course, are a) defining just what is public and b)
> allowing this will erode other freedoms...
> 
> I'm amazed so few others on this list have such concerns.  I expected a
> storm of protest.  Along with libertarianism, has a healthy protective
> attitude toward liberty been exorcised from the list?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan

Dan it looks to me like we are talking about two different
things.  Libertarianism is about limiting the power of
government, but limiting government may empower and 
motivate the snoopy LOLs.  The real debate is over how much
privacy we are entitled to when in public.  Mike Lorrey
and others have argued that freedom of speech (and many other
freedoms) depends on freedom of anonymity.  But I have not
been able to derive from constitutional fundamentals any
basic right to anonymity, or any right to not be observed
and recorded when in public.  The minute I step off my
own private property, I assume I am fair game to have my
every action observed.  I may not like it, but if a LOL 
or a paparazzi does so, I don't see what actual law has 
been broken or what right of mine has been violated.

It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps 10% of the
proles have camera phones.  But we know 10 yrs from
now it will be 90% and we have no legal infrastructure
in place for limiting any of that.  I cannot even 
imagine what such laws would look like.

spike

To repeat: libertarianism is OK to discuss here.  ExI wants
to move away from specifically endorsing any political
party, which sounds reasonable for several reasons. The 
real contentious stuff probably does fit better with Mike 
Lorrey's extrofreedom list.  But do keep it interesting 
and relevant.  Everyday politics is snoozy for the most 
part, is it not?  s



  



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 04:22:25 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 05:22:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
References: <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
	<200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050806212247c4f99d@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps 10% of the
> proles have camera phones.  But we know 10 yrs from
> now it will be 90% and we have no legal infrastructure
> in place for limiting any of that.  I cannot even
> imagine what such laws would look like.

The problem is an excess of laws, not a lack thereof. I think what you
say about people having the right to record anything visible in public
space is correct; the problem is that the more efficient law
enforcement becomes, the more harm is done by the surfeit of unjust
laws with which the world is plagued. The danger is that we may reach
a point where there is no refuge from the law.

- Russell


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 04:33:53 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:33:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>

I am opposed to teaching ID in schools.  Throughout history people
have stopped and said "It is this way because (the) God(s) willed it
so.  Then someone eventually comes along who says, no, there is this
chain of events, or that mechanism which causes said thing to be, and
this occurs without any divine intervention.

We continue to push the vail back, encounter another one and push it
back as well.  So far every time we stop and say god did it, we
eventually find new information that pushes gods involvement farther
and farther back.  We ought to finally learn this lesson and stop
saying that God did it.

Another issue, is that at various times even learned men have espoused
the belief that there was nothing more to be learned about the
universe, and that "Physics has explained all there is to know".  How
can we encourage children to enter the scientific fields if we are
teaching them that, this is the end of the line.  Sure we ought to
acknowledge any gaps in any of our knowledge, but rather than stop and
say "well, God must have done it", we ought to leap into the gaps
joyfully, breathless at the new adventures to be had.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 04:53:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050807045308.98981.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
 
> Dan it looks to me like we are talking about two different
> things.  Libertarianism is about limiting the power of
> government, but limiting government may empower and 
> motivate the snoopy LOLs.  The real debate is over how much
> privacy we are entitled to when in public.  Mike Lorrey
> and others have argued that freedom of speech (and many other
> freedoms) depends on freedom of anonymity.  But I have not
> been able to derive from constitutional fundamentals any
> basic right to anonymity, or any right to not be observed
> and recorded when in public. 

My research into the history of the right of travel on the public ways
has found that while vessels and vehicles of commerce need be
identified and identifiable for the commerce and revenue power of the
state, the police power to identify suspect and innocent has depended
strictly upon the state of war at the time, whether the peasantry was
capable of bearing arms or not, or whether a wanted man was under hot
pursuit in the area at the time (during peacetime).

While privacy in ones public acts were not generally observed as valid,
nor was testimony about said acts generally considered legally
reliable, once empirical experimentation demonstrated how unreliable
eyewitness testimony is. A similar standard should also be applied to
digital records of public acts: one eyewitness is not to be relied upon
just as one person can have their digital photos or videos doctored.
Many unconnected people with corroborating digital records would be
admissible.

However, when the country is in a state of war or insurgency, or both,
then the demands of national security, or even individual security,
override public anonymity wrt identifying individuals transiting the
countryside or ports of entry.

My arguments for anonymity in freedom of speech apply particularly to
the internet, as the polity is more politically divisive and intolerant
of incorrect opinion, the culture reminds one of the 17th and 18th
century period in europe and the colonies, when dissidents, like the
Puritans and Quakers, would spam the public rights of way with their
libels, broadsides, and pamplets. Paper had become remarkably cheap and
printing was commonly available, compared to prior eras, much as todays
era of blogging and spamming on the internet. Individuals with
unorthodox and/or dissident opinions found themselves tortured, and
body parts removed (tongues, ears, fingers, nose) as punishment if they
were identified by authorities as the author or publisher of
unacceptable printings put into the public commerce.

Is see in the last few weeks the largest spammer in Russia was beaten
to death in his Moscow apartment (as much as I hate spammers myself).
Reporters in the US are going to jail for not revealing sources, and in
the muslim world, reporters are being tortured and executed for
researching and/or writing about things that individuals or groups do
not want known. I myself have been under online attack from the
pacifist, bunkertarian, stalinist, and luddite left crowds for my
various writings at various times. Anonymity for the individual with a
message that needs to be told and heard is an essential part of the
right to free speech.

> The minute I step off my
> own private property, I assume I am fair game to have my
> every action observed.  I may not like it, but if a LOL 
> or a paparazzi does so, I don't see what actual law has 
> been broken or what right of mine has been violated.

Depends on who you are. If you are a person in a public position, with
power, there is a need to hold you accountable for your actions. If you
are John Q Public, there is no such need for the rest of society to
know how you spend your money or who you spend it with, or who spends
money on you.

I'm in an interesting position, myself: I hold no public office, though
I'm an official of an unofficial political party in my state, who has
had national media attention at least a few times in the last two
years. I am thus accountable to the members of my organization, but to
nobody else. If the media showed up on my doorstep tomorrow the first
thing they might see is the muzzle of my pistol.

> 
> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps 10% of the
> proles have camera phones.  But we know 10 yrs from
> now it will be 90% and we have no legal infrastructure
> in place for limiting any of that.  I cannot even 
> imagine what such laws would look like.

I've seen several tv 'peoples court' shows using camera phone pictures
as evidence, but there is also a fellow on the run for snapping pics up
a womans skirt. Should women stop wearing skirts in public, if their
privates have no right to privacy in public?

> 
> To repeat: libertarianism is OK to discuss here.  ExI wants
> to move away from specifically endorsing any political
> party, which sounds reasonable for several reasons. The 
> real contentious stuff probably does fit better with Mike 
> Lorrey's extrofreedom list.  But do keep it interesting 
> and relevant.  Everyday politics is snoozy for the most 
> part, is it not? 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Aug  7 04:55:28 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:55:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:22 PM 06/08/05 +0100, Dirk wrote:

snip

>Don't worry - the insurgency will die down when the war is officially 
>over... er... when saddam is captured... er... when  elections are held... 
>er... when the handover to a provisional Iraqi govt is made... er... when 
>the new constitution is created... er... when more elections are held... er...
>
>How about - WHEN THE US AND BRITISH FUCK OFF OUT OF IRAQ ALTOGETHER.

Last few years I have developed a *really twisted* way of looking at wars 
and related behavior such as terrorism.

The evolved/ecological "function" of wars was to cut a population back that 
had grown beyond the ability of the ecosystem to support it.

So the psychological mechanisms that turn on war mode in humans will stay 
on till the conditions that turned on war mode are perceived as having changed.

Used to be that when wars killed off a good fraction of a hunter gatherer 
population it was easier for the remaining ones to find game and 
berries.  The easier life made it more profitable for brain mechanisms 
(built by genes) to switch into a hunting and raising kids mode rather than 
more risky business of trying to kill neighbors who had a good chance of 
killing you instead.

One modern example is the fading of the IRA in Northern Ireland.  30-35 
years ago the women there cut the birth rate to near replacement.  The 
growth of the economy eventually got ahead of population growth resulting 
in rising income per capita.  Their stone age brains then said "that's 
enough war" even though not very many had been killed and the population's 
support for the IRA warriors dried up.

So, what would shut off the war in Iraq?  Besides an outright orgy of 
killing, a major epidemic would do the job as would a major 
famine.  Eventually things will be in such bad shape for so long that 
people get used to the horrible conditions as the norm.  Then a small up 
tick can have positive feedback because an improving economy from a low 
base will tend to shut off war mode.

But like Lebanon, that could take several decades.  :-(

These thoughts, an application of evolutionary psychology principles, are 
the most depressing ones I know about--and you are the lucky recipients.

Keith Henson

PS.  If anyone can pick holes in the model, please brighten my day and do so.  



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:03:25 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050807050325.49350.qmail@web60015.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to
> extract ourselves 
> with the least additional damage.  Simply pulling
> out as fast as 
> physically possible may be the least bad solution,
> but it will not stop 
> the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil
> war.

Because Bush and Co. wanted it all, the oil, the
military bases, transformative domination of the
entire region.  They sought nothing less than total
victory, glory, and confirmation  of the superiority
of their worldview (the one that turned out to be
soooo not-reality-based), and the establishment of the
Republican thousand-year reich.  To ward off defeatism
(cf. realism) they peddled a bunch of fables about the
negative consequences of not "staying the course", 
gloomy prognostications repeated mantra-like til
accepted as true.  (Repeat something enough times...)
Consider, please, the source, a cabal of sleaze who
don't even bother to notice whether a statement is
true or not so long as its utterance furthers their
agenda.  

One of these has been the prediction--in the event of
a premature or precipitous withdrawal--of a
compellingly bad, bloody civil war.  Compelling, in
the sense of the presumptive conclusion
that--surprise, surprise--we must "stay the course"
"as long as it takes".

So, if it please you, set aside the agenda-serving 
propaganda, and consider some facts:  

Simple overflights, with the occasional spasm of
air-to-ground missile fire, kept the Kurds and Shia
cozy and safe for what?, eleven years, even though
Saddam was in control of Iraq.  Now that he's gone and
his security infrastructure trashed; now, with the
Peshmerga, numbering 100,000 men and the Shia militias
many tens of thousands more, all in tip top shape, do
you really think the insurgents--tankless and
planeless--are gonna have a field day taking on the
Kurds and Shia.  Factor into the equation air and
materiel support from the Americans, and then tell me
whose blood is going to be shed.  Add the option of
Iranian support (in case the Americans want to bug out
completely), and  you have Kurds and Shia holding an
overwhelming advantage in military resources,
materiel, allies, world support, ... and outnumbering
the Sunnis four to one.  Kurdish and Shia territory
both have buttloads of oil, Sunni territory, buttloads
of sand.  The Kurds and Shia have no reason to fight
each other, and no reason to fight the Sunnis except
defensively.  The Sunnis have every reason to
negotiate a settlement because their military position
is ridiculous, and if they get cut out of the oil,
they'll be left a country of over-educated rag
pickers.  If there were to be a civil war at all, I
assert--on the basis of this fact-like analysis, not
propaganda--that it would be a short one.  Have you
ever heard anyone present the fact-like counter
argument?   

> I've come to the conclusion that the least bad
> solution would be a 3-way 
> partition of Iraq, 

<snip>

> This would be a really, really bad
> solution,  

It seems to me that this assertion is yet another
negative presumption based on fact-free propaganda.

Why bad?  Why isn't it the logical, right, just,
ethical, practical, pragmatic solution.  The Brits
cobbled these three ethnic populations together back
when (and, just for the record, sliced off Kuwait),
and, like the Ottomans before them, left the Sunnis in
charge of administrative duties.  Was that sovereign
configuration the holy grail of mesopotamian
nation-building, or a seething jury-rigged mess?  

And leave us not forget that it was the CIA who
engineered the coups that brought first the Bathists
and then Saddam himself, to power. (This is what I've
heard, if you've heard differently, by all means, clue
me in.)

In summary, the Bushie narrative of the events of
their time has been unalloyed bullshit.  Dispose of
that crap.  Start at square one, get the facts, and
figure out what the possibilities may be, the
reality-based possibilities. 

Best, Jeff Davis

  "During times of universal deceit, telling the
         truth becomes a revolutionary act." 
                         George Orwell


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:03:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050807050357.62890.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm opposed to teachers teaching anything they have not empirically
tested themselves. Anything else is dogmatic pabulum. I was once
hounded out of third grade class by a teacher for telling her she was
wrong to claim that seasons were caused by the Earth being closer or
further from the sun, rather than by the inclination of the Earth's
axis. Of course she was right, she was the teacher. I was just a
smart-ass. Her actions were no different than the Catholic Church's
dismissals of Galileo.

--- John Calvin <john.h.calvin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am opposed to teaching ID in schools.  Throughout history people
> have stopped and said "It is this way because (the) God(s) willed it
> so.  Then someone eventually comes along who says, no, there is this
> chain of events, or that mechanism which causes said thing to be, and
> this occurs without any divine intervention.
> 
> We continue to push the vail back, encounter another one and push it
> back as well.  So far every time we stop and say god did it, we
> eventually find new information that pushes gods involvement farther
> and farther back.  We ought to finally learn this lesson and stop
> saying that God did it.
> 
> Another issue, is that at various times even learned men have
> espoused
> the belief that there was nothing more to be learned about the
> universe, and that "Physics has explained all there is to know".  How
> can we encourage children to enter the scientific fields if we are
> teaching them that, this is the end of the line.  Sure we ought to
> acknowledge any gaps in any of our knowledge, but rather than stop
> and
> say "well, God must have done it", we ought to leap into the gaps
> joyfully, breathless at the new adventures to be had.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:28:23 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fight your own mind wars
In-Reply-To: <20050807050325.49350.qmail@web60015.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050807052823.90299.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

Bush & Co. wanted more. Even heartless Stalin wanted
more than to conquer Eastern & Middle Europe in '45,
he wanted to liberate those regions from Nazism. All
individuals and groups have a mixture of positive &
negative intentions; all nations have a mixture of
positive & negative intentions. Don't you think you
are going a little far with this 'thousand year
republican reich' stuff?
My main point is you young turks can protest war all
you want, you can move to DC and picket government
buildings; you can stay on the web and write
government officials; 
you can email president at whitehouse.gov
 Protest any way you like but leave me out. I fought
mind wars in the past, now I'm retired. Fight your own
mind wars.

> Because Bush and Co. wanted it all, the oil, the
> military bases, transformative domination of the
> entire region.  They sought nothing less than total
> victory, glory, and confirmation  of the superiority
> of their worldview (the one that turned out to be
> soooo not-reality-based), and the establishment of
> the
> Republican thousand-year reich.  To ward off
> defeatism
> (cf. realism) they peddled a bunch of fables about
> the
> negative consequences of not "staying the course", 
> gloomy prognostications repeated mantra-like til
> accepted as true.  (Repeat something enough
> times...)
> Consider, please, the source, a cabal of sleaze who
> don't even bother to notice whether a statement is
> true or not so long as its utterance furthers their
> agenda.  
> 
> One of these has been the prediction--in the event
> of
> a premature or precipitous withdrawal--of a
> compellingly bad, bloody civil war.  Compelling, in
> the sense of the presumptive conclusion
> that--surprise, surprise--we must "stay the course"
> "as long as it takes".
> 
> So, if it please you, set aside the agenda-serving 
> propaganda, and consider some facts:  
> 
> Simple overflights, with the occasional spasm of
> air-to-ground missile fire, kept the Kurds and Shia
> cozy and safe for what?, eleven years, even though
> Saddam was in control of Iraq.  Now that he's gone
> and
> his security infrastructure trashed; now, with the
> Peshmerga, numbering 100,000 men and the Shia
> militias
> many tens of thousands more, all in tip top shape,
> do
> you really think the insurgents--tankless and
> planeless--are gonna have a field day taking on the
> Kurds and Shia.  Factor into the equation air and
> materiel support from the Americans, and then tell
> me
> whose blood is going to be shed.  Add the option of
> Iranian support (in case the Americans want to bug
> out
> completely), and  you have Kurds and Shia holding an
> overwhelming advantage in military resources,
> materiel, allies, world support, ... and
> outnumbering
> the Sunnis four to one.  Kurdish and Shia territory
> both have buttloads of oil, Sunni territory,
> buttloads
> of sand.  The Kurds and Shia have no reason to fight
> each other, and no reason to fight the Sunnis except
> defensively.  The Sunnis have every reason to
> negotiate a settlement because their military
> position
> is ridiculous, and if they get cut out of the oil,
> they'll be left a country of over-educated rag
> pickers.  If there were to be a civil war at all, I
> assert--on the basis of this fact-like analysis, not
> propaganda--that it would be a short one.  Have you
> ever heard anyone present the fact-like counter
> argument?   
> 
> > I've come to the conclusion that the least bad
> > solution would be a 3-way 
> > partition of Iraq, 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > This would be a really, really bad
> > solution,  
> 
> It seems to me that this assertion is yet another
> negative presumption based on fact-free propaganda.
> 
> Why bad?  Why isn't it the logical, right, just,
> ethical, practical, pragmatic solution.  The Brits
> cobbled these three ethnic populations together back
> when (and, just for the record, sliced off Kuwait),
> and, like the Ottomans before them, left the Sunnis
> in
> charge of administrative duties.  Was that sovereign
> configuration the holy grail of mesopotamian
> nation-building, or a seething jury-rigged mess?  
> 
> And leave us not forget that it was the CIA who
> engineered the coups that brought first the Bathists
> and then Saddam himself, to power. (This is what
> I've
> heard, if you've heard differently, by all means,
> clue
> me in.)
> 
> In summary, the Bushie narrative of the events of
> their time has been unalloyed bullshit.  Dispose of
> that crap.  Start at square one, get the facts, and
> figure out what the possibilities may be, the
> reality-based possibilities. 
> 
> Best, Jeff Davis
> 
>   "During times of universal deceit, telling the
>          truth becomes a revolutionary act." 
>                          George Orwell
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:32:06 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F53843.2000402@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050807053206.53473.qmail@web60015.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Oil revenue: The physical partition also partitions
> the oil wells. The 
> Kurds lose, the Shiites lose, the Sunnis win,
> mostly. 

I think you've got it backwards.  Check the Iraq map
of ethnic distribution: 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/etc/map.html

and compare it to a map of Iraqi oil:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

The Kurdish and Shia territories have the bulk of the
oil.  Nevertheless there seems to be some oil in the
Sunni region as well.  Not to mention the undetermined
potential for oil in the exploration blocks, which are
all Sunni.

Best, Jeff Davis

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its
ideas or values or religion but rather by its
superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners
often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." 
                - Samuel P. Huntington


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:52:27 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050806233817.6430.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050807055227.47631.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Perhaps all of we Americans ought to be put on
> trial at the Hague?

Yeah, baby!  Bring it on!

If each person is tried based on their own individual
culpability, I'll joyfully submit myself to the grand
jury, first in line immediately folowing Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, Feith, Frum, et
al.

Best, Jeff Davis

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of
atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a
remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

                            George Orwell


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 05:58:58 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050807055227.47631.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050807055859.77712.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

Okay, remember I'm a retired mindwarrior who gets off.

But when you get to your cell, Jeff, send us your
address so we can send you cartons of cigarettes.
There's a carton of Virginia Slims sitting in my
garage.

Yeah, baby!  Bring it on!
> 
> If each person is tried based on their own
> individual
> culpability, I'll joyfully submit myself to the
> grand
> jury, first in line immediately folowing Bush,
> Cheney,
> Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, Feith, Frum, et
> al.



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 06:09:07 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:09:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <20050806134912.97207.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <470a3c5205080602252a0ccf96@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050806134912.97207.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080623096b75cd50@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, AI has at least a friendly view of AIs. But I do not consider it
as a "great" movie.
A great transhumanist movie would be based on a great plot in a
believable and well researched future scenario, with a good script and
good actors, a human story, and of course a positive view of future
radical technologies.
Cryptonomicon is a very good book, but I don't see much transhumanist
content in it. As Stephenson has said on occasions, it is really a
historic novel.
Haven't read Fallen Angels.
My current favorites for transhumanist movies are The First Immortal
and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
But any good story with a human angle and set in a rear-singularity
world with uploading technology would do. A series would perhaps be
even better than a movie in terms of impact.
G.



On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I concur. Such movies should also, besides portraying science and
> transhumanism positively, show the true dark underbelly of luddism. One
> movie I think actually did this quite well was "AI", which portrayed
> the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its fears of AI negatively.
> 
> I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel "Fallen
> Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie. Neal Stephenson's
> "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
> 
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have long been persuaded that the best way to promote a positive
> > and
> > hopeful attitude toward future developments in science and technology
> > is
> > through movies. Apparently the idea has been taken up by the US
> > establishment.
> >
> Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/1413200&from=rss>:
> >
> > *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is funding classes in
> > screenplay writing for 15
> >
> scientists<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
> > The idea is to encourage kids to go into science and engineering
> > through
> > mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster long-term US national
> >
> > security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers
> > involved,
> > and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of
> > anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book. Will glamorizing
> > science in
> > the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
> > *In the New York Times
> >
> article<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
> > idea is using movies to make science sexy again so that American kids
> > chose technical careers and replenish a pool of US experts on
> > technologies
> > for national security. Professional scientists and science
> > communicators are
> > asked to contribute to film making as they are the ones who can
> > develop
> > realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the cinematic suspension of
> >
> > disbelief with the scientific method and with their basic purpose of
> > bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching screenwriting to scientists
> > was
> > the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor of electrical
> > engineering at
> > the University of Southern California and sometime Hollywood
> > technical
> > adviser. Recently, he was asked to review screenplays by the Sloan
> > Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific accuracy, and found
> > most to
> > be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought was, since scientists
> > have to
> > write so much, for technical journals and papers, why not consider
> > them as a
> > creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
> > I believe the same concepts can be used to promote a friendlier
> > attitude
> > toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific advances and their
> > deployment in
> > society through technological (and legal) developments. We need
> > movies set
> > in believable and "accurate" future scenarios and with a positive or
> > at
> > least non-threatening view of future technologies such as radical
> > life
> > extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and eventually mind
> > uploading.
> > I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a very dark atmosphere
> > and
> > made viewers actually scared of the future. There are many excellent
> > science
> > fiction novels that could be turned to good pro-science,
> > "transhumanist"
> > movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry with ideas and
> > scenarios.


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 06:15:04 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 23:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205080623096b75cd50@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050807061504.71309.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Does anyone here like time travel films? This is a
plot I wrote down: a Jewish scientist's daughter
travels from the year 2097 to the year 1945, to sleep
with Hitler.
 If the film were well done it would be guaranteed a
success, as the notoriety of such a plot would draw a
large audience.


> My current favorites for transhumanist movies are
> The First Immortal
> and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
> But any good story with a human angle and set in a
> rear-singularity
> world with uploading technology would do. A series
> would perhaps be
> even better than a movie in terms of impact.
> G.
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I concur. Such movies should also, besides
> portraying science and
> > transhumanism positively, show the true dark
> underbelly of luddism. One
> > movie I think actually did this quite well was
> "AI", which portrayed
> > the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its
> fears of AI negatively.
> > 
> > I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry
> Pournelle novel "Fallen
> > Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie.
> Neal Stephenson's
> > "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
> > 
> > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I have long been persuaded that the best way to
> promote a positive
> > > and
> > > hopeful attitude toward future developments in
> science and technology
> > > is
> > > through movies. Apparently the idea has been
> taken up by the US
> > > establishment.
> > >
> >
>
Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/1413200&from=rss>:
> > >
> > > *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon
> is funding classes in
> > > screenplay writing for 15
> > >
> >
>
scientists<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
> > > The idea is to encourage kids to go into science
> and engineering
> > > through
> > > mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster
> long-term US national
> > >
> > > security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for
> the researchers
> > > involved,
> > > and anything that stems the spiral of the US
> into a culture of
> > > anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
> Will glamorizing
> > > science in
> > > the movies make kids pay better attention in
> chemistry class?
> > > *In the New York Times
> > >
> >
>
article<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
> > > idea is using movies to make science sexy again
> so that American kids
> > > chose technical careers and replenish a pool of
> US experts on
> > > technologies
> > > for national security. Professional scientists
> and science
> > > communicators are
> > > asked to contribute to film making as they are
> the ones who can
> > > develop
> > > realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the
> cinematic suspension of
> > >
> > > disbelief with the scientific method and with
> their basic purpose of
> > > bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching
> screenwriting to scientists
> > > was
> > > the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor
> of electrical
> > > engineering at
> > > the University of Southern California and
> sometime Hollywood
> > > technical
> > > adviser. Recently, he was asked to review
> screenplays by the Sloan
> > > Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific
> accuracy, and found
> > > most to
> > > be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought
> was, since scientists
> > > have to
> > > write so much, for technical journals and
> papers, why not consider
> > > them as a
> > > creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
> > > I believe the same concepts can be used to
> promote a friendlier
> > > attitude
> > > toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific
> advances and their
> > > deployment in
> > > society through technological (and legal)
> developments. We need
> > > movies set
> > > in believable and "accurate" future scenarios
> and with a positive or
> > > at
> > > least non-threatening view of future
> technologies such as radical
> > > life
> > > extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and
> eventually mind
> > > uploading.
> > > I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a
> very dark atmosphere
> > > and
> > > made viewers actually scared of the future.
> There are many excellent
> > > science
> > > fiction novels that could be turned to good
> pro-science,
> > > "transhumanist"
> > > movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry
> with ideas and
> > > scenarios.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 06:22:37 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 02:22:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05080623222a34f3ea@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> Last few years I have developed a *really twisted* way of looking at wars
> and related behavior such as terrorism.
> ...
> So the psychological mechanisms that turn on war mode in humans will stay
> on till the conditions that turned on war mode are perceived as having changed.
> ...
> So, what would shut off the war in Iraq?  Besides an outright orgy of
> killing, a major epidemic would do the job as would a major
> famine.  Eventually things will be in such bad shape for so long that
> people get used to the horrible conditions as the norm.  Then a small up
> tick can have positive feedback because an improving economy from a low
> base will tend to shut off war mode.
> ... 
> PS.  If anyone can pick holes in the model, please brighten my day and do so.

Sub-Saharan Africa?

I mean, despite having a sizable portion of their population knocked
out by famine, genocid, AIDS, etc, many regions are still very much in
"war mode."


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 06:54:35 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:54:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080623543beda7d@mail.gmail.com>

Following up on what I wrote yesterday on "Future friendly movies" I plan to 
go see the movie "The Island" today. From the reviews and the trailers it 
appears that the film is well done (with the right mix of action, sex, ...) 
and future friendly in the sense that the two heroes are clones created to 
provide spare body parts for transplants, who eventually escape to have a 
normal life. Viewers should be left with the impression that clones can be 
perfectly normal people. See also the last comment of the Charlotte Observer 
reviewer quoted below, this is the reaction good future friendly movies 
should produce.
Internet Movie Database <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/>: Lincoln 
Six-Echo (McGregor) is a resident of a seemingly utopian but contained 
facility in the mid 21st century. Like all of the inhabitants of this 
carefully controlled environment, Lincoln hopes to be chosen to go to the 
"The Island" - reportedly the last uncontaminated spot on the planet. But 
Lincoln soon discovers that everything about his existence is a lie. He and 
all of the other inhabitants of the facility are actually human clones whose 
only purpose is to provide "spare parts" for their original human 
counterparts. Realizing it is only a matter of time before he is 
"harvested," Lincoln makes a daring escape with a beautiful fellow resident 
named Jordan Two-Delta (Johansson). Relentlessly pursued by the forces of 
the sinister institute that once housed them, Lincoln and Jordan engage in a 
race for their lives to literally meet their makers.
[Trailers<http://www.imdb.com/rg/title-tease/trailers/title/tt0399201/trailers>
]
Charlotte Observer<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/movies/12312190.htm>:
"The Island" provides a cinematic backdrop to the debate regarding stem 
cells research, which some fear could one day lead to human cloning. Messing 
around with human cells creates moral questions, which is why it was a 
surprise two weeks ago when Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., bucked fellow 
conservatives. He announced his support for government-funded research on 
human embryonic stem cells.
The reviewer concludes: " I hope the debate over stem-cell research and the 
debate over human cloning (it will happen one day) isn't reduced to 
religious rhetoric. If there's a way that science can help me stay 
physically fit and beat the diseases lurking in my body -- and I don't have 
a moral problem with the method -- then I want in on it."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/0b8e71fc/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 07:34:57 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:34:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The future of the web
Message-ID: <470a3c52050807003433fd4cd4@mail.gmail.com>

The IFTF's Future Now
blog<http://future.iftf.org/2005/08/a_collaborative.html>has a pointer
to an excellent
knowledge at wharton<http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=1244&specialId=38>article
on the future of the Web: "Something
fundamentally big is happening that will profoundly affect the life of every 
person and every business over the next five to 15 years -- the collapsing 
of everything into one single, global, ubiquitous, collaborative virtual IT 
world".
The article shows how today's web services are the first steps toward the 
emergence of a global "nervous system" with virtual personal assistants 
helping users navigating the more and more complex dataflow. The authors 
note that "In this industry, we always overestimate what we can do in one 
year, and underestimate what we can do in 10 - There's lots of innovation 
yet to come", and believe this will deeply change work patterns. Most 
building blocks are already in place, but the main problem to be solved is 
how to balance usability, privacy and security.
To put things in perspective, his article should be read together with Kevin 
Kelly's article <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html> in *Wired 
Magazine* and Mike Treder's
comments<http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/homo_ex_machina.html>on
the
CRN <http://crnano.org/> blog: "In 10 years, the system will contain 
hundreds of millions of miles of fiber-optic neurons linking the billions of 
ant-smart chips embedded into manufactured products, buried in environmental 
sensors, staring out from satellite cameras, guiding cars, and saturating 
our world with enough complexity to begin to learn. We will live inside this 
thing..."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/f8734f96/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 08:57:53 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 01:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050807085753.37313.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts
> of ID don't hold 
> up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define
> "useful for what" being a 
> purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the
> chicken and the egg 
> problem adequately meanwhile giving us an
> understanding of the big bang 
> and a variety of other problem.  

Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
"intelligent designer" come from? I find it just as
easy to believe that life itself is eternal and
unbounded by space-time as I do some a priori
designer. 



For the sake of
> science and 
> histo-biology it is an historical theory, like the
> Permian Extinction 
> and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was a meteor, it
> certainly would 
> explain why the dinosaurs disappeared in such great
> numbers.  MAYBE 
> Zeus struck them down, that would explain it too. 
> Which is the correct 
> explanation?  Well, which one fits in the best with
> the rest of -our 
> world view-?  Well, it depends on which -world view-
> you have, doesn't 
> it?

Yes, but the world-view I believe is the one that the
rocks that were there at the time tell me. You just
got to learn to speak "rock" is all.

> Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or
> not Theology is a 
> science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in
> yours.  Who gets to 
> decide which book we use?

Apparently the neanderthal in the White House.

> Microbiology and chemical biology except for the
> various failed 
> attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise
> from inert matter 
> are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for
> those cases where 
> there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the
> speciation problem 
> or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case, it's
> not relevant to 
> talk about evolution when showing how, for instance,
> chemical receptors 
> inside of a given bacteria are received and what
> process ensues.

Actually microbiologists use evolution all the time.
We control it artificially to get mutations in
microbes that do useful things for us. For example we
select for yeast cells that make less alcohol to get
light beer. Or we put an antibiotic resistance gene
next to gene-x that we want to study and use the
antibiotic to kill off all the microbes that did not
get gene-x. Microbiologists use evolution for lots of
stuff. In fact, microbiology is one of the few fields
of biology where you can see evolution directly at
work, because of the short generation time of
microbes.

>  Nor 
> is it relevant, for the most part, to cancer
> research.

Actually it is very relevant to cancer research. The
best physiological theory we have about cancer
development is called "clonal selection theory". It
essentially says that there is an evolutionary
selection taking place in the body on mutated body
cells. The cells accumulate mutantions and most of the
mutants get killed by the bodies defenses. Once in
awhile, however, a mutation is such that it helps the
cell overcome one of the many layers of the bodies
defenses. First, the blocks to cellular replication,
then mutations that fool the immune system, then
mutations to move around freely in the body, and then
mutations that allow the cancer cells to have the body
grow them blood vessels to supply them with nutrients.
Essentially clonal selection theory is just that these
mutations happen one at a time and each time a cell
aquires one, it passes it down to all its daughter
cells. Thus these mutations stack up over many
generations of cells that evolve from being a "little
unusual" to "extremely dangerous".


  One -could- 
> come up with a theory of how evolution is affecting
> cancer rates and 
> what-not but nothing would prevent an ID theorist
> for accepting that - 
> just the two major points - speciation and
> spontaneous generation.   ID 
> theorists aren't restricted from recognizing that
> competition and 
> adaptation are important factors for expression of
> genetic features, 
> they just reject that changes in gene-pools happen
> "accidentally" - 
> like changing the number of chromosomes in Humans,
> for instance, is 
> generally deadly and always mule-making - and that
> ooze becomes life if 
> you stare at it long enough.

Interestingly, it is being found out that life does
not change "accidently". In fact it has been
determined that many organisms increase their mutation
rate and increase the amount of foreign DNA they
uptake during times of stress. So in a way, many
organisms seem to mutate and thus evolve on purpose.
When the going gets tough, the tough mutate.

> 
> The only branch of biology for which evolution is
> really relevant is 
> Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing
> theories.  It's 
> not even necessarily the likeliest one given the
> relative dearth of 
> missing links and missing micro-biological
> evidence/theory.

     Actually the dearth of so-called missing links is
mostly explained by the mistaken belief that evolution
always happens really slowly. It does happen really
slowly most of the time. Then for one reason or
another, it speeds up drastically, allowing you to go
from a wolf to a poodle in a couple of hundred
generations. This effect is called puntuated
equilibrium and it is just the understanding that
evolutionary change has different "gears".  
  
> Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous
> generation in evolutionary 
> theory, you get "something magical happens -here-"
> at the point where 
> two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and are
> able to reproduce

      No there is nothing magical, sex is one of the
things that drive speciation. For example if half of
all human women prefered and mated exclusively with
big hairy men because they thought that "big and
hairy" were sexy. And the other half of women only
mated with little naked bald guys, because they
thought that that was sexy. Then in few hundreds of
generations you would probably have to subspecies of
homo sapiens that barely resembled one another.

    One tiny and hairless and the other huge and
hairy. After a few thousand generations, the two might
not be able to interbreed without making a "mule" as
you call it. That is how speciation is believed to
happen in non-geographically isolated conditions. 
 
> I think this is how evolution came along too -
> Darwin decided that 
> there may be another way.   Subsequent generations
> decided that it 
> would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as
> far as we can 
> tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.

Actually there is a huge body of evidence for
evolution. Just look at the dog breeds from chihuahuas
to great danes that all come from the wolf. Where is
the missing link between the wolf and the poodle?

Spontaneous generation is a trickier problem but there
are testable theories. My favorite of course is
panspermia since that leaves open the possibility that
life arose spontaneously long ago in a lower entropy
universe where the laws of physics were somewhat
different and spread throughout the universe from
there. 

My biggest problem with ID is that, regardless of
whether an intelligent designer exists, to invoke
him/her/it as the root cause of all things is no more
than a cop out to intellectual laziness. God would not
hide from us, if he didn't want us to try to find him.
And saying that everything exists because it is his
will is like calling "oly oly oxen free" only he
doesn't come out of hiding.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 11:38:23 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:38:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <42F5F2AF.6050009@neopax.com>

Keith Henson wrote:

>
> One modern example is the fading of the IRA in Northern Ireland.  
> 30-35 years ago the women there cut the birth rate to near 
> replacement.  The growth of the economy eventually got ahead of 
> population growth resulting in rising income per capita.  Their stone 
> age brains then said "that's enough war" even though not very many had 
> been killed and the population's support for the IRA warriors dried up.
>
The war ion N Ireland stopped for a number of reasons.
In order of importance they were:

a) The Catholic minority has been breeding faster than the Protestant 
majority and within a decade the positions will be reversed.
b) The future of NI is to be determined by a simple majority vote in a 
referendum once every seven yrs (IIRC)
c) The IRA, after 30yrs of war, was still no closer to any kind of 
military victory. Just the opposite
d) Eire had ceased to be a rabid Catholic theocracy sometime in the 80s/90s
e) Eire was now prosperous and the people of NI saw it as being 
something better than becoming a province in the European eqivalent of 
the Ayalollah's poverty stricken Iran.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Aug  7 12:01:54 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:01:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
References: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01c59b47$ce3fd400$c3893cd1@pavilion>

On Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:00 AM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote:
>> The problems, of course, are a) defining just
>> what is public and b) allowing this will erode
>> other freedoms...
>>
>> I'm amazed so few others on this list have such
>> concerns.  I expected a storm of protest.  Along
>> with libertarianism, has a healthy protective
>> attitude toward liberty been exorcised from
>> the list?
>
> Dan it looks to me like we are talking about two
> different things.  Libertarianism is about limiting
> the power of government, but limiting government
> may empower and motivate the snoopy LOLs.

Not exactly, but let me get to the rest of your point.

> The real debate is over how much privacy we are
> entitled to when in public.

See my "a)" above.  Since law -- whether private or government -- will
have define just what is public, this is problematic.  (Granted, in the
market anarchist variant of libertarianism, there really is no such as
public property, so this issue does not exactly arise.)

> Mike Lorrey and others have argued that freedom
> of speech (and many other freedoms) depends on
> freedom of anonymity.  But I have not been able to
> derive from constitutional fundamentals any basic
> right to anonymity, or any right to not be observed
> and recorded when in public.  The minute I step off
> my own private property, I assume I am fair game
> to have my every action observed.  I may not like it,
> but if a LOL or a paparazzi does so, I don't see
> what actual law has been broken or what right of
> mine has been violated.

My point was more about living in a society where people not only said
this was legally okay, but where they encouraged it.  Dan Clemmensen
wasn't just saying, "Well, it doesn't really violate any rights I know
about, so I reckon we'll have to put up with it."  In fact, he wrote:
"As long as we are going in this direction anyway, why not go a bit
further. If we give up the (non-existent) right to privacy in public, we
can make it much harder on terrorists."

He went on to suggest a particular program:  " Let's put cameras damn
near everywhere, and allow anyone who so desires to monitor them."  Now,
did you think this would be a private network of people or more like a
government thing?

> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps
>10% of the proles have camera phones.

I have one.

> But we know 10 yrs from now it will be 90%
> and we have no legal infrastructure in place
> for limiting any of that.  I cannot even
> imagine what such laws would look like.

My fear was not lots of individuals with cameras, as they've existed now
for well over a century.  My fear is more centered on a centralized
system of surveillance, which would seem ripe, once it's in place, for
those with nefarious designs to co-opt.  I think Dan and others do not
see this as a problem because they're discounting the possibility.

I don't want to sound paranoid.  After all, right now, other people can
watch people in public, for the most part.  That's part of what it means
to be in public.  However, when someone decides to set up a global
network to watch everyone at all times -- yes, for now, only in
public -- then I get worried.  If such just came about spontaneously,
I'd still be worried, but I don't want to hasten the day.:)

> To repeat: libertarianism is OK to discuss here.  ExI
> wants to move away from specifically endorsing any
> political party, which sounds reasonable for several
> reasons.

I misunderstood.  I seem to recall many years ago that ExI was
unashamedly libertarian -- not Libertarian Party, but endorsing the
libertarian ideal of a society without the initiation of force.  I
thought the goal of moving away from that was not to distance itself
from the LP or any party, but to embrace more welfare state types who
happen to sign on to everything else but the politics.

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 13:49:16 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
Message-ID: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en

So what is this? If it's a hoax then how? 



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Aug  7 14:11:18 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:11:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05080623222a34f3ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807100414.035af440@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 02:22 AM 07/08/05 -0400, you wrote:
>On 8/7/05, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> > Last few years I have developed a *really twisted* way of looking at wars
> > and related behavior such as terrorism.
> > ...
> > So the psychological mechanisms that turn on war mode in humans will stay
> > on till the conditions that turned on war mode are perceived as having 
> changed.
> > ...
> > So, what would shut off the war in Iraq?  Besides an outright orgy of
> > killing, a major epidemic would do the job as would a major
> > famine.  Eventually things will be in such bad shape for so long that
> > people get used to the horrible conditions as the norm.  Then a small up
> > tick can have positive feedback because an improving economy from a low
> > base will tend to shut off war mode.
> > ...
> > PS.  If anyone can pick holes in the model, please brighten my day and 
> do so.
>
>Sub-Saharan Africa?
>
>I mean, despite having a sizable portion of their population knocked
>out by famine, genocid, AIDS, etc, many regions are still very much in
>"war mode."

Given the local technology has the population reduction resulted in "a time 
of plenty" for the remaining population?  I don't think that's the case.

One of the sad effects of wars is that the disruption from wars makes 
people poorer which keep them in war mode longer.

This wasn't a problem in hunter gatherer times.

But when the Southwest native American corn farming tribes went to war, 
their response of moving into forts denied them access to much of their 
farming lands.  That made them more stressed and likely to stay in war 
mode.  The effect of staying in war mode was that 24 of 27 groups just 
vanished.

Keith



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug  7 14:16:12 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:16:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:49 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:

>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
>
>So what is this?

Go left and right. There are usually more of them, equidistant. It's a grid 
locator icon or whatever cartographers call such things.

Damien Broderick



From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug  7 14:18:22 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:18:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e050806202877de5cf3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
	<8d71341e050806202877de5cf3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F6182E.4060704@pobox.com>

Russell Wallace wrote:
> 
> I agree completely. The more efficient law enforcement becomes, the
> greater the extent to which the state itself - even a democratic one -
> becomes a greater threat than those it is intended to protect against.

The vast majority of damage and expense caused by September 11th stemmed from 
the reaction to the terrorism, not the terrorism itself, a predictable 
autoimmune disorder which al Qaeda almost certainly counted upon.  Al Qaeda is 
tiny compared to the larger world; if they wanted to cause true damage to us, 
they had to make us do it to ourselves.  That was the purpose which the 
suicide attacks accomplished; the World Trade Center was a side issue.  If we 
had declined to react to the provocation, September 11th would have had far 
less impact than the Indian tsunami or the Darfur genocide, which cost many 
more lives, changed nothing, and are busily being forgotten.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug  7 14:22:18 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:22:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F6191A.7050907@pobox.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
> 
> So what is this? If it's a hoax then how? 

I hate to say this, it being so terribly cliched and all, but have you 
considered that it might be a weather balloon?

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Aug  7 14:28:36 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:28:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42F61A94.5060500@jefallbright.net>

Huh?  Cartographic markers would be expected to much better defined, if 
in fact they were used in the manner you suggested.  Also, I don't see 
any similar features, did you? 

Damien, if I didn't know you to be such a straightforward guy, without a 
bit of irony or sarcasm, I would suspect your response was along the 
lines of playing the stereotypical UFO skeptic.  ;-)

Seems more likely to me a large reflective object of unknown nature.

- Jef

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 06:49 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en 
>>
>>
>> So what is this?
>
>
> Go left and right. There are usually more of them, equidistant. It's a 
> grid locator icon or whatever cartographers call such things.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 14:45:01 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 07:45:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205080623096b75cd50@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
...
> A great transhumanist movie would be based on a great plot in a
> believable and well researched future scenario...


The closest thing we have to a future friendly fiction
is the Jetsons cartoon from the 60s.  Star Trek was mostly
about the future of warfare.  Every future-based movie
or TV program I can think of was filled with conflict.  In
the Jetsons it was just middle class Americana in a 25th
century setting.  Of course it was comedy and a kid's show.

Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
worked out well all around?

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 14:51:14 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 07:51:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050807085753.37313.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> 
> Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
> problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
> "intelligent designer" come from?

Simple: it was created by a still more intelligent designer.  

And so on all the way down.

spike







From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug  7 14:47:50 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:47:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F61F16.6080107@cox.net>

Paul wrote:

> On 8/6/05, *Dan Clemmensen* <dgc at cox.net <mailto:dgc at cox.net>> wrote:
>
>     As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to give up
>     freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this
>     direction
>     anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the (non-existent)
>     right
>     to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.
>
>
> More or less what will happen anyway, with the government's blessing 
> or not. Think of the digitization of virtually all information that's 
> underway with Google, and the continual growth of the blogosphere. 
> There was this woman in South Korea, her dog made a bit of a mess on a 
> train, and she refused to clean it. Thanks to camera phones, her 
> picture was placed on the Internet, and she was recognized in the street.
>
> Your LOLs won't be little old ladies, they might be the guy in the 
> subway fiddling with his cell phone, or later, someone recording what 
> they see through their glasses or contact lenses. This will be more or 
> less fair, as everyone will be watching everyone else. Everyone is the 
> watchers, and the watchers watch everyone.
>
Exactly. Since it's inevitable, I'm proposing that the government 
finance a quick kick-start to this phenomenon as a cheap and effective 
response to terrorism. The bottom-up approach will not lead to effective 
coverage in the short term, and there is not enough mobile bandwidth 
already deployed, so fixed cameras are currently more cost-effective.


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Aug  7 15:00:22 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:00:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <42F6191A.7050907@pobox.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807103840.035aab70@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:22 AM 07/08/05 -0700, you wrote:
>The Avantguardian wrote:
>>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
>>So what is this? If it's a hoax then how?
>
>I hate to say this, it being so terribly cliched and all, but have you 
>considered that it might be a weather balloon?

Whatever it is, it is subtending about 200 feet on the ground.  Weather 
balloons are typically 2 feet, so if it is a weather balloon, it is 100 
times as close to the camera as the ground.  These maps are from both 
aircraft and satellites.  If this was from an aircraft and it was at 10,000 
feet, the balloon would be 100 feet away from the camera.  Would the object 
be that out of focus under those conditions?

The other possibility for the focus problem would be if the photo was taken 
by one of those strip cameras that moves the film backwards in synch with 
the aircraft's forward motion and exposes through a slit (nowadays a CCD 
one dimension sensor.)

Or some joker could have just photoshopped it in.  Good job if so because 
the sun angle looks right.

Keith Henson



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 15:01:58 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:01:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508071504.j77F41R16198@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
> 
> >http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-
80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en

> >
> >So what is this?
> 
> Go left and right. There are usually more of them, equidistant. It's a
> grid locator icon or whatever cartographers call such things.
> 
> Damien Broderick


If on a circuit board we would call it a fiducial.  I don't
know if the term applies to maps.

spike






From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 15:06:37 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:06:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807102320.035aae20@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050807002417.033d38d0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050807102320.035aae20@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <42F6237D.4070705@neopax.com>

Keith Henson wrote:

> At 12:38 PM 07/08/05 +0100, Dirk wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> a) The Catholic minority has been breeding faster than the Protestant 
>> majority and within a decade the positions will be reversed.
>
>
> The model's claim is that rising income per capita shuts off war.
>
> Most places in Europe population growth of Catholics is at or below 
> replacement. Is Ireland and/or N Ireland different?
>
Until recently yes.
http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/eire.html

"


  When the Irish Free State was created in 1922, the Catholic Church
  established itself with a vengeance and had several of its doctrines
  written into the Irish constitution: e.g., no contraceptives, no
  divorce. In effect, Ireland was like a theocratic state, that is, one
  in which the government is a secular arm of the church. Although its
  power has weakened of late (mainly because of several scandals of
  major proportions involving priests and bishops and because
  modernization tends to bring a more secular society), recently the
  church led the fight against a constitutional. amendment that would
  have allowed divorce under specified circumstances.


  Irish Catholicism has always been more conservative and puritanical
  that that of American or European catholics. Until about 1970 it made
  its presence felt in many aspects of Irish life: such as the threat of
  excommunication for young catholics who wanted to attend a protestant
  university. There was heavy censorship of movies and books and plays.
  The major influence of the church on modern Irish lit. has been to
  foster an attitude of criticism and opposition. Some of Ireland?s best
  lit. has been anti-clerical. Ireland, which used to boast of exporting
  priests to other countries around the world, now has too few young men
  choosing the priesthood as their vocation even to supply the needs at
  home.

"
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=326&HistoryID=aa31
On the social front the issues of urgency derive from the power and 
influence of the Roman Catholic church. On three topics of passionate 
concern to ordinary families - divorce, contraception, abortion - there 
are continuing struggles between liberal and Catholic pressure groups.
		







On abortion, a referendum in 1983 confirms the existing policy of 
absolute prohibition; nine years later another referendum relaxes the 
ban in certain circumstances. On the availability of contraception 
Catholic opposition finally crumbles in 1985. A referendum on divorce in 
1985 confirms that it is not to be available in the republic; 
subsequently, after a referendum in 1995, the ban is lifted.


-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From matus at matus1976.com  Sun Aug  7 15:08:33 2005
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:08:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <42F61A94.5060500@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <02a401c59b61$e4856e90$f15c920c@hplaptop>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright
>
> Huh?  Cartographic markers would be expected to much better defined,
if
> in fact they were used in the manner you suggested.  Also, I don't see
> any similar features, did you?
> 
> Damien, if I didn't know you to be such a straightforward guy, without
a
> bit of irony or sarcasm, I would suspect your response was along the
> lines of playing the stereotypical UFO skeptic.  ;-)
> 
> Seems more likely to me a large reflective object of unknown nature.
> 
> - Jef
> 

Or just one of those nifty UFO looking clouds

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CG
GLD%3A2005-05%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=ufo+cloud

Matus





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 15:19:17 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:19:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508071521.j77FLKR17499@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 6:49 AM
> To: ExI-Chat
> Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-
> 80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
> 
> So what is this? If it's a hoax then how?
> 
> 
> 
> The Avantguardian


Google Earth shows it better.  It is a small pond with
a white sand bottom on the north shore of Mangonia Lake
Near West Palm Beach Florida.  The deeper part of the
pond appears blue, the shallower end white.

We Florida boys used to call them marl pits because 
they were formed by the road builders digging marl out 
of them to make road beds.  Marl is a white clay-like
substance.  The resulting holes would naturally 
fill in with water to make a delightful swimming hole.

spike







From jonkc at att.net  Sun Aug  7 15:38:11 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:38:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com><42F41D27.4040701@aol.com><CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>

"Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com>

> What parts of ID don't hold up and aren't useful?

Scientist: I have discovered a very odd new phenomenon but I don't yet 
understand what causes it.

Holly Roller: I know what caused it, the Clogknee field caused it.

Scientist: OK, but what caused the Clogknee field and exactly how does it 
work?

Holly Roller: It is sacrilegious to ask questions like that about the 
Clogknee field.


Now that wasn't terribly useful to the scientist now was it.

       John K Clark








From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug  7 15:40:39 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:40:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <200508071521.j77FLKR17499@tick.javien.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200508071521.j77FLKR17499@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807103911.01cd78f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:19 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, spike wrote:


>Google Earth shows it better.  It is a small pond with
>a white sand bottom on the north shore of Mangonia Lake
>Near West Palm Beach Florida.  The deeper part of the
>pond appears blue, the shallower end white.
>
>We Florida boys used to call them marl pits

Right. Love those LA middle of the road marl pits:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 15:51:57 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:51:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <200508071521.j77FLKR17499@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200508071553.j77FrxR19982@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
...
> 
> We Florida boys used to call them marl pits because
> they were formed by the road builders digging marl out
> of them to make road beds.  Marl is a white clay-like
> substance.  The resulting holes would naturally
> fill in with water to make a delightful swimming hole.
> 
> spike


For an example of a marl pit, go to Google Earth, find
28d 35' 41.44" N, 80d 51'11.79" W.  That is the house
I grew up in.  Now wander about a km to the west and
north to 28d 35' 55.37" N, 80d 50' 48.45" W.  That
squarish looking lake is a marl pit, where marl was
removed in the 1960s to build interstate 95, which
runs north and south, separating my house from the
swimming hole.  One could (illegally of course) run
across the freeway to get the marl pit.  

Today the lake looks black, but in the 60s and 70s
the bottom was nearly white.  The water was clear
enough that one could see for some distance with
a diving mask.

You can find it by google earthing on 32796.

If you do not yet have google earth, then you are
a primitive savage.  Drop the bumpy club and go
forthwith to 

http://earth.google.com/

download the software and check out the coolest
free application to come along in some time.  

spike








From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug  7 15:51:41 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:51:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <012a01c59b03$95d7eb50$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com><42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>	<42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508062303190.4457@imladris.surriel.com>
	<012a01c59b03$95d7eb50$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42F62E0D.7080400@cox.net>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>> But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract
>>> ourselves witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out
>>> as fast as physically possible may be the least bad solution, but
>>> it will not stop the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil 
>>> war.
>>
> Haven't promises now also been made to those Iraqi's that are not
> fighting as insurgents and who did vote for another less US disapproved
> government?
>
> And if so are those promises to now be put aside, and to be seen as
> being put aside by the world that is watching via the media?
>
> Colin Powell said to George Bush in relation to Iraq, the Pottery Barn
> rule applies here, if you break it you will own it.
>
The Bush administration, in its self-delusion, made promises that it is 
not physically possible to fulfill. Yes, it will be dishonorable if we 
do not fulfill those promises. If the Bush administration had promised 
to teach each Iraqi to teleport, it would be dishonorable to fail to 
meet that commitment also. The fact that honor requires an outcome does 
not make the outcome possible.


From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug  7 15:56:36 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:56:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508062303190.4457@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <20050806170450.36632.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>	<42F4F1CF.1080804@neopax.com>
	<42F4FA60.2070008@cox.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508062303190.4457@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <42F62F34.9030009@cox.net>

Rik van Riel wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>But now the war has happened. The problem is how to extract ourselves 
>>witht he least additional damage.  Simply pulling out as fast as 
>>physically possible may be the least bad solution, but it will not stop 
>>the insurgency. It will lead to an ugly 3-way civil war.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not convinced.  Most of the "insurgents" appear to be foreigners,
>who came to Iraq specifically to fight the Americans and the British.
>
>If the Americans and the British go elsewhere, I suspect these
>islamic fundamentalists will simply follow them and continue to blow
>them up in their new location.
>
>  
>
The Bush administration has tied the Iraq war to terrorism. We had two 
independent problems. now we have two interdependent problems. If we 
solve the Iraq problem using the least bad solution (IMO, a partition) 
we will still have the terrorism problem, as you say, and the terrorism 
problem will be worse than it was before we entered Iraq, but better 
than it is now.


From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 16:11:40 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:11:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807103911.01cd78f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200508071521.j77FLKR17499@tick.javien.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050807103911.01cd78f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508070911553fb5a1@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> Right. Love those LA middle of the road marl pits:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en
> 

These spots have been discussed at length on the internet.
Damien is on the right lines that it is some kind of artifact added in
the processing. There are lots of them available to find. The easiest
to find is to go left about 7 clicks on max resolution.
Notice that Google overlays a watermark on their photos. You can see
some on this example, including on the mysterious blob. Now zoom out
one level. Note that the Google watermark stays the same size because
it is overlayed on to the displayed map. *Except* on the blob, where
it shrinks with the blob. This indicates that the blobs have been cut
and pasted into the original photo along with the watermark.

On the other hand, it does look very much like a Class 'D' Altairian
scoutship.  ;)

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug  7 16:34:00 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <42F61A94.5060500@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42F61A94.5060500@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807113205.01d7bc28@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:28 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, Jef wrote:

>Damien, if I didn't know you to be such a straightforward guy, without a 
>bit of irony or sarcasm, I would suspect your response was along the lines 
>of playing the stereotypical UFO skeptic.  ;-)

Not. More presumptive registration marks:

<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.748705>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.748705,-80.074496&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.748651>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.748651,-80.189370&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.801105>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.801105,-80.130801&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902041>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902041,-80.357265&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.903071>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.903071,-80.302463&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.002431>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.002431,-80.243862&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902063>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902063,-80.245696&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k
<http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902235>http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902235,-80.077393&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k






From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 16:11:14 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:11:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807103911.01cd78f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508071638.j77GcGR23466@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 8:41 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
> 
> At 08:19 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, spike wrote:
> 
...
> >
> >We Florida boys used to call them marl pits
> 
> Right. Love those LA middle of the road marl pits:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en
> 
> Damien Broderick


There was great debate on this with the interstate 210
planning committee.  The opposition argued that placing
a marl pit in the westbound lane would slow traffic, 
especially after it fill in with water, but eventually
the needs of the roadbuilders won out, and the pit was dug.  

{8^D

OK Im stumped.  Must be a google map artifact of some
sort.

spike






From brian at posthuman.com  Sun Aug  7 16:27:31 2005
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:27:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807134917.99197.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F63673.7010300@posthuman.com>

This originally popped up months ago:

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/12/ufo/

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/

I think I heard about it via boingboing.

Checking the first few comments on the "update" page and it could be some effect 
that the coders at Google added into the mix, possibly a "watermark" or even 
practical joke. 516 comments so far... perhaps someone here has time to read 
through it all?
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 17:43:10 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:43:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <200508071553.j77FrxR19982@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200508071745.j77HjDR28488@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
...
> You can find it by google earthing on 32796.
> 
> If you do not yet have google earth, then you are
> a primitive savage.  Drop the bumpy club and go
> forthwith to
> 
> http://earth.google.com/
> 
> download the software and check out the coolest
> free application to come along in some time.
...


Regarding google earth, I find it interesting that 
Keith Henson's legal troubles involved posting on
the internet the GPS coordinates of the Hemet
headquarters of you know who.  Now if one goes
to google earth and types in the search window: 

33 d 50' 2.33" N, 116 d 59' 14.03" W

you zoom to a satellites-eye view of the entire
compound with the crosshairs on the swimming pool.

Do check out the compound.  They have invested
some serious bucks here.  

Google is becoming more godlike every day.  I
practically pray to it already.  Think of it
friends: this is the answer to a dream many of
us had since childhood, the 60s in my case.  I
dreamed of a computer so advanced, one could 
type in any question, lights would blink
and a card would pop out with the answer.

Google is getting pretty damn close to that,
is it not?  No paper needed, and many of the
answers are wrong, but a smart person can sort
thru the answers and figure out the truth.  So
technology has in a sense both wildly exceed and 
fallen short of that dream simultaneously.

Ahhhh life is goooood.

spike








From amara at amara.com  Sun Aug  7 17:58:10 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:58:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
Message-ID: <p06210200bf1bfb579c75@[23.237.66.13]>

Spike wrote:
>  http://earth.google.com/
>
>  download the software and check out the coolest
>  free application to come along in some time.

which unfortunately is running on an uncool platform. Does anyone
know if a Mac OSX or Linux version is underway ?

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/
********************************************************************
"Naked singularities do not qualify as deities."
  -- John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk


From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 18:23:06 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:23:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf1bfb579c75@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06210200bf1bfb579c75@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508071123136fb46e@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Amara Graps wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> >  http://earth.google.com/
> >
> >  download the software and check out the coolest
> >  free application to come along in some time.
> 
> which unfortunately is running on an uncool platform. Does anyone
> know if a Mac OSX or Linux version is underway ?
> 

They've got it already. They just want you to pay real money for it.
<http://earth.google.com/earth_fusion.html>
Google Earth Fusion

It's a political decision. 
Google Earth is a free version provided for rich WinXP users in the
hope that some of them will pay up for the Plus and Pro and Enterprise
versions.

Obviously, there's no point in providing a free version for the
cheapskate Linux users. ;)
But if you are a company running Linux, you can afford to buy the
Fusion version.

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 18:32:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] not a UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807091248.01c8c938@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050807183231.93580.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 06:49 AM 8/7/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
> 
>
>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
> >
> >So what is this?
> 
> Go left and right. There are usually more of them, equidistant. It's
> a grid locator icon or whatever cartographers call such things.

yeah, there is apparently one to the left out in the swamps that was
apparently not exactly matched up...

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 18:36:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> > 
> > Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
> > problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
> > "intelligent designer" come from?
> 
> Simple: it was created by a still more intelligent designer.  
> 
> And so on all the way down.

Exactly: The Simulation Argument. This is our hook for implanting
transhumanist philosophy in the population.

Nor does there need to be an original IDer. The chain of designers
could easily be a loop, given that all universes are indistinguishable
from a closed time-like curve, there could also be a Meta-loop of
universe designers.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 18:47:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0508071123136fb46e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050807184705.66085.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/7/05, Amara Graps wrote:
> > Spike wrote:
> > >  http://earth.google.com/
> > >
> > >  download the software and check out the coolest
> > >  free application to come along in some time.
> > 
> > which unfortunately is running on an uncool platform. Does anyone
> > know if a Mac OSX or Linux version is underway ?
> > 
> 
> They've got it already. They just want you to pay real money for it.
> <http://earth.google.com/earth_fusion.html>
> Google Earth Fusion
> 
> It's a political decision. 
> Google Earth is a free version provided for rich WinXP users in the
> hope that some of them will pay up for the Plus and Pro and
> Enterprise
> versions.
> 
> Obviously, there's no point in providing a free version for the
> cheapskate Linux users. ;)
> But if you are a company running Linux, you can afford to buy the
> Fusion version.
> 

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the choice of name for this app,
which is the same name for a similar app described by Stephenson in
Snow Crash, produced by the CIC. The only difference being the CIC
Earth was real time and VR. It was also supposed to be very expensive.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 18:48:23 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:48:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <120E1FD4-12CE-4EDD-996A-B869B8AA2F6E@mac.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Paul wrote:

> On 8/6/05, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to give up
> freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this  
> direction
> anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the (non-existent)  
> right
> to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.
>

What exactly do you mean by non-existent?  I can agree there is no  
particular right not to be surveilled in public by authorities today  
or watched by the people around you.  At least I don't know of any  
relevant case law claiming such a right.  There are limits on what  
may be recorded and by whom in what circumstances but I suspect those  
to fall as the technology improves, becomes ubiquitous and since the  
technology has many other highly beneficial usages. However, in  
practice, the government does not today track all of the movements  
and activities of all its citizens.  Doing so is becoming  
technologically possible.  But is it desirable?  What kind of  
safeguards must be put in to make such a practice less of a real  
danger to everyone except those currently favored by those in power?   
How would/should the information be guarded and limited in use?  Who  
would have access and for what purposes?

Without a very high level of respect for personal freedom, diversity  
and protection of dissent I fear mass public data collection of this  
kind although I am generally very much for most of what leads to it  
and for the other uses of the technology.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/fb5e8df2/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug  7 19:12:09 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:12:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <120E1FD4-12CE-4EDD-996A-B869B8AA2F6E@mac.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>	<9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<120E1FD4-12CE-4EDD-996A-B869B8AA2F6E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42F65D09.5020203@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/05, *Dan Clemmensen* <dgc at cox.net <mailto:dgc at cox.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     As a society we in the US have shown a distressing tendency to
>>     give up
>>     freedoms to counter terrorists.As long as we are going in this
>>     direction
>>     anyway, why not go a bit further. If we give up the
>>     (non-existent) right
>>     to privacy in public, we can make it much harder on terrorists.
>>
>
> What exactly do you mean by non-existent?  I can agree there is no 
> particular right not to be surveilled in public by authorities today 
> or watched by the people around you.  At least I don't know of any 
> relevant case law claiming such a right.  There are limits on what may 
> be recorded and by whom in what circumstances but I suspect those to 
> fall as the technology improves, becomes ubiquitous and since the 
> technology has many other highly beneficial usages. However, in 
> practice, the government does not today track all of the movements and 
> activities of all its citizens.  Doing so is becoming technologically 
> possible.  But is it desirable?  What kind of safeguards must be put 
> in to make such a practice less of a real danger to everyone except 
> those currently favored by those in power?  How would/should the 
> information be guarded and limited in use?  Who would have access and 
> for what purposes?
>
> Without a very high level of respect for personal freedom, diversity 
> and protection of dissent I fear mass public data collection of this 
> kind although I am generally very much for most of what leads to it 
> and for the other uses of the technology.
>
I agree. That's why I proposed using volunteers rather than government, 
and real-time rather than stored data. Let's get the public involved 
early. I'm not comfortable with universal transparency, but I'm even 
less comfortable with a government monopoly on universal surveillance.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 19:19:42 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:19:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<001d01c59af6$8c1a66e0$81893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <AEED5F01-CA72-4F80-9B60-1F87B0CD5E5F@mac.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Technotranscendence wrote:
>> When a LOL sees something suspicious, they
>> push the "alert" button. The problem is flashed
>> to a hundred other LOSs at random, and if at
>> least ten of then agree that a problem exists,
>> the alert for the camera is flashed to the
>> professionals.
>>


Great, we all get recorded and reported on by thousands of Mrs Grundy  
types or worse.   How is this different from TIPS, from turning  
everyone into a spy on their neighbors?

>> As the program becomes more mature, we
>> can use really dumb automatic filtering to
>> remove most of the cameras from
>> consideration most of the time. Even a simple
>> motion detector would increase the LOL
>> productivity by a factor of ten or more.
>>
>
> What's to stop the system from being abused?  I can just see
> criminals -- including the government -- selectively blacking out  
> areas.
> I can also see attention being directed at undesirables of all sorts.
> Such a system is likely to only add power to already too powerful  
> nation
> states.  Now, you might claim this is not so bad, that we can trust  
> the
> current crop of politicians and functionaries not to abuse such power
> too much.

hahahahaha.  Yeah, right.


>   But what happens with the next crop?  And the one after that?
> What happens when, after you've laid the foundations for a  
> totalitarian
> state, one is actually erected upon those foundations?  I predict that
> then the terrorism will not be retail but wholesale, but none will be
> calling it such.
>
> I'm amazed so few others on this list have such concerns.  I  
> expected a
> storm of protest.  Along with libertarianism, has a healthy protective
> attitude toward liberty been exorcised from the list?

I have brought up these and other problems with "the transparent  
society" many times.  Usually I am told I am bringing up things  
already long ago dealt with and most voices go back to extolling the  
virtues of such a state and ignoring the many dangers.  These is  
consistent with a general default position of assuming anything that  
can be done with technology that is not an obvious initiation of  
force is good and anything that is said against any such should be  
held as suspicious and not fully addressed or swept under a rug.  I  
am all for the ability of all people to record anything and  
everything they witness.  But that does not mean that we don't have  
considerable work to do to avoid quite nasty unintended consequences.

- samantha



From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 19:30:41 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <42F65D09.5020203@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net> <9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<120E1FD4-12CE-4EDD-996A-B869B8AA2F6E@mac.com>
	<42F65D09.5020203@cox.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050807123052a7f3ae@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I agree. That's why I proposed using volunteers rather than government,
> and real-time rather than stored data. Let's get the public involved
> early. I'm not comfortable with universal transparency, but I'm even
> less comfortable with a government monopoly on universal surveillance.

You need recording and stored data. 
If one LOL sees something suspicious, it might be over before the
other 100 LOLs are called in to look at it. By the time it is
escalated to the professionals to join their queue of things to be
looked at, it could be hours before they get round to it.

And you may need evidence for investigation and courts, like in the
London bombings.

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 19:33:52 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:33:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508070402.j7742aR12686@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <E2AEB08F-54CC-49BD-904C-6D2D361B16FC@mac.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:00 PM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
>>
>> On Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:27 PM Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
> ...
>
>>
>> The problems, of course, are a) defining just what is public and b)
>> allowing this will erode other freedoms...
>>
>> I'm amazed so few others on this list have such concerns.  I  
>> expected a
>> storm of protest.  Along with libertarianism, has a healthy  
>> protective
>> attitude toward liberty been exorcised from the list?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> Dan it looks to me like we are talking about two different
> things.  Libertarianism is about limiting the power of
> government, but limiting government may empower and
> motivate the snoopy LOLs.

Libertarianism is not defined as limiting the power of government.    
The snoopy LOLs cannot do as much damage with less power to legally  
initiate force or direct so many aspects of life  being in the hands  
of government.

>   The real debate is over how much
> privacy we are entitled to when in public.

This is not the real debate.  The real debate is how much freedom we  
are guaranteed.  LOLs plus government history of severely abusing  
freedom is a problem.  The solution is limit the governmental abuses  
much more.

> Mike Lorrey
> and others have argued that freedom of speech (and many other
> freedoms) depends on freedom of anonymity.

They do in the face of an abusive government.  If the government  
could be sufficiently tamed (or dismembered) then anonymity would be  
less of a requirement.

> But I have not
> been able to derive from constitutional fundamentals any
> basic right to anonymity, or any right to not be observed
> and recorded when in public.  The minute I step off my
> own private property, I assume I am fair game to have my
> every action observed.  I may not like it, but if a LOL
> or a paparazzi does so, I don't see what actual law has
> been broken or what right of mine has been violated.
>

None there perhaps.  In what may be done with the information your  
freedom and very life can be heavily impacted.

> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps 10% of the
> proles have camera phones.  But we know 10 yrs from
> now it will be 90% and we have no legal infrastructure
> in place for limiting any of that.  I cannot even
> imagine what such laws would look like.
>
> spike
>
> To repeat: libertarianism is OK to discuss here.  ExI wants
> to move away from specifically endorsing any political
> party, which sounds reasonable for several reasons. The
> real contentious stuff probably does fit better with Mike
> Lorrey's extrofreedom list.  But do keep it interesting
> and relevant.  Everyday politics is snoozy for the most
> part, is it not?  s
>

Bullshit, rancor, sniping and so on are snoozy or worse.  But  
guarding a list against such takes more work that noone seems willing  
or able to do.

- samantha


From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Aug  7 19:47:27 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:47:27 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <200508062038.j76KcxR05400@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508062038.j76KcxR05400@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <5bed48a5bf6ab581435e3e9c3af28844@aol.com>

Great.

Al, baby.  War protesters DO BETTER.  In fact, now that the 
administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that 
the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively.  Body bags 
and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories from 
Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people.  Go team!  
Kill, Kill, Kill!

Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots.  That's why people no longer 
make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.

In fact, it's too easy.  In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a 
good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the 
only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into it. 
  If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq remembering 
some essential facts:

1)  There are now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and both 
the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and 
British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and 
make the case before the UN.  The UN inspectors were there verifying 
this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of war, 
they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there.  This is 
unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome economic 
burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.

2)  Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and 
their current involvement is at best questionable.  In fact, due to the 
outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist 
terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British targets, 
has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of Iraq.

3)  The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled.  Haliburton - the 
company that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a 
billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract 
without competition.  UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose 
board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and to 
date the one who's made the most money from this war.  Prior to the war 
itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the 
spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job number 
1" to secure the oil fields.  Make no mistakes, they're in it for the 
money.

4)  There are other countries in the world that actually DO have 
weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually 
ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not 
invading North Korea any time soon.  Why?  Because it's not our job to 
fix all the governments in the world.  It's neither our job nor is it 
within our reasonable reach.  We simply couldn't fight North Korea and 
Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into a 
complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, further 
plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and you 
know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood 
for vietnam or Korea.  And worse than that, the terrorists would have 
won.  America would be dead.  America is a dream of freedom, 
opportunity, peace and prosperity.  If we don't start remembering 
quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will be 
gone anyway.

5)  Finally the fiscal point.  After the idiot in chief got himself 
punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme 
court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some 
talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you 
didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about it, 
himself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies.  So what 
did he do?  He started a war to give people something else to think 
about and spend money on.  Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion 
dollars of debt in 6 years.  That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced 
the budget.  Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to 
bankrupt it.   This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave 
your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on 
vacation for a month.    This point -should- bother people like Lorrey, 
but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far up 
the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not 
surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with 
odoriferous bile.

But of course, these points were well made a few years ago.  That the 
right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin 
citizens of dumbf*ckistan in the red states can't fathom why anyone is 
against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.   
Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only 
pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them?  What more is 
there to say?  Was something overlooked?

Robbie Lindauer

PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you 
take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to 
continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the 
fence?


On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>
>> I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?
>
>
> Let's let it sputter on a while.  Doesn't look like it is
> going anywhere in particular.  spike
>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and 
>>> for
>>> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in 
>>> this
>>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sun Aug  7 19:55:03 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:55:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
References: <p06210200bf1bfb579c75@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <007e01c59b89$e7107f10$0300a8c0@Nano>

Look there's one by my house!
http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite.jpg


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."


The Avantguardian wrote:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
> 
> So what is this? If it's a hoax then how? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/01904ae7/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 19:58:39 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:58:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <42F61F16.6080107@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F61F16.6080107@cox.net>
Message-ID: <15F9B269-5C52-4DCB-88E4-F6281AB78659@mac.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:47 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> Exactly. Since it's inevitable, I'm proposing that the government  
> finance a quick kick-start to this phenomenon as a cheap and  
> effective response to terrorism. The bottom-up approach will not  
> lead to effective coverage in the short term, and there is not  
> enough mobile bandwidth already deployed, so fixed cameras are  
> currently more cost-effective.

If it is so cheap then why have government involved?  How is it  
effective?  The terrorist builds the suicide vest  in private, puts  
on a coat and then walks as seen on countless cameras to their target  
before going BOOM.  Also just a bunch of LOLs or ubiquitous camera  
would produce a veritable mountain of footage with little ability to  
sort out terrorism from a the mass.   Allegedly fighting terrorism is  
not worth giving up what freedom from government micro-control of our  
lives that we for the moment still retain.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/44313d78/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Aug  7 20:01:41 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:01:41 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>
	<5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <19e11ee6e204217ecfe53576493401bc@aol.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:33 PM, John Calvin wrote:

> I am opposed to teaching ID in schools.

So?

>  Throughout history people
> have stopped and said "It is this way because (the) God(s) willed it
> so.

Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong.  So?

> Then someone eventually comes along who says, no, there is this
> chain of events, or that mechanism which causes said thing to be, and
> this occurs without any divine intervention.

Sometimes.  There are plenty of unexplained phenomena and series of 
historical events whose physical explanations are inadequate.  There is 
no reason whatever to expect that physics is able to explain all 
phenomena.  It can't even explain life, much less consciousness, 
certainly not history.

> We continue to push the vail back, encounter another one and push it
> back as well.

Leibniz covered this centuries ago.  In every conceptual system there 
are the fundamental units - the "force" or "matter" whose role in the 
formalism of the system is well defined but the existence and nature of 
which are left forever undefined - we can not use a fundamental system 
to explain what its fundamental postulates -mean-.  Everything must be 
explained in terms of them.  One accuses the generations of the past of 
talking about "occult forces" - but how have we really improved over 
"occult forces" by invoking "quantum fields"?  We still can't predict 
what will happen, exactly, -and- the word "field" is no more 
explanatory than the word "force" occult or otherwise.

>   So far every time we stop and say god did it, we
> eventually find new information that pushes gods involvement farther
> and farther back.

This is literally false.  There have been lots of well documented 
events for which we have not found any new information that would push 
God's involvement back any further - both common events (like, wow, I'm 
thinking about love) and uncommon events (like people being seen after 
they've died).  Not only this, the common procedure is not to actually 
EXPLAIN those phenomena but rather to ignore them.  This is common in 
the history of science - one picks the phenomena one wants to explain 
and that fit well with one's theory and then ignores those phenomena 
that don't fit well with the theory.  I think Feyerabend's "Against 
Method" is still the classic on this point.

>  We ought to finally learn this lesson and stop
> saying that God did it.

Not a very good lesson.  Perhaps we should learn the other lesson, that 
God does everything.

> Another issue, is that at various times even learned men have espoused
> the belief that there was nothing more to be learned about the
> universe, and that "Physics has explained all there is to know".  How
> can we encourage children to enter the scientific fields if we are
> teaching them that, this is the end of the line.  Sure we ought to
> acknowledge any gaps in any of our knowledge, but rather than stop and
> say "well, God must have done it", we ought to leap into the gaps
> joyfully, breathless at the new adventures to be had.

A person who looks at the endless gap in our knowledge and says 
"physics has explained everything there is to know" is a fool.
A person who looks at physics and demands an explanation for it is a 
mystic.
"Why are there laws of physics and why are they this way?"

This is not a question invented by appologeticists and clergy, but 
rather the kind of question that our young people actually ask and is, 
in fact, the original impetus for the study of physics at all.  If we 
quash -these kinds- of questions, then of course our children will be 
uninterested in physics.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Aug  7 20:03:35 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:03:35 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050807050357.62890.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807050357.62890.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6b0d5c9527cb229a743db9edbad740db@aol.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> I'm opposed to teachers teaching anything they have not empirically
> tested themselves. Anything else is dogmatic pabulum.

You're really a standup comedian, right?

Robbie



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 20:01:29 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:01:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>

It was a highly self-improved FAI that accidentally created a  
universe within itself through the simple process of thinking about  
how its origin and the fate of its creators could have gone differently.

- s
On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:51 AM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
>>
>> Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
>> problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
>> "intelligent designer" come from?
>>
>
> Simple: it was created by a still more intelligent designer.
>
> And so on all the way down.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 20:17:58 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:17:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
In-Reply-To: <42F65D09.5020203@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42F5556F.1010703@cox.net>
	<9b8a7dc0050806183349121a9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<120E1FD4-12CE-4EDD-996A-B869B8AA2F6E@mac.com>
	<42F65D09.5020203@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4C0587D2-D7D1-4079-9896-8D02CDFE1B62@mac.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I agree. That's why I proposed using volunteers rather than  
> government, and real-time rather than stored data. Let's get the  
> public involved early. I'm not comfortable with universal  
> transparency, but I'm even less comfortable with a government  
> monopoly on universal surveillance.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.  So insure everyone the right to  
record and share whatever they like?  Hollywood and the record  
companies would be most unhappy.  I have written many times here that  
augmentation of human beings whether that augmentation is external or  
internal leads  to an ability to perfectly record/remember   
everything one experiences and share it with others.  It would be  
good to start reworking our assumptions, mores, business models and  
laws now for the world that is coming.

- samantha



From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug  7 20:23:42 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:23:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> It was a highly self-improved FAI that accidentally created a  universe 
> within itself through the simple process of thinking about  how its 
> origin and the fate of its creators could have gone differently.

That's bloody difficult for an FAI to do by accident.  If you said it was an 
UFAI who did it without caring, that'd be another story.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug  7 20:21:36 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:21:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <5bed48a5bf6ab581435e3e9c3af28844@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200508072023.j77KNhR10775@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
...
> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you
> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the
> fence?

By all means, speak your mind Robbie.  The power
to kill threads will be used sparingly if at all, and
even then only to deal with threads that directly harm 
the reputation of ExI and transhumanism.  

> ...  Go team! Kill, Kill, Kill!...
> In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into it...
> 
> Robbie Lindauer

We are not at war with Iraq, we haven't been for some
time now.  It doesn't look to me as though we ever were:
the Iraqi army never put up any convincing resistance to 
the coalition.  Iraq and Afghanistan are our allies in the 
war against the insurgents.  Everyone here is against
war.

spike








From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 20:30:39 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:30:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42F66F6F.5020109@neopax.com>

spike wrote:

>>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0
>>To: ExI chat list
>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>A great transhumanist movie would be based on a great plot in a
>>believable and well researched future scenario...
>>    
>>
>
>
>The closest thing we have to a future friendly fiction
>is the Jetsons cartoon from the 60s.  Star Trek was mostly
>about the future of warfare.  Every future-based movie
>or TV program I can think of was filled with conflict.  In
>the Jetsons it was just middle class Americana in a 25th
>century setting.  Of course it was comedy and a kid's show.
>
>  
>
The latest Star Trek series is anti-Transhumanist.
Of course, so was the original but it wasn't so noticeable back then, 
nor was ST an institution.
That might be one reason for its failure.

>Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
>worked out well all around?
>
>  
>
Not that I can recall.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 20:37:54 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <5bed48a5bf6ab581435e3e9c3af28844@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050807203754.37302.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It probably is.
And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum is the lifeblood of the economy.


Great.

Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the 
administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that 
the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body bags 
and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories from 
Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team! 
Kill, Kill, Kill!

Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no longer 
make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.

In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a 
good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the 
only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into it. 
If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq remembering 
some essential facts:

1) There are now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and both 
the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and 
British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and 
make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying 
this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of war, 
they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is 
unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome economic 
burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.

2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and 
their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to the 
outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist 
terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British targets, 
has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of Iraq.

3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the 
company that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a 
billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract 
without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose 
board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and to 
date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the war 
itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the 
spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job number 
1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the 
money.

4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have 
weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually 
ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not 
invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to 
fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it 
within our reasonable reach. We simply couldn't fight North Korea and 
Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into a 
complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, further 
plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and you 
know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood 
for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have 
won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom, 
opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering 
quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will be 
gone anyway.

5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself 
punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme 
court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some 
talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you 
didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about it, 
himself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So what 
did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think 
about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion 
dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced 
the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to 
bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave 
your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on 
vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey, 
but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far up 
the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not 
surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with 
odoriferous bile.

But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the 
right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin 
citizens of dumbf*ckistan in the red states can't fathom why anyone is 
against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity. 
Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only 
pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more is 
there to say? Was something overlooked?

Robbie Lindauer

PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you 
take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to 
continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the 
fence?


On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>
>> I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?
>
>
> Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
> going anywhere in particular. spike
>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer" and 
>>> for
>>>  "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in 
>>> this
>>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/ce6c2d27/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Aug  7 20:43:23 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:43:23 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050807085753.37313.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807085753.37313.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fe7cd25b3486693c890d030018eeeff3@aol.com>


On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:57 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts
>> of ID don't hold
>> up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define
>> "useful for what" being a
>> purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the
>> chicken and the egg
>> problem adequately meanwhile giving us an
>> understanding of the big bang
>> and a variety of other problem.
>
> Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
> problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
> "intelligent designer" come from? I find it just as
> easy to believe that life itself is eternal and
> unbounded by space-time as I do some a priori
> designer.
>

I'll explain briefly, but for more detailed thought see Aquinas' 
Shorter Summa and/or Aristotle's Metaphysics.


Why are there necessary beings?

Consider the possibility that it's true that "nothing exists".
Then there exists the truth of that statement, consequently, 
necessarily, something exists.

Necessarily there exists some being (see above).
If there are contingent beings, then some being or beings caused the 
contingent beings.
Therefore, some necessary being caused the contingent beings, 
otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of causes, per 
impossible.
Hence, some necessary being caused the contingent beings.
We call this being God whether it be one or many.

> For the sake of
>> science and
>> histo-biology it is an historical theory, like the
>> Permian Extinction
>> and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was a meteor, it
>> certainly would
>> explain why the dinosaurs disappeared in such great
>> numbers.  MAYBE
>> Zeus struck them down, that would explain it too.
>> Which is the correct
>> explanation?  Well, which one fits in the best with
>> the rest of -our
>> world view-?  Well, it depends on which -world view-
>> you have, doesn't
>> it?
>
> Yes, but the world-view I believe is the one that the
> rocks that were there at the time tell me. You just
> got to learn to speak "rock" is all.

As you wish.

>
>> Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or
>> not Theology is a
>> science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in
>> yours.  Who gets to
>> decide which book we use?
>
> Apparently the neanderthal in the White House.

Apparently.

>
>> Microbiology and chemical biology except for the
>> various failed
>> attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise
>> from inert matter
>> are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for
>> those cases where
>> there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the
>> speciation problem
>> or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case, it's
>> not relevant to
>> talk about evolution when showing how, for instance,
>> chemical receptors
>> inside of a given bacteria are received and what
>> process ensues.
>
> Actually microbiologists use evolution all the time.
> We control it artificially to get mutations in
> microbes that do useful things for us.

My uncle is among the developers of this technique and the theory of 
evolution is completely unnecessary for either understanding or 
applying it.

>>  Nor
>> is it relevant, for the most part, to cancer
>> research.
>
> Actually it is very relevant to cancer research. The
> best physiological theory we have about cancer
> development is called "clonal selection theory". It
> essentially says that there is an evolutionary
> selection taking place in the body on mutated body
> cells. The cells accumulate mutantions and most of the
> mutants get killed by the bodies defenses. Once in
> awhile, however, a mutation is such that it helps the
> cell overcome one of the many layers of the bodies
> defenses. First, the blocks to cellular replication,
> then mutations that fool the immune system, then
> mutations to move around freely in the body, and then
> mutations that allow the cancer cells to have the body
> grow them blood vessels to supply them with nutrients.
> Essentially clonal selection theory is just that these
> mutations happen one at a time and each time a cell
> aquires one, it passes it down to all its daughter
> cells. Thus these mutations stack up over many
> generations of cells that evolve from being a "little
> unusual" to "extremely dangerous".

Again, the theory of evolution is completely otiose in this exposition.

>> come up with a theory of how evolution is affecting
>> cancer rates and
>> what-not but nothing would prevent an ID theorist
>> for accepting that -
>> just the two major points - speciation and
>> spontaneous generation.   ID
>> theorists aren't restricted from recognizing that
>> competition and
>> adaptation are important factors for expression of
>> genetic features,
>> they just reject that changes in gene-pools happen
>> "accidentally" -
>> like changing the number of chromosomes in Humans,
>> for instance, is
>> generally deadly and always mule-making - and that
>> ooze becomes life if
>> you stare at it long enough.
>
> Interestingly, it is being found out that life does
> not change "accidently". In fact it has been
> determined that many organisms increase their mutation
> rate and increase the amount of foreign DNA they
> uptake during times of stress. So in a way, many
> organisms seem to mutate and thus evolve on purpose.
> When the going gets tough, the tough mutate.

Let's go back to the two main points.  How does this address them?

In particular, say you've got potatoes and you've got some 
evolutionarily-related but not reproductively compatible species, say 
sweet potatoes  (I think they can't reproduce, not sure).  Explain in 
detail how potatoes magically became sweet potatoes.

Let's rehearse it just to make sure we've got it right.

At some time in the past, there was a mutation event in some particular 
sweet potatoe such that it:

1) didn't kill the plant.
2) left it capable of reproducing.
3)  gave it some beneficial attribute that helped it survive better 
than the others.
4)  happened within the proximity of another potatoe plant with the 
same mutation, enabling it to survive and successfully reproduce.

Now let's look at what actually happens to mules.

in Humans, for instance, if you're born with half-a-chromosome missing, 
you're a mule.  If you're born with an extra chromosome, you're a mule. 
  If you're missing more than one chromosome, the likelihood of your 
survival to the point of reproduction is nil.  Not near nil, nil.  But 
let's say it was only near-nil.  Then we'd have to calculate the 
likelihood that your mutation was beneficial - since most mules have 
non-beneficial mutations.  What percentage of mules have beneficial 
mutations in the wild?  Nil.  But let's say it was only near-nil.  Then 
we'd have to calculate the likelihood of finding a compatible mating 
pair of mules where the mutation would survive.

Thankfully, someone has done the math on this likelihood and I don't 
have to rehearse it here.

>> The only branch of biology for which evolution is
>> really relevant is
>> Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing
>> theories.  It's
>> not even necessarily the likeliest one given the
>> relative dearth of
>> missing links and missing micro-biological
>> evidence/theory.
>
>      Actually the dearth of so-called missing links is
> mostly explained by the mistaken belief that evolution
> always happens really slowly. It does happen really
> slowly most of the time. Then for one reason or
> another, it speeds up drastically, allowing you to go
> from a wolf to a poodle in a couple of hundred
> generations.

Wolves and poodles can reproduce naturally.  How do you get from corn 
to wheat?

>> Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous
>> generation in evolutionary
>> theory, you get "something magical happens -here-"
>> at the point where
>> two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and are
>> able to reproduce
>
>       No there is nothing magical, sex is one of the
> things that drive speciation. For example if half of
> all human women prefered and mated exclusively with
> big hairy men because they thought that "big and
> hairy" were sexy. And the other half of women only
> mated with little naked bald guys, because they
> thought that that was sexy. Then in few hundreds of
> generations you would probably have to subspecies of
> homo sapiens that barely resembled one another.

Let's be very careful about our term here.

I'm talking about non-compatible mating groups, like bonobos and 
Humans.  A human has sex with a bonobo and they won't have babies 
because their genetic structure is sufficiently different to make them 
incompatible (as opposed to, say, a poodle and a wolf).  I'll call 
these different mating groups "Species" and I recognize that the term 
is not commonly used that way anymore, but it was used that way before.

Note that it's important that the big-hairy species and the little 
wimpy species in your example probably could still reproduce with one 
another.  How do you get diverse populations of animals that can't 
reproduce with one another?  LIke lions and leapards, cheetahs and 
jackals, fish and frogs, e.g. the real world we live in.

>     One tiny and hairless and the other huge and
> hairy. After a few thousand generations, the two might
> not be able to interbreed without making a "mule" as
> you call it.

"might" - please explain the mechanism of "might" here.  Because in 
actual observation - wolves and poodles as you say - we KNOW that they 
can reproduce without producing a mule.  Humans too.  Aleuts can mate 
with Tongans.  North American wolves can mate with Siberian wolves.  
Why?  Because they share a genetic structure and the external features 
to make it possible.

In fact, in observed examples of places where there -should be- 
speciation at that level (domesticated dogs have been separated from 
wolves for many, many generations) we don't in fact see it.  Instead, 
we see that mutated dogs die or are unable to reproduce, like humans, 
like apes, like fish, like cats, like platypi, and that dogs that adapt 
to their environment are still able to reproduce with wolves (well, if 
the wolf can be convinced not to kill it, anyway).


>> I think this is how evolution came along too -
>> Darwin decided that
>> there may be another way.   Subsequent generations
>> decided that it
>> would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as
>> far as we can
>> tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.
>
> Actually there is a huge body of evidence for
> evolution. Just look at the dog breeds from chihuahuas
> to great danes that all come from the wolf. Where is
> the missing link between the wolf and the poodle?

Wolves and poodles are capable of reproducing together and share their 
basic genetic code.

> Spontaneous generation is a trickier problem but there
> are testable theories. My favorite of course is
> panspermia since that leaves open the possibility that
> life arose spontaneously long ago in a lower entropy
> universe where the laws of physics were somewhat
> different and spread throughout the universe from
> there.

But of course leaves the open problem that it still had to come from 
somewhere.

> My biggest problem with ID is that, regardless of
> whether an intelligent designer exists, to invoke
> him/her/it as the root cause of all things is no more
> than a cop out to intellectual laziness.

Not really, understanding God is a lifetime goal and requires both hard 
work and diligence and perseverance and love.  It is worthy and 
admirable and should be commended.   The study of Theology - the Queen 
of the Sciences - is both ancient and continues to this day in formal 
theology, systematic theology and modern theology which all have rich 
traditions all worthy of study.

> God would not
> hide from us, if he didn't want us to try to find him.

God doesn't hide from you, it's the other way around.

> And saying that everything exists because it is his
> will is like calling "oly oly oxen free" only he
> doesn't come out of hiding.

God is not hiding.  But you will have to open your spiritual eyes.  You 
must have eyes to see, ears to hear.  If you refuse to open your eyes 
and plug your ears, even though your brother is yelling and screaming 
right in front of your face, you can say "my brother  is hiding".

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Aug  7 20:46:17 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:46:17 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <b0fd998c60015f14dc4df926336d5638@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 4:45 AM, spike wrote:
>
> Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
> worked out well all around?

Heinlein is generally an optimist.  He doesn't think things are 
necessarily going to work out well for everyone in every way, but his 
vision of the techno-future is generally "bright".


Robbie



From outlawpoet at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 21:07:17 2005
From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:07:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <19e11ee6e204217ecfe53576493401bc@aol.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>
	<5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>
	<19e11ee6e204217ecfe53576493401bc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3ad827f3050807140763a64f3@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> Leibniz covered this centuries ago.  In every conceptual system there
> are the fundamental units - the "force" or "matter" whose role in the
> formalism of the system is well defined but the existence and nature of
> which are left forever undefined - we can not use a fundamental system
> to explain what its fundamental postulates -mean-.  Everything must be
> explained in terms of them.  One accuses the generations of the past of
> talking about "occult forces" - but how have we really improved over
> "occult forces" by invoking "quantum fields"?  We still can't predict
> what will happen, exactly, -and- the word "field" is no more
> explanatory than the word "force" occult or otherwise.

This is a terribly foolish misunderstanding. Maybe you saw some
scientists on tv talking about how mysterious and wierd quantum
effects are, or perhaps you read eminent scientific philosophers
talking about ontological uncertainty, but "quantum fields" by which I
assume you indicate Quantum Electro Dynamics or similar, is one of the
most ACCURATE, descriptive, confirmed physical theories in the history
of science. Quantum theory predicts very specific physical phenomena
which previous theories did not, quantum tunneling, semiconductance,
superconductance, photoelectric reactions, the mechanism of
chloroplastic energy capture, etc etc. quantum uncertainty is a
fundamental physical constraint, it's not equivalent to vague human
social uncertainty.

occult forces explain nothing, and have nothing to do with scientific
theory. This comparison makes no sense.


> This is literally false.  There have been lots of well documented
> events for which we have not found any new information that would push
> God's involvement back any further - both common events (like, wow, I'm
> thinking about love) and uncommon events (like people being seen after
> they've died).  Not only this, the common procedure is not to actually
> EXPLAIN those phenomena but rather to ignore them.

This is an interesting claim. Insofar as I'm aware, scientists are
always very interested in explaining phenomena. Things like love, and
persistent social reports of ghosts have stimulated an enormous amount
of studies, monographs, books, and op-ed pieces in science-ish
magazines. The fact that you don't like the primary conclusions of the
majority of these, namely that love is a consequence of brain state,
which is a function of genetics and environmental factors, and ghost
reports are incoherent and still unconfirmed by evidence, is of no
consequence.

>  This is common in
> the history of science - one picks the phenomena one wants to explain
> and that fit well with one's theory and then ignores those phenomena
> that don't fit well with the theory.  I think Feyerabend's "Against
> Method" is still the classic on this point.

Feyerabend's "Against Method" was a cry against backward evaluation of
new theories against old theories, and complaints about rigorous
scientific methods slowing scientific progress. He proposed
independent evaluation of a new theory's explanatory power, and a more
enlightened view of falsificationism, namely that theories are viewed
against physical facts, not old theories. I don't see how this
applies. Feyerabend if anything would be against you. He argued that
interesting theories often are not in alignment with all reported
facts, because some reported facts are wrong. An example of this is
that modern physical theories don't have to explain angels, because
there aren't any, no matter how many are reported.

> Not a very good lesson.  Perhaps we should learn the other lesson, that
> God does everything.

This is not a very well supported theory. It has little to recommend
it, because the God theory has never predicted anything. There are
cases where religious people point out superficial relationships in
ancient religious texts to modern physical law, but sadly, there are
no cases where traditional religious beliefs have predated scientific
discovery of such laws. The only quasi-example I can think of is the
rediscovery of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Several
religious ancient cultures understood this clearly, but western
societies were poisoned by Aristotle's religious beliefs that the Sun
must be the physical as well as philosophical center of the universe.
Here we have ancient religious belief in heliocentrism predating
religious belief in terra-centrism, which later gave way to scientific
heliocentrism. A tough call, particularly when it seems clear that
these ancient cultures developed their theories from observation using
sun-based tools to create calendars.

To further the comparison of 'lessons', there are no cases where a
scientific explanation existed, that was later replaced by the theory
"God/Gods made it so". There are many cases where theories that
consisted of "God/Gods made it so" have been replaced by a scientific
explanation. A betting man can clearly make money here.

> "Why are there laws of physics and why are they this way?"
> 
> This is not a question invented by appologeticists and clergy, but
> rather the kind of question that our young people actually ask and is,
> in fact, the original impetus for the study of physics at all.  If we
> quash -these kinds- of questions, then of course our children will be
> uninterested in physics.

This is of course another terrible strawman. Scientists spend a lot of
time on such questions, in terms of people involved, and various
theories proposed. Things like string theory, Tegmark's universe of
universes, dissection of the Anthropic Principle, and other such heady
endeavors all try to find basis, consistency, and explanation in the
underpinnings of physics(if any exist).

Your religious flounderings do not impress these scientists, not
because they are all involved in a complicated conspiracy of
repression and fear, but because they are largely useless to someone
who is actually looking for an explanation.

Religious explanations like "God did it" don't explain anything, and
require increasing contortions in order to protect their territory
from scientific encroachment. "God did it" is an empty hypothesis,
because "God" could have done anything, and could have any
characteristics. It doesn't narrow the space at all, so it doesn't
help. You might as well say "Someone did it", or "bleem did it", they
are essentially the same hypothesis.


-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug  7 21:40:54 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:40:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Charlie Stross wins Hugo award
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807163804.01da5260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Best Novella: "The Concrete Jungle" by [sometime-poster here] Charles Stross

(And I suppose I won five percent of a Hugo, being 1/20th of the 
contributors to:
Best Related Book: The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction
    Edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn)

Damien Broderick



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 21:54:09 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:54:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <3ad827f3050807140763a64f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>	<D2BA6A7A-2CA6-4263-AAC0-9B9722DF49F1@mac.com>	<5d74f9c705080621334889a65f@mail.gmail.com>	<19e11ee6e204217ecfe53576493401bc@aol.com>
	<3ad827f3050807140763a64f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F68301.9020108@neopax.com>

justin corwin wrote:

>On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Leibniz covered this centuries ago.  In every conceptual system there
>>are the fundamental units - the "force" or "matter" whose role in the
>>formalism of the system is well defined but the existence and nature of
>>which are left forever undefined - we can not use a fundamental system
>>to explain what its fundamental postulates -mean-.  Everything must be
>>explained in terms of them.  One accuses the generations of the past of
>>talking about "occult forces" - but how have we really improved over
>>"occult forces" by invoking "quantum fields"?  We still can't predict
>>what will happen, exactly, -and- the word "field" is no more
>>explanatory than the word "force" occult or otherwise.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a terribly foolish misunderstanding. Maybe you saw some
>scientists on tv talking about how mysterious and wierd quantum
>effects are, or perhaps you read eminent scientific philosophers
>talking about ontological uncertainty, but "quantum fields" by which I
>assume you indicate Quantum Electro Dynamics or similar, is one of the
>most ACCURATE, descriptive, confirmed physical theories in the history
>of science. Quantum theory predicts very specific physical phenomena
>which previous theories did not, quantum tunneling, semiconductance,
>superconductance, photoelectric reactions, the mechanism of
>chloroplastic energy capture, etc etc. quantum uncertainty is a
>fundamental physical constraint, it's not equivalent to vague human
>social uncertainty.
>
>occult forces explain nothing, and have nothing to do with scientific
>theory. This comparison makes no sense.
>
>  
>
So, what are the strings of String Theory made of?

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug  7 22:15:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:15:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>
	<42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>

The (tonuge in cheek) notion was that a sufficiently powerful  
intelligence would effectively create a highly articulated sim simply  
in the act of considering its own past or alternate history.

- samantha

On Aug 7, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> It was a highly self-improved FAI that accidentally created a   
>> universe within itself through the simple process of thinking  
>> about  how its origin and the fate of its creators could have gone  
>> differently.
>>
>
> That's bloody difficult for an FAI to do by accident.  If you said  
> it was an UFAI who did it without caring, that'd be another story.
>
> -- 
> 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
>



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 22:32:50 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:32:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>	<42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>
	<1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42F68C12.9020408@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> The (tonuge in cheek) notion was that a sufficiently powerful  
> intelligence would effectively create a highly articulated sim simply  
> in the act of considering its own past or alternate history.
>
So? We create sims in our own head all the time.
In fact, most of what we assume to be reality is a sim in our brain.
What would your mother say?

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 22:44:50 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:44:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>
	<42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>
	<1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f05080715441934bd69@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> The (tonuge in cheek) notion was that a sufficiently powerful
> intelligence would effectively create a highly articulated sim simply
> in the act of considering its own past or alternate history.

This isn't as tongue-in-cheek as you might think. I have a paper draft
on the ethics of superintelligent thought that considers this very
problem. The being needn't consider its own past or alternate history
-- any 'daydreaming' could suffice. It is mathematically
demonstratable that a sufficiently intelligent being could think other
conscious beings into existence in ver own mind; which might be quite
unfortunate for the dreamt-up person, should the thinker/creator
decide to ponder something or someone else instead.

-- 
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Community Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Relationships & Community Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Sun Aug  7 22:53:55 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:53:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] H+/S'n ethics, New Hampshire
Message-ID: <5844e22f0508071553f4f7628@mail.gmail.com>

I will be in the Hanover, NH area from Friday night until early Sunday
morning, for the 2005 meeting of the International Society for
Utilitarian Studies, held at Dartmouth College.

I'm speaking Saturday morning on the ethics of AI and IA ("Better Acts
Need Smarter Agents: On the Urgency of Cognitive Enhancement"). If
you're in the area and might like to attend the conference or just
meet up on one of those days, let me know.

Best,
-- 
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Community Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Relationships & Community Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Aug  7 23:27:29 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:27:29 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05080715441934bd69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>	<42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>	<1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
	<5844e22f05080715441934bd69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F698E1.3020307@neopax.com>

Jeff Medina wrote:

>On 8/7/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>The (tonuge in cheek) notion was that a sufficiently powerful
>>intelligence would effectively create a highly articulated sim simply
>>in the act of considering its own past or alternate history.
>>    
>>
>
>This isn't as tongue-in-cheek as you might think. I have a paper draft
>on the ethics of superintelligent thought that considers this very
>problem. The being needn't consider its own past or alternate history
>-- any 'daydreaming' could suffice. It is mathematically
>demonstratable that a sufficiently intelligent being could think other
>conscious beings into existence in ver own mind; which might be quite
>unfortunate for the dreamt-up person, should the thinker/creator
>decide to ponder something or someone else instead.
>
>  
>
Humans think conscious beings into existence all the time. It's only 
when they get out of hand eg schizphrenia, that they really become 
noticeable.
Not to mention Ouija games.
The group gestalt in a Ouija game can certainly pass the Turing test.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sun Aug  7 23:37:06 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 16:37:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
References: <p06210200bf1bfb579c75@[23.237.66.13]>
	<007e01c59b89$e7107f10$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <012101c59ba8$ec085ff0$0300a8c0@Nano>

Okay here is a zoom in of the object near my house - in which you can really see what is going on:
http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite2.jpg

Gina Miller
www.nanogirl.com 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gina Miller 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.


  Look there's one by my house!
  http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite.jpg


  Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
  Nanotechnology Industries
  http://www.nanoindustries.com
  Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
  Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
  Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
  Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
  "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."


  The Avantguardian wrote:
  > http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
  > 
  > So what is this? If it's a hoax then how? 


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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050807/e26a532c/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  7 23:48:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 16:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] H+/S'n ethics, New Hampshire
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0508071553f4f7628@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050807234838.21791.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sounds good. I'm about 15 miles south of there. Give me a call at 603
863 8490 when you get into town and want to make plans.

--- Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will be in the Hanover, NH area from Friday night until early
> Sunday
> morning, for the 2005 meeting of the International Society for
> Utilitarian Studies, held at Dartmouth College.
> 
> I'm speaking Saturday morning on the ethics of AI and IA ("Better
> Acts
> Need Smarter Agents: On the Urgency of Cognitive Enhancement"). If
> you're in the area and might like to attend the conference or just
> meet up on one of those days, let me know.
> 
> Best,
> -- 
> Jeff Medina
> http://www.painfullyclear.com/
> 
> Community Director
> Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> http://www.singinst.org/
> 
> Relationships & Community Fellow
> Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
> http://www.ieet.org/
> 
> School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
> http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Aug  8 00:03:42 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:03:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807185616.0493ab48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Transhumanists and Futurists,

Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference 
that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the 
process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their 
fields.  The webpages will roll out during this fall semester.

We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning, 
systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are 
interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable 
program for transhumanism.

If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

Educate!

Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist, Designer
Studies of the Future, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler
Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050807/ebda4279/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Aug  8 00:19:45 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:19:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508072043.j77KhlR12202@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508072043.j77KhlR12202@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42F6A521.70300@lineone.net>

 >Evolution is what
 >> makes all of biology hold together.

Robert Lindauer:
"Not really."

Er, yes, really.

Without Evolution, biology is an unstructured mass of facts. Evolution 
gives all these facts a framework to hang on, and has enormous 
explanatory power for all sorts of seemingly mysterious things. I would 
go so far as to say that anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't 
understand biology at all, and if they want to talk about biology, i 
strongly suggest they go away and actually study it. There is a REASON 
why biologists make such a big deal of evolution. If you want to discuss 
biology sensibly, you need to understand this reason.
Seriously, it's no good standing apart from it and chucking stones at 
it. You've got to get inside it, see how it really works. Until you do 
this, you're in the position of someone trying to understand the flight 
path of Voyager without knowing anything about orbital mechanics.


Poodles and Wolves?
Ha, i'd like to see a Chihuahua and a Great Dane get it on.

Be careful when generalising from dogs to other creatures, though. 
Apparently, dogs have an unusually large range of variability within 
their existing genome. This can easily be confused with genetic 
mutation. (i forget who wrote it, but see "why dogs can't be as big as 
elephants" or similar. Google should help. It usually does)

(Just to make it clear, actually i WOULDN'T like to see a Chihuahua and 
a Great Dane get it on. It's just a figure of speech)

ben



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 00:26:22 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:56:22 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Charlie Stross wins Hugo award
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807163804.01da5260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807163804.01da5260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050807172669cbc20c@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to both of you!

On 08/08/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Best Novella: "The Concrete Jungle" by [sometime-poster here] Charles Stross
> 
> (And I suppose I won five percent of a Hugo, being 1/20th of the
> contributors to:
> Best Related Book: The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction
>    Edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn)
> 
> Damien Broderick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


From matus at matus1976.com  Mon Aug  8 01:25:42 2005
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:25:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02c901c59bb8$1b7976c0$f15c920c@hplaptop>

> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> > >
> > > Actually it doesn't solve the chicken and the egg
> > > problem, it just pushes it back. Where did the
> > > "intelligent designer" come from?
> >
> > Simple: it was created by a still more intelligent designer.
> >
> > And so on all the way down.
> 

Or, conversely, many less intelligent beings could create a more
intelligent one.  We will, likely after all, create an AI that is more
intelligent than any one of us humans.  So, an infinite number of
infinitely stupid beings are required to make an infinitesimal number of
infinitely intelligent beings.  What would that be called?  Infinitely
stupid design?

Matus




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 02:15:40 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <012101c59ba8$ec085ff0$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050808021540.13838.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

> Okay here is a zoom in of the object near my house -
> in which you can really see what is going on:
> http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite2.jpg
> 
> Gina Miller
> www.nanogirl.com 

Sheesh, Gina. You, my dear, are why nobody trusts
photographic evidence anymore. ;) This does not bode
well for justice in a transparent society dependent on
security cameras. But that is a separate issue. You
have convincingly shown that it is possible for
someone to have hacked Google maps, doctored the
photo, and uploaded it back onto the site. My question
is this: Since you are really good at doctoring
photos, can you find any flaws in the original
photograph that would indicate that it was doctored as
yours was? Is there any irregularities in the pixels
or whatever that would suggest this?
  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 02:37:56 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050808021540.13838.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <012101c59ba8$ec085ff0$0300a8c0@Nano>
	<20050808021540.13838.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807213609.03e64128@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:15 PM 8/7/2005 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> > Okay here is a zoom in of the object near my house -
> > in which you can really see what is going on:
> > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite2.jpg
>
>You
>have convincingly shown that it is possible for
>someone to have hacked Google maps, doctored the
>photo, and uploaded it back onto the site.

What makes you think Gina uploaded it to the Google map site? I doubt that 
she would do that.

Damien Broderick



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 02:45:24 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807213609.03e64128@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050808024524.12362.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 07:15 PM 8/7/2005 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> > > Okay here is a zoom in of the object near my
> house -
> > > in which you can really see what is going on:
> > > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite2.jpg
> >
> >You
> >have convincingly shown that it is possible for
> >someone to have hacked Google maps, doctored the
> >photo, and uploaded it back onto the site.
> 
> What makes you think Gina uploaded it to the Google
> map site? I doubt that 
> she would do that.

I am not accusing Gina of BEING the hoaxster, I am
saying that she seems to arguing that it is a hoax
because she can reproduce it. My point was to find out
if she examined the original to see if it was doctored
before she demonstrated that it could be a hoax.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 02:52:13 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:52:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <20050808024524.12362.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807213609.03e64128@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050808024524.12362.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807215028.03efcd88@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:45 PM 8/7/2005 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> > >You
> > >have convincingly shown that it is possible for
> > >someone to have hacked Google maps, doctored the
> > >photo, and uploaded it back onto the site.
> >
> > What makes you think Gina uploaded it to the Google
> > map site? I doubt that she would do that.
>
>I am
>saying that she seems to arguing that it is a hoax
>because she can reproduce it.

The tricky part, I'd have thought, is getting it uploaded. Gina hasn't 
shown that.

Damien Broderick



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug  8 03:08:52 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:08:52 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807185616.0493ab48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01e701c59bc6$81a68150$0d98e03c@homepc>

Natasha, 

I organised a little marketing focus group with myself. 

It found the Max More and Natasha Vita More brands to be very clearly
still good, the Exi-chat list to be good, the Extropy brand to be possibly a
bit worn out or diluted by some of its associations since it was first
encountered by the focus group, but, basically, still good. The focus group
is slightly interested in and wishes well any derivative brands like Extropy
Campus but doesn't always have the time to keep track of them. My focus
group hopes it works out well for the "parent" brands. 

The good thing about focus groups is that one doesn't have to worry about
em too much, if one is sure one has a great product or service. 

Cheers,
Brett Paatsch

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ; wta at transhumanism.org ; futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; LA-grg at wild98.com ; LAFuturists at yahoogroups.com ; cryonet at cryonet.org 
  Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:03 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus


  Transhumanists and Futurists,

  Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields.  The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 

  We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning, systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

  We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable program for transhumanism.

  If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

  Educate!

  Natasha



    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist, Designer 
    Studies of the Future, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 


    Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler 
    Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet




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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050808/a0681fef/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug  8 03:24:22 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:24:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05080715441934bd69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200508071453.j77ErGR14945@tick.javien.com>
	<8F96B813-C02E-4C61-997E-6A8D42E5A032@mac.com>
	<42F66DCE.8090201@pobox.com>
	<1BDD82A1-A7F2-4B8C-98E3-B3F8479577C1@mac.com>
	<5844e22f05080715441934bd69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E5BF58D6-42AB-4237-B575-C0BD575D517A@mac.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Jeff Medina wrote:

> On 8/7/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> The (tonuge in cheek) notion was that a sufficiently powerful
>> intelligence would effectively create a highly articulated sim simply
>> in the act of considering its own past or alternate history.
>>
>
> This isn't as tongue-in-cheek as you might think. I have a paper draft
> on the ethics of superintelligent thought that considers this very
> problem. The being needn't consider its own past or alternate history
> -- any 'daydreaming' could suffice. It is mathematically
> demonstratable that a sufficiently intelligent being could think other
> conscious beings into existence in ver own mind; which might be quite
> unfortunate for the dreamt-up person, should the thinker/creator
> decide to ponder something or someone else instead.

 From the context of the creation it is not "unfortunate" as the  
created beings have nothing to compare to.  However much time the  
creation was run is simply all there is.  The very concept of time  
outside the creation is unknowable and paradoxical from within it  
unless there is leakage from surrounding context.

At what point of intelligence or whatever does a created being, for  
instance a NPC, become a being whose disposition or world disposition  
raises moral questions?   Should all sufficiently advanced created  
beings be given some possibility of transcendence of their original  
context, for instance?

- samantha


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 03:48:02 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:48:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus
In-Reply-To: <01e701c59bc6$81a68150$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807185616.0493ab48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<01e701c59bc6$81a68150$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c70508072048655ce64b@mail.gmail.com>

Very interested

On 8/7/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Natasha, 
>  
> I organised a little marketing focus group with myself. 
>  
> It found the Max More and Natasha Vita More brands to be very clearly
> still good, the Exi-chat list to be good, the Extropy brand to be possibly a
> bit worn out or diluted by some of its associations since it was first
> encountered by the focus group, but, basically, still good. The focus group
> is slightly interested in and wishes well any derivative brands like Extropy
> Campus but doesn't always have the time to keep track of them. My focus
> group hopes it works out well for the "parent" brands. 
>  
> The good thing about focus groups is that one doesn't have to worry about
> em too much, if one is sure one has a great product or service. 
>  
> Cheers,
> Brett Paatsch
>  
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Natasha Vita-More 
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ;
> wta at transhumanism.org ; futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; LA-grg at wild98.com ;
> LAFuturists at yahoogroups.com ; cryonet at cryonet.org 
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:03 AM
> Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus
> 
> Transhumanists and Futurists,
> 
> Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference
> that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the
> process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields. 
> The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 
> 
> We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning, systems
> thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.
> 
> We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are
> interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable
> program for transhumanism.
> 
> If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.
> 
> Educate!
> 
> Natasha
> 
> 
> 
> Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future,
> University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist
> Arts & Culture 
> 
> Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston
> President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
> 
> Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler Random acts
> of kindness... Anne Herbet
> 
> Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug  8 05:28:25 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:28:25 +1000
Subject: Quest 4 John Calvin was Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied over Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc><3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com><057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc><A748A309-C1F8-4D0F-931F-DE89F45924A5@bonfireproductions.com><42D431D2.2040007@aol.com><4E93E36E-DC97-4D6A-A987-56FBEC591629@bonfireproductions.com><42D58479.5000000@aol.com>
	<42D5A9FE.40501@mindspring.com><42D5CD7F.5000708@aol.com>
	<5d74f9c70507132053130b38f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <022a01c59bda$006286c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

From: "John Calvin" <john.h.calvin at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:53 PM

> Osama Bin Laden released a tape claiming responsibility for the 9/11
> attacks, and intelligence places clear links to the Al Qaeda
> organization for the planning and execution. 

Is that a fact John?  Did he explicitly claim responsibility on behalf of
Al Qaeda and/or himself or did he sort of verbally handwave and say
god-willing yes the infidels were a-smitten and we observed with the
satisfaction of the righteous or some such. 

Reason I ask is that it *was* my impression but I didn't personally
see or watch any such tape, and lately here in Australia a couple
of radical muslim talking heads have said that they did not think
that OBL had claimed responsibility for september 11.

In at least one case, the more reliably source involved, the ABC
(Australian public Broad Caster) interviewer, seemd to be surprised
that his interviewee was unaware of that "fact".

I think the "terrorists" are sometimes of like mind with the Bush-admin
and the govts that like to demonise them in perhaps being willing to take
"credit" for more than their due. 

Brett Paatsch




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Aug  8 05:31:11 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:31:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
References: <20050808021540.13838.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <020a01c59bda$634354e0$0300a8c0@Nano>

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to curb a moment of boredom. I did this for fun, perhaps to get you all to smile (thought Spike would like this humor!), and mainly to see if I could reproduce the image, not to speculate one way or another. And, as you have already established, I would never, ever upload to a site where I do not have authorization to do so. Just an incorrigible artist here, but that's all!  :  )

The only way I was able to save the image from Google Maps was to hit the "Print Screen" button, since if you take a look, you can see that there is no right click "save picture" option available (PC users) on their site. I don't know what program they are using but I did notice that they will allow others embedded access of Google maps on their web site using Java Script. So it might be safe to assume that this could be what they are using as well. But JavaScript may just be the "viewer" so to speak of the images, and not the actual format of the images - (for example the standard psd, or jpg format - they/or the satellite people could also be using some proprietary file extension). Anyway, since I saved it as my own generated Prt Sc image (jpg), if there was an original format I did not have access to it. Hypothetically, if I were looking at a psd of an image, I would be able to see all of the layers and figure out how everything works, but if it was a jpg these layers would be compressed and thus the history would be lost. For example the image that I made, while I was making my version(s), I was saving as a psd, and each part had it's separate layer, but when I saved it to a jpg and uploaded it, you wouldn't be able to tell if I did anything to it, unless you were a forensic graphic pro or something (or if I was really bad at it - if I am, don't tell me). But the point is moot, since as I mentioned earlier, the image I used as a base was from my own jpg generated "print screen" save - so I was not able to see or determine anything from the flat replicated image. 

I did notice one thing while making my reproduction, when I looked at the first image mentioned on the list I noticed that the background (the houses and streets etc.) was a little shaky, out of focus, as opposed to the Google Map I sequestered of my neighborhood. This was the only thing that stood out to me, simply because mine was so clear. To make mine look the same I had to blur the whole image a few times before I began (minus the letters in the right bottom and the buttons on the top right). This also helped later when trying to have a natural transition from the real photo to the object I created. 

To create my mysterious object, it was really quite simple. I drew an empty selection circle on a new layer and filled it with a gradient of the same colors on the original object: white, grey and light blue. With Keith's observation in mind, I looked at the direction of the shadows under the trees and houses in the picture and lined my gradient in the same direction, so that it would match. I then applied a bevel contour to the circle so that it appeared a little 3D. Then I blurred it to soften it. The original mystery object looked like it had a slight transparent haze around it. To achieve this effect I simply duplicated my circle, and using the free transform, enlarged it so that it was a little bigger than my first circle, I emptied the center of it (making a halo ring), lowered the opacity quite a bit and added blur to this too. I merged the center of the circle and the surrounding haze into one. Then I positioned it, so that the haze was obviously layered over defined structures, so that it appeared to be hovering. Specifically, semi transparent blur over the houses tricks the eye into thinking the object is floating above them. If I had the same object over that park area (where you see the baseball diamond) there would be no distinctive structure underneath the haze that our eyes would surmise as lower or underneath it. It also doesn't have a lot of distinct color variations to simulate perspective either. That was it!

Honestly this thing could be anything, I'm not up on my satellite engineering, lenses or software - but I could easily imagine that if it wasn't something legit in the air, it could be any number of these things interacting with or leaving an artifact on the photo. 

Here are two super close ups for you:
Original: http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitetheirs.jpg
Mine: http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitemine.jpg

You can see the original is more blue and you can tell in my pixels that the image has been blurred. 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
 http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm




  From: The Avantguardian 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 7:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.




  --- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

  > Okay here is a zoom in of the object near my house -
  > in which you can really see what is going on:
  > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellite2.jpg
  > 
  > Gina Miller
  > www.nanogirl.com 

  Sheesh, Gina. You, my dear, are why nobody trusts
  photographic evidence anymore. ;) This does not bode
  well for justice in a transparent society dependent on
  security cameras. But that is a separate issue. You
  have convincingly shown that it is possible for
  someone to have hacked Google maps, doctored the
  photo, and uploaded it back onto the site. My question
  is this: Since you are really good at doctoring
  photos, can you find any flaws in the original
  photograph that would indicate that it was doctored as
  yours was? Is there any irregularities in the pixels
  or whatever that would suggest this?
    

  The Avantguardian 
  is 
  Stuart LaForge
  alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

  "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
  -Bill Watterson

  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
  _______________________________________________
  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/20050807/ccb0c4bb/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Aug  8 05:33:12 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:33:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807185616.0493ab48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <022001c59bda$ae518100$0300a8c0@Nano>

I'm here if you need graphics assistance. 


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 5:03 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus


  Transhumanists and Futurists,

  Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields.  The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 

  We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning, systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

  We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable program for transhumanism.

  If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

  Educate!

  Natasha



    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist, Designer 
    Studies of the Future, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 


    Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler 
    Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet




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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050807/84503bce/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 05:49:04 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:49:04 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
In-Reply-To: <001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com><42F41D27.4040701@aol.com><CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com>
>
>> What parts of ID don't hold up and aren't useful?
>
> Scientist: I have discovered a very odd new phenomenon but I don't yet 
> understand what causes it.
>
> Holly Roller: I know what caused it, the Clogknee field caused it.
>
> Scientist: OK, but what caused the Clogknee field and exactly how does 
> it work?
>
> Holly Roller: It is sacrilegious to ask questions like that about the 
> Clogknee field.
>
>
> Now that wasn't terribly useful to the scientist now was it.

What does this have to do with our subject?

Robbie



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 06:09:35 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:09:35 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b3fdb301e5e1dfd0b150dd23035a5822@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>> Simple: it was created by a still more intelligent designer.
>>
>> And so on all the way down.
>
> Exactly: The Simulation Argument. This is our hook for implanting
> transhumanist philosophy in the population.
>
> Nor does there need to be an original IDer. The chain of designers
> could easily be a loop, given that all universes are indistinguishable
> from a closed time-like curve, there could also be a Meta-loop of
> universe designers.
>

Oy vey.

Let's consider a causal chain of events where a cause is considered 
simply a sufficient condition (nevermind necessary conditions for now):


a -> b -> c -> d -> e

Let's say that each event is time indexed and that causal loops are 
essentially related to their temporal series:


a at t1
b at t2
c at t3
d at t4
e at t5


The series is comprehensible in both quasi-causal systems (eg. QM) and 
in traditional models (NM and GR).

Now consider the possibility:


e -> a

Leaving us the loop:

a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> a -> b -> c -> d ...


This loop has some rather disturbing characteristics:

1)  Some events temporally precede themselves violating GR.
2)  Some events are sufficient for themselves, violating QM (since the 
occurence of a, for instance, would cause the occurence of a, making it 
completely determinate whether or not a would happen).
3)  Some -apparently contingent- events would be necessary events (e.g. 
we might think of -a- as possibly not happening, but if this is right, 
then a is a necessary fact about our universe).


So we put the matter thusly:

either GR and QM are false and all apparently contingent series of 
events are actually necessary series of events OR

There are no temporally causal loops of this kind.

QED by reductio, there are no temporally causal loops of this kind

_____


The other commonly considered possibility is that there are infinitely 
descending causal chains, eg..


a <- a' <- a'' <- a''' <- a'''' ...

Where each succeeding a(') precedes the a for which it is a temporally 
sufficient condition (e.g. cause).

It follows, in such cases, that there are aleph-0 events in that given 
series.  However, the series as a whole (e.g. considered as a whole) is 
still a contingent series, itself having a sufficient condition, let's 
call it b.

b, being contingent, has a sufficient condition.  Given the no-boundary 
condition of infinite regress, we get the series

(a <- a' ...) <- b <- b' ...

and then also the series:

((a <- a'...) <- b <- b'...) <- c' ...

etc.

This series, the total series of events, then, has the power of Omega, 
being an absolutely infinite multiplicity.  But by Cantor's proof to 
Dedekind, there are no absolutely infinite multiplicities.  Hence, the 
series does not exist.  Hence there are no infinitely descending chains 
of events or in the common mathematical language, there is no cardinal 
number which is the number of the series, and hence the series doesn't 
in fact have a number of events in it and hence is what Cantor refers 
to as an "inconsistent absolutely infinite multiplicity" - e.g. a 
contradiction.  QED.

_______________

Finally, that there are necessary beings has been demonstrated here 
already and it is not necessary to repeat it.  There is a common 
misunderstanding that a necessary being could not be a sufficient 
condition for a contingent being, but this rests on the mistake of 
assuming that every aspect of a being must be necessitated by its 
sufficient condition which isn't the case.  It may be a sufficient 
condition of some being's existence that it be born, but that may not 
be sufficient to explain why, for instance, it dies, intermediate 
causes may be involved.  It's granted that every series of events must 
have a causal resolution in a necessary event, but this doesn't prevent 
necessary events from being intertwined temporally with contingent ones 
(for instance, my own will to think about Marx being a sufficient and 
necessary condition of my thinking about Marx making it a necessary 
event).

Best wishes,

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 06:12:37 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:12:37 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <200508072023.j77KNhR10775@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508072023.j77KNhR10775@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <9a9f6ee9593321f622d72559f72c2ae5@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:21 AM, spike wrote:
>
>> ...  Go team! Kill, Kill, Kill!...
>> In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into 
>> it...
>>
>> Robbie Lindauer
>
> We are not at war with Iraq, we haven't been for some
> time now.  It doesn't look to me as though we ever were:
> the Iraqi army never put up any convincing resistance to
> the coalition.  Iraq and Afghanistan are our allies in the
> war against the insurgents.  Everyone here is against
> war.
>
> spike

Were you the one who was going to send me 30k for some land in North 
Korea on the coast?

Did you get my PO box?

Robbie



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 06:15:10 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050807203754.37302.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807203754.37302.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <69be0bd96bb00da58f71be57e7ac2f36@aol.com>

Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better.  The convinced 
are convinced - so vat else is new?

"nobody's innocent" - Kingpin

In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, 
saying we haven't is just absurd.

Robbie


On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the war 
> ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is 
> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It 
> probably is.
> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum is 
> the lifeblood of the economy.
>
>> Great.
>>
>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that
>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body bags
>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories from
>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>
>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no longer
>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.
>>
>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into 
>> it.
>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq remembering
>> some essential facts:
>>
>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and both
>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of 
>> war,
>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome economic
>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>
>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to the
>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British targets,
>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of Iraq.
>>
>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and 
>> to
>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the war
>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job 
>> number
>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
>> money.
>>
>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually
>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea 
>> and
>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into 
>> a
>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, 
>> further
>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and you
>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will be
>> gone anyway.
>>
>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you
>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about 
>> it,
>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So what
>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion
>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far 
>> up
>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with
>> odoriferous bile.
>>
>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin
>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why anyone 
>> is
>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more is
>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>
>> Robbie Lindauer
>>
>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you
>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the
>> fence?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>> >> To: ExI chat list
>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>> >>
>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?
>> >
>> >
>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and
>> >>> for
>> >>> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in
>> >>> this
>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
> page_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 06:38:55 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
In-Reply-To: <020a01c59bda$634354e0$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050808063856.46687.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

> I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to curb a
> moment of boredom. I did this for fun, perhaps to
> get you all to smile (thought Spike would like this
> humor!), and mainly to see if I could reproduce the
> image, not to speculate one way or another. And, as
> you have already established, I would never, ever
> upload to a site where I do not have authorization
> to do so. Just an incorrigible artist here, but
> that's all!  :  )

No worries, Gina. You did get a smile out of me and I
KNOW you wouldn't do any unauthorized uploading,
except maybe to save the world or something. ;) 
 
> Honestly this thing could be anything, I'm not up on
> my satellite engineering, lenses or software - but I
> could easily imagine that if it wasn't something
> legit in the air, it could be any number of these
> things interacting with or leaving an artifact on
> the photo. 
> 
> Here are two super close ups for you:
> Original:
> http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitetheirs.jpg
> Mine:
> http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitemine.jpg
> 
> You can see the original is more blue and you can
> tell in my pixels that the image has been blurred. 

     Thanks, Gina. Your analysis was actually very
good and thorough. At the very least you established
that it was not an obvious hoax. It may be one of the
artifacts you suggested. If it actually was something
in the air, it would seem to be very reflective as the
blue tint you speak of could very well be a reflection
of the sky from high altitude (i.e. the gradient of
the blue of the sky to the black of space). Although
weather balloons are made of mylar which is rather
reflective we have already established that weather
balloons are typically a mere 2 feet in diameter.
     Furthermore the blurriness, if caused by motion,
would suggest that it was moving fairly quickly
relative to the plane or satelite, since I imagine a
fairly high shutter speed would be necessary to keep
ground images from being too blurred from orbital or
even airplane speeds. The blur also seems to be along
the northwest-southeast axis, which would be odd for a
high altitude weather balloon in the region of Palm
Beach, FL. Since that is below 30 degrees latitude,
the prevailing trade winds would be the North Easterly
Trades which blow from the NE to the SW. Curious.
Maybe it is just a drop of water on the camera lens.
Then again it could be a scout ship sent by Elohim.
Somebody wake up Rael. :)  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 06:38:58 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:38:58 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F6A521.70300@lineone.net>
References: <200508072043.j77KhlR12202@tick.javien.com>
	<42F6A521.70300@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <31aa09158dc29ebef529929ce8eb918b@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:19 PM, ben wrote:

> >Evolution is what
> >> makes all of biology hold together.
>
> Robert Lindauer:
> "Not really."
>
> Er, yes, really.
>
> Without Evolution, biology is an unstructured mass of facts.

Not really.  There's a lot of good biology completely understandable 
from the point of view of intelligent design, for instance.   But this 
argument is unconvincing. To some, history is a mass of unstructured 
facts, to others, Marxian material dialectics is a sufficient 
meta-proposition.  That is to say, having a global theory of why 
everything happens doesn't mean that it's the only and best especially 
when the two major problems - real speciation and real origins - are 
left unsolved by the theory.

>  Evolution gives all these facts a framework to hang on,

So does intelligent design and Hegelian biology, without hard evidence 
it's irrelevant, ne?

>  and has enormous explanatory power for all sorts of seemingly 
> mysterious things.

So does God.

>  I would go so far as to say that anyone who doesn't understand this, 
> doesn't understand biology at all,

Of course you would.

>  and if they want to talk about biology, i strongly suggest they go 
> away and actually study it.

Well, I didn't major in it, but I took biology 101, neurobiology, 
neurophysiology, organic chemistry and of course more than one 
philosophy of biology courses.  I'm not an -expert- but having 
experienced the same wolf/dog conversation with a biology professor at 
UCLA (who shall remain nameless), I remain thoroughly unimpressed with 
the non-existent evolutionary response to the speciation problem.  Let 
me say, btw, that I'm not a biblical literalist either, and so for me 
it is somewhat irrelevant - as I see it if there were really 
"evolutionary laws of nature" then they too would stand in need of 
intelligent design as a background explanatory theory.

> There is a REASON why biologists make such a big deal of evolution.

-most- biologists.  Much for the same reason that American Philosophers 
are primarily interested in the philosophy of science, mathematics and 
artificial intelligence but not very interested in social, political 
and economic philosophy - because the political conditions that give 
rise to their profession tend to favor those who agree with the status 
quo.  Call it an evolutionary argument and you'll get it.

> If you want to discuss biology sensibly, you need to understand this 
> reason.
> Seriously, it's no good standing apart from it and chucking stones at 
> it. You've got to get inside it, see how it really works.

I've got bigger fish to fry.  I'm just saying that as an outsider, I'm 
unconvinced.  I'm convinced that QM is very good science, that it is as 
accurate at predicting decay rates of radioactive material as any 
current theory, but I'm also convinced that it's not the FULL story.  
Does this mean that I must therefore become a nuclear physicist?

> Until you do this, you're in the position of someone trying to 
> understand the flight path of Voyager without knowing anything about 
> orbital mechanics.

Not really, there are very good -general educational- materials on the 
matter.  The ones for "laymen".  In other sciences, for instance 
mechanics which I -do- do for a living, the standard textbooks are 
extremely convincing because they're definitive.  The biological 
textbooks WHERE they bother to explain the foundations of evolutionary 
theory are at best controversial and at their worst actually 
off-putting in their smugness.

> Poodles and Wolves?
> Ha, i'd like to see a Chihuahua and a Great Dane get it on.

My best friend has a miniature terrier/rhodesian ridgeback mix.  And 
you've missed the point. Deliberately?


> Be careful when generalising from dogs to other creatures, though. 
> Apparently, dogs have an unusually large range of variability within 
> their existing genome.

Like people, ducks, birds, ants, fish, etc.

>  This can easily be confused with genetic mutation.

Of course I didn't make this confusion, this was precisely the one I 
was trying to clear up.  Someone gave the dog/wolf example as an 
example of "speciation" and I was trying to explain the difference 
between morphology and phylogeny to the kindergartners over there.

Theoretically, if you stuck the penis of a wolf into a chihuaua in heat 
and the right conditions prevailed, you'd get this awesomely strong 
tiny little bug-eyed furry dog.  Probably really mean.  On the other 
hand, by no theory of which I'm aware, will you get a living organism 
by trying to produce a tuna-shark by having a shark fertilize tuna eggs 
or a leopard-lion by similar means.

Indeed, this distinction, the difference between genetically compatible 
and genetically incompatible groups which was formerly known as 
"species" is one that has been apparently deliberately vaguarized by 
evolutionary biologists over time by presenting to some people as 
examples of speciation, the various kinds of dogs.  I didn't make this 
example up, this was the standard example given in Bio 101 at UCLA 10 
years ago (oy vey, more than 10 years ago, jeez I'm getting old.)

Robbie Lindauer



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 07:37:42 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <31aa09158dc29ebef529929ce8eb918b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808073742.27534.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> I'm not an -expert-
> but having 
> experienced the same wolf/dog conversation with a
> biology professor at 
> UCLA (who shall remain nameless), I remain
> thoroughly unimpressed with 
> the non-existent evolutionary response to the
> speciation problem.

Well don't blame Darwin that your bio professor was
lame. Evolution DOES deal with the speciation problem.
Sexual selection or geographic isolation over millions
of years is sufficient to produce speciation. Since in
both cases there is no selection to favor reproductive
compatability between the diverging species. 

> The biological 
> textbooks WHERE they bother to explain the
> foundations of evolutionary 
> theory are at best controversial and at their worst
> actually 
> off-putting in their smugness.

Text books in general suck because they focus more on
making their material into "sound bites" that can
easily regurgitated on pop quizes and exams. Do me a
favor of reading two enjoyable books that are easily
accessable to the laymen, both available for free at
the public library. Darwin's "Origin of Species" and
Dawkin's "Selfish Gene". They have far more
explanatory power than any undregraduate text book. 

> Someone gave the dog/wolf
> example as an 
> example of "speciation" and I was trying to explain
> the difference 
> between morphology and phylogeny to the
> kindergartners over there.

Look I know the difference between phylogeny and
morphology. I was trying to give you an example of the
very same "trend" that gives rise to divergences of
species, i.e. speciation, that occurs within the span
of human history, as opposed to the "deep time" of
many millions of years that clearly lies outside of
human experience and intuition. You are correct in
that dogs and wolves are not different species. But
they are BECOMING different species, just give them a
few millions years.   

> 
> Theoretically, if you stuck the penis of a wolf into
> a chihuaua in heat 
> and the right conditions prevailed, you'd get this
> awesomely strong 
> tiny little bug-eyed furry dog.  Probably really
> mean.  On the other 
> hand, by no theory of which I'm aware, will you get
> a living organism 
> by trying to produce a tuna-shark by having a shark
> fertilize tuna eggs 
> or a leopard-lion by similar means.

Actually there probably are leopard-lions as there are
certainly lion-tigers (ligers) and tiger-lions
(tigons). For example and pictures see:
http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/liger.html

> 
> Indeed, this distinction, the difference between
> genetically compatible 
> and genetically incompatible groups which was
> formerly known as 
> "species" is one that has been apparently
> deliberately vaguarized by 
> evolutionary biologists over time by presenting to
> some people as 
> examples of speciation, the various kinds of dogs. 

The definition of species is not delibrately vague but
is so because it has had to be modified over the years
because of improved methods of genetic analysis,
molecular phylogeny, and the existense of hybrids such
as mules and ligers. Species themselves used to be
based on similarities of morphology during the
beginnings of taxonomy. Then after Darwin, species
came to mean reproductive compatability. Now it is
more like reproductive compatability that gives rise
to reproductively capable offspring. But even this is
contentious to some biologists. So how do you expect
evolutionary theory to give you a precise mechanism
for speciation when the biologists are not certain
EXACTLY what a species is? 
     The definition of species itself is somewhat
arbritrary in the same way that the border between the
US and Mexico is somewhat arbitrary. But that does not
mean that the US and Mexico are the same. Nor does it
mean that God created the US and Mexico. Of course
Bush might disagree with me on this point.
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Aug  8 08:32:29 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:32:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
References: <20050808063856.46687.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <026801c59bf3$ba156650$0300a8c0@Nano>

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: The Avantguardian 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.

  --- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

  > I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to curb a
  > moment of boredom. I did this for fun, perhaps to
  > get you all to smile (thought Spike would like this
  > humor!), and mainly to see if I could reproduce the
  > image, not to speculate one way or another. And, as
  > you have already established, I would never, ever
  > upload to a site where I do not have authorization
  > to do so. Just an incorrigible artist here, but
  > that's all!  :  )

  No worries, Gina. You did get a smile out of me and I
  KNOW you wouldn't do any unauthorized uploading,
  except maybe to save the world or something. ;) 

  Now I'm smiling.... that's very kind. 
   
  > Honestly this thing could be anything, I'm not up on
  > my satellite engineering, lenses or software - but I
  > could easily imagine that if it wasn't something
  > legit in the air, it could be any number of these
  > things interacting with or leaving an artifact on
  > the photo. 
  > Here are two super close ups for you:
  > Original:
  > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitetheirs.jpg
  > Mine:
  > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitemine.jpg
  > You can see the original is more blue and you can
  > tell in my pixels that the image has been blurred. 

       Thanks, Gina. Your analysis was actually very
  good and thorough. At the very least you established
  that it was not an obvious hoax. It may be one of the
  artifacts you suggested. If it actually was something
  in the air, it would seem to be very reflective as the
  blue tint you speak of could very well be a reflection
  of the sky from high altitude (i.e. the gradient of
  the blue of the sky to the black of space). 

  Right, that's a good point.

  Although weather balloons are made of mylar which is rather
  reflective we have already established that weather
  balloons are typically a mere 2 feet in diameter.
       Furthermore the blurriness, if caused by motion,
  would suggest that it was moving fairly quickly
  relative to the plane or satelite, since I imagine a
  fairly high shutter speed would be necessary to keep
  ground images from being too blurred from orbital or
  even airplane speeds. The blur also seems to be along
  the northwest-southeast axis, which would be odd for a
  high altitude weather balloon in the region of Palm
  Beach, FL. Since that is below 30 degrees latitude,
  the prevailing trade winds would be the North Easterly
  Trades which blow from the NE to the SW. Curious.
  Maybe it is just a drop of water on the camera lens.
  Then again it could be a scout ship sent by Elohim.
  Somebody wake up Rael. :)  

  The Avantguardian 
  is 
  Stuart LaForge
  alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

  "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
  -Bill Watterson

  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
  _______________________________________________
  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/20050808/91994d06/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Aug  8 08:47:51 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:47:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.
References: <20050808063856.46687.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
	<026801c59bf3$ba156650$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <028901c59bf5$dca87ed0$0300a8c0@Nano>

I clicked send on accident - I wasn't done! Obviously it must be too late at night, so I'll finish the response later! G`
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gina Miller 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: The Avantguardian 
    To: ExI chat list 
    Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:38 PM
    Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UFO on satellite photo.

    --- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:

    > I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to curb a
    > moment of boredom. I did this for fun, perhaps to
    > get you all to smile (thought Spike would like this
    > humor!), and mainly to see if I could reproduce the
    > image, not to speculate one way or another. And, as
    > you have already established, I would never, ever
    > upload to a site where I do not have authorization
    > to do so. Just an incorrigible artist here, but
    > that's all!  :  )

    No worries, Gina. You did get a smile out of me and I
    KNOW you wouldn't do any unauthorized uploading,
    except maybe to save the world or something. ;) 

    Now I'm smiling.... that's very kind. 
     
    > Honestly this thing could be anything, I'm not up on
    > my satellite engineering, lenses or software - but I
    > could easily imagine that if it wasn't something
    > legit in the air, it could be any number of these
    > things interacting with or leaving an artifact on
    > the photo. 
    > Here are two super close ups for you:
    > Original:
    > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitetheirs.jpg
    > Mine:
    > http://www.nanogirl.com/images/satellitemine.jpg
    > You can see the original is more blue and you can
    > tell in my pixels that the image has been blurred. 

         Thanks, Gina. Your analysis was actually very
    good and thorough. At the very least you established
    that it was not an obvious hoax. It may be one of the
    artifacts you suggested. If it actually was something
    in the air, it would seem to be very reflective as the
    blue tint you speak of could very well be a reflection
    of the sky from high altitude (i.e. the gradient of
    the blue of the sky to the black of space). 

    Right, that's a good point.

    Although weather balloons are made of mylar which is rather
    reflective we have already established that weather
    balloons are typically a mere 2 feet in diameter.
         Furthermore the blurriness, if caused by motion,
    would suggest that it was moving fairly quickly
    relative to the plane or satelite, since I imagine a
    fairly high shutter speed would be necessary to keep
    ground images from being too blurred from orbital or
    even airplane speeds. The blur also seems to be along
    the northwest-southeast axis, which would be odd for a
    high altitude weather balloon in the region of Palm
    Beach, FL. Since that is below 30 degrees latitude,
    the prevailing trade winds would be the North Easterly
    Trades which blow from the NE to the SW. Curious.
    Maybe it is just a drop of water on the camera lens.
    Then again it could be a scout ship sent by Elohim.
    Somebody wake up Rael. :)  

    The Avantguardian 
    is 
    Stuart LaForge
    alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

    "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
    -Bill Watterson

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
    http://mail.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/ee5d5d1b/attachment.html>

From outlawpoet at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 08:57:55 2005
From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:57:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <31aa09158dc29ebef529929ce8eb918b@aol.com>
References: <200508072043.j77KhlR12202@tick.javien.com>
	<42F6A521.70300@lineone.net>
	<31aa09158dc29ebef529929ce8eb918b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3ad827f3050808015779adc9a2@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:19 PM, ben wrote:
> >  Evolution gives all these facts a framework to hang on,
> So does intelligent design and Hegelian biology, without hard evidence
> it's irrelevant, ne?

I'm afraid not. Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about
what will happen to a specific population of organisms in certain
conditions. As an example, I think that someone earlier mentioned
microbiologists culturing bacteria to spec using successive
generations of slightly altered environment. A subset of evolutionary
theory, natural selection, shows that given certain environmental
changes, a population of bacteria will change in certain ways. Heat
resistance, for example, might be selected for, allowing eventual
descendants to survive in heat that would have been deadly to all
ancestor strains. You can do this at home, if you feel like it, with
agar, and antibacterials, like amoxil. two identical populations, one
killed immediately by high dosage, the other dosed tiny to high over a
long period of time. Eventually the changed agar population will be
able to withstand antibacterial concentrations that would have killed
every single bacteria that started out in that agar jar. Evolution
explains this. How does Hegelian biology? How does Intelligent Design?

> I remain thoroughly unimpressed with
> the non-existent evolutionary response to the speciation problem.

Speciation is not a "problem". It's just a consequence of evolution. I
assume, like most creationists, you use the folk taxonomic approach,
total discontinuity between species, and 'physical' inability to
reproduce. This has been observed fewer times than more subtle
speciation, such as isolating preferential mating groups descending
from a common mating group leading to speciation. Unfortunately, this
doesn't save you.

Ka Pow! References from scientists observing speciation with inability
to reproduce:

#  Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in
phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8),
pages 1747-1760.

# Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation
mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages
447-456.

# Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of
Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

# Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent,
allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from
silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume
137(4):515-526.

#  Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an
Old Field. Science 177:664-669

There are many more where this came from. A cursory Google will also
lead you to talkorigins.org, where a poor man, clearly addled from
constant arguing with creationists on usenet, has searched through the
literature and found hundreds of examples of speciation, in plants,
animals, insects, etc. All that happened in controlled observed
scientific modern experiments.

Earlier in this thread you were complaining about a poor biology
teacher you had, and then proceeded to make some 'arguments' about
chromosomal change leading inescapably to mules. I don't know exactly
where you got this idea, but it's not right. Euploid numbers(the
normal amount of chromosomes in a population) have been observed to
change before, and deviation from Euploidy in an organism isn't
instant death. Google "XYY" syndrome, and other Aneuploid disorders to
see that many humans survive and can reproduce in such situations.

Plants in particular tend to mix chromosome numbers and contents very
aggressively through hybridization, which sometimes leads to
non-backward reproductive species. Google "Polyploidization" for a
common mechanism.

And chromosomes, while important in diploids like ourselves, aren't
the whole story. Many species-emblematic differences can be contained
within similar Euploid numbers, via various mechanisms. Google
Chromosomal translocation, and inversion for higher mammal examples.
Simpler organisms, like prokaryotes have even wierder genetic
situations, with plasmids throughout the cell, and central single
chromosome.
 

> My best friend has a miniature terrier/rhodesian ridgeback mix.  And
> you've missed the point. Deliberately?

I need to point out here that most people use a taxonomic definition
of species which is different than creationists. Genetic inability to
reproduce is not the only criterion most scientists use. Creationists
seem to use it because it's more rare, and conjures specters of frogs
turning into ducks.

That being said, any dog breeder can tell you that there are breeds of
dog that are very difficult to cross. Irish Setters and Beagles come
up in a cursory Google. Besides this point, you have yet to show why
changing characteristics doesn't imply evolution. Unless you have
sneakily decided to accept natural selection, and transitioned to
another creationist sticking point, that species are somehow imbued
with the local power to differentiate, but get stopped when they 'go
to far' so as to remain the same species.

> Indeed, this distinction, the difference between genetically compatible
> and genetically incompatible groups which was formerly known as
> "species" is one that has been apparently deliberately vaguarized by
> evolutionary biologists over time by presenting to some people as
> examples of speciation, the various kinds of dogs.  I didn't make this
> example up, this was the standard example given in Bio 101 at UCLA 10
> years ago (oy vey, more than 10 years ago, jeez I'm getting old.)

Scientists did not 'start out' with the definition of reproductive
incompatibility and confuse it with smaller differentiation. Evolution
was posited independently of genetic theory. Darwin was not aware of
Mendel's work, according to biographers.

Change in allele frequency over time occurs. Dogs show this. They're
used because it's very obvious that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are
different, despite having exactly the same ancestors. This is an
example of directed evolution. The fact that you've decided to draw a
line in the sand which you call reproductive speciation(or whatever)
is not important. It's still evolution.

There are examples of organisms violating your rule ALSO, but that
doesn't mean scientists need to change their examples to address your
specific 'logical argument'.

I don't generally do this, because this kind of argument rarely
results in any changed minds. But no one seemed to be addressing the
arguments you clearly hold most dearly. I don't know where you heard
them exactly, but they don't really distinguish themselves from most
of the arguments I've heard creationists make over the years.

But you seem to be interested in details, so I thought it might be
worth the time to write a little down. I also wouldn't want anyone to
get the idea that you have a valid point. There are a lot of lurkers
on the Extropy list, and carefully tuned verbiage sometimes sounds
pretty convincing.

I would be interested, just in a vague intellectual way, whether you
were religious and sought out these 'arguments' or discovered them and
changed your opinion. I too was religious once, but I shook it off in
my late teens on some investigation.

If you're interested in investigating more, there are probably plenty
of books delving into evolutionary theory that would be better for you
than some moldy college textbook written by some tenured state college
professor. Stephen Jay Gould(recently deceased) wrote very interesting
popular works exploring biology for the laymen. It's not technical,
there's little math, but it is sciency, and decently rigorous.

I suppose since I'm involved, you can bring up any more objections you
have, and I'll do my best to address them. I wouldn't want you to come
away from this conversation with the impression that there aren't
answers to some unvoiced objection. I'm not a biologist, but with a
little googlage and local lookup in the books I do have, I should be
able to deal with most of it.

best,

-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 08:59:00 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:59:00 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050808073742.27534.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808073742.27534.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <63c5e04ec58b7d6965c45c3d05a03b65@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 9:37 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not an -expert-
>> but having
>> experienced the same wolf/dog conversation with a
>> biology professor at
>> UCLA (who shall remain nameless), I remain
>> thoroughly unimpressed with
>> the non-existent evolutionary response to the
>> speciation problem.
>
> Well don't blame Darwin that your bio professor was
> lame. Evolution DOES deal with the speciation problem.
> Sexual selection or geographic isolation over millions
> of years is sufficient to produce speciation.

A million monkeys with a million years, yadda, yadda, yadda.  I've 
-heard- the story.

How, in particular, is this supposed to happen?

Let's go through this again.

A -particular- mule is produced by some mutation.  One animal.  It's 
important that we're clear that -one animal- is required here, not 
millions of years of animals, but ONE ANIMAL that can no longer mate 
with members of its parents' species.

This mutation, despite it disrupting the genetic structure of the 
animal radically, manages to be beneficial for it somehow, in fact, 
gives it an advantage over some other competitors for resources.
In addition to the ONE ANIMAL above, another animal -with the same 
mutation- is produced and also manages to survive, find the other 
animal, mate with it and produce viable offspring which aren't affected 
by the 'marrying the sister' problem.
Their children then go on to become the dominant species, eventually 
eradicating through competition their ancestors.

Let's talk rats.  Rats are relatively susceptible to mutation.  What 
-actually- happens when we irradiate a female rat enough so that its 
eggs are a chromosome short?  Usually they are unable to reproduce, 
when they are able to reproduce, they produce dead or deformed children 
that are unable to produce.  Has this been tested?  LOTS.  Now, if 
Evolution were correct, we should expect the opposite effect.  We 
should expect production of lots of super-rats to result from our 
experiments, but instead, no super-rats.

In fact, a smart extropian would see that the best way to produce the 
super-intelligent being would be to use evolution and start randomly 
irradiating humans to produce one.    But we already know this is a bad 
idea.  It would kill them, produce lots of dead and deformed babies, 
and result in not producing the super-intelligent being.  Now 
EVENTUALLY we may have a sufficiently adequate map of the human genome 
and there may be a "dumb" gene in there somewhere.  We may be able to 
produce a super-smart individual by pinpointing that one gene and 
making it do something else.  And we may be able to produce a mating 
pair by cloning them and reversing their sex genes.  But such a process 
wouldn't be regarded as evolution, and couldn't be regarded as a 
confirmation of the historical aspects of evolution.  What it would do 
is it would make it even mildly plausible that such a thing could 
happen by accident in the wild.  But as it stands, it's not even midly 
plausible that such a thing could happen in the wild because it's not 
even mildly plausible that it could happen in a petri dish.  What's the 
problem - NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  Now, what do you call a really 
interesting theory without experimental evidence?  You call it a really 
interesting theory.


Can we breed rats (and people, for that matter) -traditionally- to be 
smarter and faster and stronger using simple breeding techniques 
available long before darwin?  Of course, we could do that long before 
darwin, and did it with dogs and horses and cattle and sheep and goats 
and other animals to our great benefit.  Are wild horses still the same 
species as domesticated horses in the sense of being genetically 
compatible?  Yes.   Can we use irradiation techniques to produce viable 
super-rat offspring?  Maybe eventually we'll be able to do it.  But the 
pinpoint accuracy required to snap some radiation into a mating pair of 
rat eggs is the kind of thing that causes biology departments to blow 
their budgets.

What's the likelihood of this happening -in the wild-?  0%.  Not 
.00001%.  0%.

It's not currently happening to anything that reproduces sexually as 
far as we know, certainly not any animals weighing more than 10 pounds. 
  THAT would make the news if someone found a pair of post-rats that had 
reproduced and had offspring with opposable thumbs or something and 
couldn't reproduce with their cousins!

But, if the missing-link hypothesis were true, we should be stumbling 
over them all the time - live ones in the wild.   Any of those 
available for perusal?  No.  Not one.  Ah, but what about the fossil 
evidence?  Nope, sorry, not one.

Again, what do you call an interesting theory without evidence?  An 
interesting theory.

>  Since in
> both cases there is no selection to favor reproductive
> compatability between the diverging species.

This is irrelevant.  While we know, as a matter of choice, wolves don't 
reproduce with chihuahua's, we also know that as a matter of genetics 
it's relatively easy for them to do if they wanted to.  We're talking 
about -can't- reproduce any longer because their genetic structures are 
incompatible - like Mango and Avocado trees.  Polinate a mango with 
avacodo pollen ALL DAY LONG - CENTURIES EVEN, still no mango-avocado is 
ever produced assuming current microbiology and genetics is true.  This 
is because they are truly different species.  Do you not understand 
this concept of being genetically incompatible with another individual 
and consequently being unable to reproduce even if, say, artificially 
inseminated?


>> The biological
>> textbooks WHERE they bother to explain the
>> foundations of evolutionary
>> theory are at best controversial and at their worst
>> actually
>> off-putting in their smugness.
>
> Text books in general suck because they focus more on
> making their material into "sound bites" that can
> easily regurgitated on pop quizes and exams. Do me a
> favor of reading two enjoyable books that are easily
> accessable to the laymen, both available for free at
> the public library. Darwin's "Origin of Species" and
> Dawkin's "Selfish Gene". They have far more
> explanatory power than any undregraduate text book.

Been there.

>> Someone gave the dog/wolf
>> example as an
>> example of "speciation" and I was trying to explain
>> the difference
>> between morphology and phylogeny to the
>> kindergartners over there.
>
> Look I know the difference between phylogeny and
> morphology. I was trying to give you an example of the
> very same "trend" that gives rise to divergences of
> species, i.e. speciation, that occurs within the span
> of human history, as opposed to the "deep time" of
> many millions of years that clearly lies outside of
> human experience and intuition. You are correct in
> that dogs and wolves are not different species. But
> they are BECOMING different species, just give them a
> few millions years.

There is no evidence whatever that they are becoming different species. 
  Their genetic structure is identical.  Two kinds of wolves are as 
dissimilar as any pair of wolf and dog and both can mate equivalently.

>> Theoretically, if you stuck the penis of a wolf into
>> a chihuaua in heat
>> and the right conditions prevailed, you'd get this
>> awesomely strong
>> tiny little bug-eyed furry dog.  Probably really
>> mean.  On the other
>> hand, by no theory of which I'm aware, will you get
>> a living organism
>> by trying to produce a tuna-shark by having a shark
>> fertilize tuna eggs
>> or a leopard-lion by similar means.
>
> Actually there probably are leopard-lions as there are
> certainly lion-tigers (ligers) and tiger-lions
> (tigons). For example and pictures see:
> http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/liger.html

I stand corrected.  I didn't know lions and tigers could reproduce and 
produce viable offspring.  But what we're looking for is a different 
animal.  The tigon and liger can apparently reproduce with either of 
lions and tigers and tigons and ligers.  The relation between tigers 
and lions is more like dogs and wolves than hippos and elephants.  What 
we're looking for is the one that can't reproduce with its cousins but 
can reproduce with another of its own kind.  A real genuine species 
change.

>> Indeed, this distinction, the difference between
>> genetically compatible
>> and genetically incompatible groups which was
>> formerly known as
>> "species" is one that has been apparently
>> deliberately vaguarized by
>> evolutionary biologists over time by presenting to
>> some people as
>> examples of speciation, the various kinds of dogs.
>
> The definition of species is not delibrately vague but
> is so because it has had to be modified over the years
> because of improved methods of genetic analysis,
> molecular phylogeny, and the existense of hybrids such
> as mules and ligers. Species themselves used to be
> based on similarities of morphology during the
> beginnings of taxonomy. Then after Darwin, species
> came to mean reproductive compatability. Now it is
> more like reproductive compatability that gives rise
> to reproductively capable offspring. But even this is
> contentious to some biologists. So how do you expect
> evolutionary theory to give you a precise mechanism
> for speciation when the biologists are not certain
> EXACTLY what a species is?

Quite right.  Thank goodness we have evolution to clear that one up for 
us...

>      The definition of species itself is somewhat
> arbritrary in the same way that the border between the
> US and Mexico is somewhat arbitrary.

I think the reproductive criteria is adequate and is due to Aristotle, 
not Darwin, BTW.

> But that does not
> mean that the US and Mexico are the same.

If what you mean is that species are third order metapoeses, I couldn't 
disagree with you more.  I don't see how your analogy is helpful.

> Nor does it
> mean that God created the US and Mexico.

Obviously, if it exists, God created it or created the thing that 
created it, or created the thing that created the thing, etc.

> Of course
> Bush might disagree with me on this point.

He's not smart enough to do that.

Robbie



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 09:09:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:09:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <63c5e04ec58b7d6965c45c3d05a03b65@aol.com>
References: <20050808073742.27534.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
	<63c5e04ec58b7d6965c45c3d05a03b65@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b821c4ef4cac17bb687943e74b0d58f6@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robbie Lindauer wrote:

>>> or a leopard-lion by similar means.
>>>

There are, apparently lijaguleps, too, how cool is that!

Robbie




From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 09:16:09 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:16:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <b0fd998c60015f14dc4df926336d5638@aol.com>
References: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
	<b0fd998c60015f14dc4df926336d5638@aol.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080802165747aca6@mail.gmail.com>

Egan's Diaspora and Schild's ladder are good examples. Humanity has
developed immortality and uploading, and spreads to the stars. Of
course there are problems but, overall, I would like to live in this
universe.
Difficult to make movies of these two great novels though.
Richard Morgan's Alteded Carbon and Broken Angels also have
immortality, uploading and galactic civilizations, and are probably
much easier to make movies from (actually I believe the author has
already sold movie rights). But Morgan very "noir" plots and scenes,
great as they are, do not really qualify as non-threatening.

On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 4:45 AM, spike wrote:
> >
> > Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
> > worked out well all around?
> 
> Heinlein is generally an optimist.  He doesn't think things are
> necessarily going to work out well for everyone in every way, but his
> vision of the techno-future is generally "bright".
> 
> 
> Robbie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Mon Aug  8 09:25:57 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:25:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <69be0bd96bb00da58f71be57e7ac2f36@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F66BB579B04CD1C209604AB4B80@phx.gbl>

I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being stupid and 
then express your own stupidity by calling them "country-bumpkin citizens of 
dumbf*ckistan".

There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of others: 
fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that you 
are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think calling 
51% of the US idiots is no way to further your cause. You're going to need 
to understand the right and why they win elections in order to regain 
control of the US. Belittling constituents is not the way to go about it.

BAL

>From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
>
>Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better.  The convinced are 
>convinced - so vat else is new?
>
>"nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
>
>In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, saying 
>we haven't is just absurd.
>
>Robbie
>
>
>On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>
>>This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the war 
>>ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is America's 
>>role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It probably is.
>>And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum is the 
>>lifeblood of the economy.
>>
>>>Great.
>>>
>>>Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>>>administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that
>>>the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body bags
>>>and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories from
>>>Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
>>>Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>>
>>>Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no longer
>>>make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.
>>>
>>>In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>>>good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
>>>only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into it.
>>>If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq remembering
>>>some essential facts:
>>>
>>>1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and both
>>>the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
>>>British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
>>>make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
>>>this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of war,
>>>they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>>>unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome economic
>>>burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>>
>>>2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
>>>their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to the
>>>outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
>>>terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British targets,
>>>has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of Iraq.
>>>
>>>3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
>>>company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
>>>billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
>>>without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
>>>board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and to
>>>date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the war
>>>itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
>>>spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job number
>>>1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
>>>money.
>>>
>>>4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>>>weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually
>>>ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
>>>invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
>>>fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
>>>within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea and
>>>Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into a
>>>complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, further
>>>plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and you
>>>know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
>>>for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
>>>won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>>>opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>>>quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will be
>>>gone anyway.
>>>
>>>5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
>>>punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
>>>court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>>>talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you
>>>didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about it,
>>>h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So what
>>>did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
>>>about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion
>>>dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
>>>the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
>>>bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
>>>your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
>>>vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
>>>but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far up
>>>the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>>>surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with
>>>odoriferous bile.
>>>
>>>But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
>>>right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin
>>>citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why anyone is
>>>against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
>>>Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
>>>pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more is
>>>there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>>
>>>Robbie Lindauer
>>>
>>>PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you
>>>take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
>>>continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the
>>>fence?
>>>
>>>
>>>On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>>> >> To: ExI chat list
>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>> >>
>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and
>>> >>> for
>>> >>> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in
>>> >>> this
>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
>>page_______________________________________________
>>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 pharos at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 09:28:39 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:28:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
In-Reply-To: <c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>
	<c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508080228450480e6@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/8/05, Robert Lindauer wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> >
> > Scientist: I have discovered a very odd new phenomenon but I don't yet
> > understand what causes it.
> >
> > Holly Roller: I know what caused it, the Clogknee field caused it.
> >
> > Scientist: OK, but what caused the Clogknee field and exactly how does
> > it work?
> >
> > Holly Roller: It is sacrilegious to ask questions like that about the
> > Clogknee field.
> >
> >
> > Now that wasn't terribly useful to the scientist now was it.
> 
> What does this have to do with our subject?
> 


It is attempting to point out the utter waste of time of defending ID.

If you want to argue the point you should go to the biology lists and
argue with the professionals. This isn't a biology list. (Or a pro /
anti war politics list either).

BillK


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 09:41:27 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:41:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Quellcrist Falconer's advice: make it personal
Message-ID: <470a3c5205080802413e5e2ba5@mail.gmail.com>

By reading fine literature, sometimes one learns things useful for practical 
life. So while I don't completely agree with Quellcrist Falconer's advice 
(in italics below), and wish/tend to behave very differently, I have to 
admit that Falconer's may well be the best strategy on specific occasions (I 
am in one such occasion now).
The personal, as everyone's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if 
some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that 
harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The 
Machinery of Justice will not serve you here - it is slow and cold, and it 
is theirs. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the 
creatures of power slide out from under with a wink and a grin. If you want 
justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much 
damage as you can. Get your message across. That way you stand a far better 
chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. 
And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered 
dangerous, marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes- between 
players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people 
they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your 
displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult 
that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a 
tough life, and that it's nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it 
personal.
Quellcrist Falconer, Things You Should Have Learned by Now. Volume II
So where is the link? Well, Quellcrist Falconer does not exist and her book 
Things etc. has never been written. Both are literary creations of Richard 
K. Morgan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Morgan> and part of the 
background of his excellent novel Altered
Carbon<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon>.
I was thinking of QF's advice today and wanted to type the text here, but I 
found it already online in this excellent
review<http://www.newsgarden.org/compost/compostbooks.shtml>of the
novel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/abfd90c7/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 10:03:53 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:03:53 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F66BB579B04CD1C209604AB4B80@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F66BB579B04CD1C209604AB4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f3d709bd92f7e90665a92de4f56bf44c@aol.com>

1)  I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for 
Bush the second time (well, okay, the first time too).  That was far 
less than 51% of Americans, even voting-age americans.  Morelike 22%.  
I stand by my statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
2)  I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
3)  I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
4)  No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just 
thinking individuals who decide for themselves what to do.  If someone 
in Texas is upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're 
probably neo-cons anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.  Our 
hope is that they'll continue sending their offspring to war en masse 
and eventually evolution will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts 
will die off OR they'll finally see that on the other side of the 
ridicule, there's a better way.

I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before I 
was a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've realized 
that situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that 
would let people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks, 
and then respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation.  
Now, if I see a lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk.  
This is a bit reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told 
me "If you use bad words it's because you don't have anything to say".

I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun 
of liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said 
everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my 
mamma forgives me in this particular case.

In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes those 
dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make fun 
of someone, it makes them feel superior.  Well, if what they like is 
ridicule then I say give'em what they want.  -Remember that Wally 
George, Imus and Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.

Put it in conservative language.  There comes a time for talking, when 
you have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a 
chance to come to a peaceful resolution.  But sometimes the enemy is 
soo beligerent, so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational 
discussion is useless.  Then what?  In grade school it was time to 
start kicking the shins.  Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot 
senators.  I don't have enough money to afford the kind of lawyers that 
would be needed to tie them up in court so I do what I can - I tell the 
truth about what they do and then yell mean names at them 'till I'm 
blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY people will come to see things 
my way - even if they end up hating me in the process.

Thankfully, this has recently happened:

Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be 
less than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at 42%).  
On Iraq he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.

Things like this make my day.  I hope this lasts until the 2006 
mid-terms.  What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the 
slumps, the ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to 
nuke Iran, I don't foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity.  On the 
other hand, he may be able to drag us into another war in order to 
bolster his popularity.  Ve shall see.

Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all 
means, go for it!  The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?

R


On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:

> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being stupid 
> and then express your own stupidity by calling them "country-bumpkin 
> citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>
> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of 
> others: fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in your 
> belief that you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both 
> ways. I think calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your 
> cause. You're going to need to understand the right and why they win 
> elections in order to regain control of the US. Belittling 
> constituents is not the way to go about it.
>
> BAL
>
>> From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
>>
>> Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better.  The 
>> convinced are convinced - so vat else is new?
>>
>> "nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
>>
>> In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, 
>> saying we haven't is just absurd.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the 
>>> war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is 
>>> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It 
>>> probably is.
>>> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum 
>>> is the lifeblood of the economy.
>>>
>>>> Great.
>>>>
>>>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>>>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say 
>>>> that
>>>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body 
>>>> bags
>>>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories 
>>>> from
>>>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
>>>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no 
>>>> longer
>>>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television 
>>>> show.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>>>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears 
>>>> the
>>>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into 
>>>> it.
>>>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq 
>>>> remembering
>>>> some essential facts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and 
>>>> both
>>>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
>>>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
>>>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
>>>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of 
>>>> war,
>>>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>>>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome 
>>>> economic
>>>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
>>>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to 
>>>> the
>>>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
>>>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British 
>>>> targets,
>>>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of 
>>>> Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
>>>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
>>>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
>>>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
>>>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor 
>>>> and to
>>>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the 
>>>> war
>>>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
>>>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job 
>>>> number
>>>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>>>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that 
>>>> actually
>>>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
>>>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
>>>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
>>>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea 
>>>> and
>>>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country 
>>>> into a
>>>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, 
>>>> further
>>>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and 
>>>> you
>>>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
>>>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
>>>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>>>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>>>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will 
>>>> be
>>>> gone anyway.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
>>>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
>>>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>>>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps 
>>>> you
>>>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about 
>>>> it,
>>>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So 
>>>> what
>>>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
>>>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 
>>>> Trillion
>>>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
>>>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
>>>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
>>>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
>>>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
>>>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so 
>>>> far up
>>>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>>>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked 
>>>> with
>>>> odoriferous bile.
>>>>
>>>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
>>>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the 
>>>> country-bumpkin
>>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why 
>>>> anyone is
>>>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
>>>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
>>>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more 
>>>> is
>>>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>>>
>>>> Robbie Lindauer
>>>>
>>>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should 
>>>> you
>>>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
>>>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of 
>>>> the
>>>> fence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
>>>> [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>>>> >> To: ExI chat list
>>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>> >>
>>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or 
>>>> whatever?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum 
>>>> spewer"?and
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers 
>>>> in
>>>> >>> this
>>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
>>> page_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug  8 10:04:59 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:04:59 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0508080228450480e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>
	<c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>
	<ee50357e0508080228450480e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ae82e5f18f3e2fa02f734021af694ab0@aol.com>


On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:28 PM, BillK wrote:

> On 8/8/05, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John K Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Scientist: I have discovered a very odd new phenomenon but I don't 
>>> yet
>>> understand what causes it.
>>>
>>> Holly Roller: I know what caused it, the Clogknee field caused it.
>>>
>>> Scientist: OK, but what caused the Clogknee field and exactly how 
>>> does
>>> it work?
>>>
>>> Holly Roller: It is sacrilegious to ask questions like that about the
>>> Clogknee field.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that wasn't terribly useful to the scientist now was it.
>>
>> What does this have to do with our subject?
>>
>
>
> It is attempting to point out the utter waste of time of defending ID.
>
> If you want to argue the point you should go to the biology lists and
> argue with the professionals. This isn't a biology list. (Or a pro /
> anti war politics list either).
>
> BillK



I didn't bring it up, nor did I make it an issue.  I just reacted to 
the smugness.

Robbie



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  8 10:08:12 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:08:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205080802165747aca6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F17C16E9C51CB7374E6D686B4B80@phx.gbl>

Egan's Diaspora would be a really tough movie since over half the book has 
no real visible space.

Egan's Permutation City might be easier to film. The plot is a little weaker 
than Diaspora, but it has the makings of a good sci-fi original or 
something.

Someone mentioned Cory Doctorow's books. I think DaOitMK is already optioned 
but not in development yet. I think these are extremely approachable books 
with transhumanist themes.

BAL

>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:16:09 +0200
>
>Egan's Diaspora and Schild's ladder are good examples. Humanity has
>developed immortality and uploading, and spreads to the stars. Of
>course there are problems but, overall, I would like to live in this
>universe.
>Difficult to make movies of these two great novels though.
>Richard Morgan's Alteded Carbon and Broken Angels also have
>immortality, uploading and galactic civilizations, and are probably
>much easier to make movies from (actually I believe the author has
>already sold movie rights). But Morgan very "noir" plots and scenes,
>great as they are, do not really qualify as non-threatening.
>
>On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2005, at 4:45 AM, spike wrote:
> > >
> > > Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
> > > worked out well all around?
> >
> > Heinlein is generally an optimist.  He doesn't think things are
> > necessarily going to work out well for everyone in every way, but his
> > vision of the techno-future is generally "bright".
> >
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  8 10:14:05 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:14:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <f3d709bd92f7e90665a92de4f56bf44c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl>

I'm not trying to play nice liberal or anything like it. I'm just saying 
that the way to convince people isn't by calling them idiots or dumbfucks.

The "Bush cheated" meme is pretty lame too. Bush won for various reasons, 
but cheating isn't one of them.

I think there's an artifically created ideology gap between the left and the 
right. Repubs have been polarizing voters on stuff like gay marriage while 
most lefties and righties agree ideologically.

Don't mind Rush et al, they only preach to the converted (and strange people 
who hate them but listen anyway).

BAL

>From: Robbie Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:03:53 -1000
>
>1)  I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for Bush 
>the second time (well, okay, the first time too).  That was far less than 
>51% of Americans, even voting-age americans.  Morelike 22%.  I stand by my 
>statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
>2)  I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
>3)  I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
>4)  No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just thinking 
>individuals who decide for themselves what to do.  If someone in Texas is 
>upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're probably neo-cons 
>anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.  Our hope is that they'll 
>continue sending their offspring to war en masse and eventually evolution 
>will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts will die off OR they'll finally 
>see that on the other side of the ridicule, there's a better way.
>
>I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before I was 
>a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've realized that 
>situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that would let 
>people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks, and then 
>respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation.  Now, if I see a 
>lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk.  This is a bit 
>reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told me "If you use bad 
>words it's because you don't have anything to say".
>
>I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun of 
>liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said 
>everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my mamma 
>forgives me in this particular case.
>
>In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes those 
>dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make fun of 
>someone, it makes them feel superior.  Well, if what they like is ridicule 
>then I say give'em what they want.  -Remember that Wally George, Imus and 
>Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.
>
>Put it in conservative language.  There comes a time for talking, when you 
>have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a chance to 
>come to a peaceful resolution.  But sometimes the enemy is soo beligerent, 
>so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational discussion is useless. 
>  Then what?  In grade school it was time to start kicking the shins.  
>Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot senators.  I don't have enough 
>money to afford the kind of lawyers that would be needed to tie them up in 
>court so I do what I can - I tell the truth about what they do and then 
>yell mean names at them 'till I'm blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY 
>people will come to see things my way - even if they end up hating me in 
>the process.
>
>Thankfully, this has recently happened:
>
>Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be less 
>than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at 42%).  On Iraq 
>he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.
>
>Things like this make my day.  I hope this lasts until the 2006 mid-terms.  
>What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the slumps, the 
>ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to nuke Iran, I don't 
>foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity.  On the other hand, he may be able 
>to drag us into another war in order to bolster his popularity.  Ve shall 
>see.
>
>Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all means, 
>go for it!  The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?
>
>R
>
>
>On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
>
>>I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being stupid and 
>>then express your own stupidity by calling them "country-bumpkin citizens 
>>of dumbf*ckistan".
>>
>>There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of others: 
>>fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that 
>>you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think 
>>calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your cause. You're going 
>>to need to understand the right and why they win elections in order to 
>>regain control of the US. Belittling constituents is not the way to go 
>>about it.
>>
>>BAL
>>
>>>From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>>>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
>>>
>>>Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better.  The convinced 
>>>are convinced - so vat else is new?
>>>
>>>"nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
>>>
>>>In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, 
>>>saying we haven't is just absurd.
>>>
>>>Robbie
>>>
>>>
>>>On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the war 
>>>>ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is 
>>>>America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It 
>>>>probably is.
>>>>And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum is 
>>>>the lifeblood of the economy.
>>>>
>>>>>Great.
>>>>>
>>>>>Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>>>>>administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that
>>>>>the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body bags
>>>>>and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories from
>>>>>Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
>>>>>Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>>>>
>>>>>Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no longer
>>>>>make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>>>>>good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
>>>>>only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into it.
>>>>>If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq remembering
>>>>>some essential facts:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and both
>>>>>the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
>>>>>British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
>>>>>make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
>>>>>this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of war,
>>>>>they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>>>>>unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome economic
>>>>>burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>>>>
>>>>>2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
>>>>>their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to the
>>>>>outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
>>>>>terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British targets,
>>>>>has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
>>>>>company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
>>>>>billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
>>>>>without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
>>>>>board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and to
>>>>>date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the war
>>>>>itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
>>>>>spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job number
>>>>>1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
>>>>>money.
>>>>>
>>>>>4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>>>>>weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually
>>>>>ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
>>>>>invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
>>>>>fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
>>>>>within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea and
>>>>>Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into a
>>>>>complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, further
>>>>>plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and you
>>>>>know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
>>>>>for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
>>>>>won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>>>>>opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>>>>>quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will be
>>>>>gone anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
>>>>>punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
>>>>>court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>>>>>talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you
>>>>>didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about it,
>>>>>h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So what
>>>>>did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
>>>>>about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion
>>>>>dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
>>>>>the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
>>>>>bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
>>>>>your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
>>>>>vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
>>>>>but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far up
>>>>>the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>>>>>surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with
>>>>>odoriferous bile.
>>>>>
>>>>>But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
>>>>>right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin
>>>>>citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why anyone 
>>>>>is
>>>>>against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
>>>>>Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
>>>>>pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more is
>>>>>there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>>>>
>>>>>Robbie Lindauer
>>>>>
>>>>>PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you
>>>>>take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
>>>>>continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of the
>>>>>fence?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>>>>> >> To: ExI chat list
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or whatever?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>>>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"?and
>>>>> >>> for
>>>>> >>> ?"mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in
>>>>> >>> this
>>>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
>>>>page_______________________________________________
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug  8 10:21:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:21:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F66BB579B04CD1C209604AB4B80@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F66BB579B04CD1C209604AB4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <49411A68-A18D-4925-9A33-AB2BC2F0F0DF@mac.com>


On Aug 8, 2005, at 2:25 AM, Brian Lee wrote:

> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being  
> stupid and then express your own stupidity by calling them "country- 
> bumpkin citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>
> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of  
> others: fundamentalists.

Sorry, but no.  That is not the meaning of "fundamentalist".

> You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that you are  
> correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think  
> calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your cause.

Over 70% of Americans believe in literal miracles and think evolution  
is bunk.  Clearly more than 51% of Americans are in fact idiots.

- samantha



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  8 12:22:50 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:22:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <49411A68-A18D-4925-9A33-AB2BC2F0F0DF@mac.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F23AD0FFA26EBC8E89377BEB4B80@phx.gbl>

>From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:21:30 -0700
>
>On Aug 8, 2005, at 2:25 AM, Brian Lee wrote:
>
>>I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being  stupid and 
>>then express your own stupidity by calling them "country- bumpkin citizens 
>>of dumbf*ckistan".
>>
>>There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of  others: 
>>fundamentalists.
>
>Sorry, but no.  That is not the meaning of "fundamentalist".

Yes, it is actually. In this case, the source providing the Truth is 
himself. He does not consider the opinions of others when making decisions. 
Throw up your definition of fundamentalist, maybe I'm just getting 
disconnected

>
>>You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that you are  correct 
>>and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think  calling 51% of 
>>the US idiots is no way to further your cause.
>
>Over 70% of Americans believe in literal miracles and think evolution  is 
>bunk.  Clearly more than 51% of Americans are in fact idiots.

No, this doesn't mean they are idiots. It just means they have an incorrect 
view on miracles/evolution. I once worked with a content director who was in 
the habit of saying stuff like "Who was the fucking idiot who misspelled 
'the' on the main page". An error does not create an idiot (especially when 
made by a CS graduate from Yale who was pretty smart).

BAL




From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Aug  8 12:44:49 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:44:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F23AD0FFA26EBC8E89377BEB4B80@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F23AD0FFA26EBC8E89377BEB4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42F753C1.9070101@neopax.com>

Brian Lee wrote:

>> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:21:30 -0700
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2005, at 2:25 AM, Brian Lee wrote:
>>
>>> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being  
>>> stupid and then express your own stupidity by calling them "country- 
>>> bumpkin citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>>>
>>> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of  
>>> others: fundamentalists.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but no.  That is not the meaning of "fundamentalist".
>
>
> Yes, it is actually. In this case, the source providing the Truth is 
> himself. He does not consider the opinions of others when making 
> decisions. Throw up your definition of fundamentalist, maybe I'm just 
> getting disconnected

Someone who believes in inflexibly applying fundamental principles.
They can quite appreciate other peoples differing POV, but just consider 
it to be wrong.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 12:45:56 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:45:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
In-Reply-To: <ae82e5f18f3e2fa02f734021af694ab0@aol.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>
	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>
	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>
	<001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>
	<c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>
	<ee50357e0508080228450480e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<ae82e5f18f3e2fa02f734021af694ab0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605080805453f8d2f8b@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/8/05, Robbie Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:28 PM, BillK wrote:
> 
> > On 8/8/05, Robert Lindauer wrote:
> >>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:38 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Scientist: I have discovered a very odd new phenomenon but I don't
> >>> yet
> >>> understand what causes it.
> >>>
> >>> Holly Roller: I know what caused it, the Clogknee field caused it.
> >>>
> >>> Scientist: OK, but what caused the Clogknee field and exactly how
> >>> does
> >>> it work?
> >>>
> >>> Holly Roller: It is sacrilegious to ask questions like that about the
> >>> Clogknee field.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now that wasn't terribly useful to the scientist now was it.
> >>
> >> What does this have to do with our subject?
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is attempting to point out the utter waste of time of defending ID.
> >
> > If you want to argue the point you should go to the biology lists and
> > argue with the professionals. This isn't a biology list. (Or a pro /
> > anti war politics list either).
> >
> > BillK
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring it up, nor did I make it an issue. I just reacted to
> the smugness.


### Nah, it's not smugness, it's realism. ID is just a new name for old 
nonsense.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/eee4c5f6/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 13:31:39 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:31:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
Message-ID: <380-22005818133139915@M2W069.mail2web.com>


From: Brett Paatsch 

"Natasha, 

I organised a little marketing focus group with myself. 
"
It found the Max More and Natasha Vita More brands to be very clearly
still good, 

(It's Vita-More)

"the Exi-chat list to be good, the Extropy brand to be possibly a
bit worn out or diluted by some of its associations since it was first
encountered by the focus group, but, basically, still good." 

** This runs counter to my stats.  Could you let us  know your criteria for
brand quality?   Can you explain why the new website, VP Summit and
Proactionary Principle are diluting ExI?  The feedback I have gotten from
these elements are positive and membership has risen because of them.  

Re the list:  "still good" is not good enough.  I has to be excellent. 
What can we do to improve your findings?

"The focus group
is slightly interested in and wishes well any derivative brands like Extropy
Campus but doesn't always have the time to keep track of them. My focus
group hopes it works out well for the "parent" brands."

This is an idea I came up with a couple of years ago but wanted to manage
the other elements before arriving at the announcement.

"The good thing about focus groups is that one doesn't have to worry about
em too much, if one is sure one has a great product or service."

True, but they can bring in diverse comments and findings.  I was just on
onen with Future Lab here in Austin.  I was surprised at the insufficient
level of global and futurist experiences and knowledge from other groups
participants.
 
Best,
Natasha


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ;
wta at transhumanism.org ; futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; LA-grg at wild98.com ;
LAFuturists at yahoogroups.com ; cryonet at cryonet.org 
  Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:03 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus


  Transhumanists and Futurists,

  Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference
that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the
process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields. 
The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 

  We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning,
systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

  We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are
interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable
program for transhumanism.

  If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

  Educate!

  Natasha



    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist, Designer 
    Studies of the Future, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 


    Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler 
    Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet




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


  _______________________________________________
  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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 13:33:45 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:33:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus
Message-ID: <380-22005818133345796@M2W118.mail2web.com>


From: John Calvin 

"Very interested."

Excellent.

Natasha

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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 13:34:32 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:34:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
Message-ID: <380-22005818133432680@M2W075.mail2web.com>


From: Gina Miller 


"I'm here if you need graphics assistance."

Yes, this would be great.

Natasha


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 5:03 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus


  Transhumanists and Futurists,

  Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference
that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the
process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields. 
The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 

  We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning,
systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

  We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are
interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable
program for transhumanism.

  If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

  Educate!

  Natasha



    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist, Designer 
    Studies of the Future, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 


    Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler 
    Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet




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


  _______________________________________________
  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 spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Aug  8 14:44:20 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:44:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <9a9f6ee9593321f622d72559f72c2ae5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200508081446.j78EkTR15204@tick.javien.com>

> >>
> >> Robbie Lindauer
> >
> > ...  Everyone here is against war.
> >
> > spike
> 
> Were you the one who was going to send me 30k for some land in North
> Korea on the coast?
> 
> Did you get my PO box?
> 
> Robbie


Wasn't me Robbie.  I am not known for donating funds.  {8^D

spike






From jonkc at att.net  Mon Aug  8 15:14:17 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:14:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
References: <200508072043.j77KhlR12202@tick.javien.com><42F6A521.70300@lineone.net><31aa09158dc29ebef529929ce8eb918b@aol.com>
	<3ad827f3050808015779adc9a2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003001c59c2b$e01dbfe0$0bee4d0c@MyComputer>

Robbie Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com>

> What -actually- happens when we irradiate a female
> rat enough so that its eggs are a chromosome short?
> Usually they are unable to reproduce, when they are
> able to reproduce, they produce dead or deformed
>children that are unable to produce.

Yes.

> Now, if Evolution were correct, we should
> expect the opposite effect.

What on earth are you talking about? Nearly all mutations are detrimental
because there are more ways thing can go wrong than go right, only a tiny
percentage of mutations actually help the animal get his genes into the next
generation. That means that for every tiny improvement millions or billions
of animals had to suffer and die. That's why Holly Rollers are so
uncomfortable with evolution, if there is a God behind such a cruel
 process he is one rotten son of a bitch.


> a smart extropian would see that the best
> way to produce the super-intelligent being
> would be to use evolution and start randomly
> irradiating humans to produce > one.

You keep talking about random mutation but that's only half of what makes
Evolution work, the other half is Natural Selection. The above could work if
you only irradiate humans who scored low on IQ tests so that they were dead
or sterilized. Keep that up for a few thousand years and you would indeed
get an improvement in average IQ scores, but genetic engineering would be
much faster.

> wolves don't reproduce with chihuahua's,
> we also know that as a matter of genetics
> it's relatively easy for them to do if they wanted to.

That's true but then dogs are a very recent invention, wolves and dogs
started to diverge only about 5000 years ago and Chihuahuas diverged from
other dogs only about a century or two ago. Although they have similar
genetics and theoretically they could still interbreed I think you will
admit that a wolf and a Chihuahua look and act rather differently and the
difference happened in a instant of geological time. Imagine how different
they would be if you had thousands of times as much time to work with.

But for the sake of argument lets say I'm wrong and Evolution is untrue,
then the only logical thing to say is that the cause of life is unknown.
This God idea is just silly, you put all the mysteries of life in a box,
slap a label on it that says "God, do not open" kick the box upstairs and
declare the problem solved. If there is a God he must be asking himself "why
have I always existed, why haven't I always not existed"? Even God doesn't
know

    John K Clark






From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Aug  8 15:32:51 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:32:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001301c59c2e$70e59550$0100a8c0@kevin>

It's such a shame that you have such a limited view of people. You have this
nasty problem with grouping people rather than looking at them as
individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am hardly the idiot that you are
speaking of. I am a thinking individual. I am not a neo-con and I certainly
don't support his religious views. I am an atheist and I disagree with many
parts of the Bush agenda.
If you are the thinking person that you claim to be, you will realize soon
that the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to polarizing
voters in an attempt to win elections. The democratic party is just as
guilty of lying to move their agenda forward as the right. Each has their
agenda which they "think" is right and to them, the ends justify the means.
It is nothing more than simple politics. Your attempt  to make one side
appear more righteous that the other is foolish.
So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an administration
with a religious ideology? It's simple. I weighed in the things that were
important to me for the next four years and the only other viable option was
worse.
I know this is a waste of my time, but I will at least try to explain. I
could predict what Bush was going to do in Iraq. Kerry though, probably
couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do in Iraq. I certainly don;t
think just withdrawing to gain political support at home was the answer to
the problems in the MidEast. I knew exactly where Bush stands on stem-cell
research and I know that his failure to fund research into several lines for
4-8 years doesn't create a major impact on advancement because other
countries perform similar research and because private funds are still
available for this. I often wonder just how much the federal government has
a right to invest taxpayer funds into research anyways which is a completely
different argument for another day.
Meanwhile, I happen to know by the voting record that Kerry had voted
several times against silly laws that infringe upon the 2nd amendment. You
may not like guns, but I can tell you that millions of guns in the hands of
the citizens of Iraq and a willingness to use them would have prevented
Saddam from getting to power in the first place. Anyone who thinks that this
kind of thing is impossible in the US has a short-sighted view of history.
When it comes down to it, I weighed all of the things that I think are
important and decided that Kerry was a worse candidate for the liar's job
that the incumbent. It isn;t about right vs left or dems vs repubs. There's
a lot more at work than that. Different people vote for different candidates
for different reasons.
And I am not a Bush supporter by the way. I could care less who the
president is or what party he is affiliated with. The issues are much
greater than any one person. I will be glad to debate you on any issue, but
a debate on who is a better president is lunacy. A reasonable debate can
only be obtained if we could first agree on each objective, every issue and
it's importance. Then we could argue about how effectively this president
carried out those objectives and handled each issue. Otherwise you are
wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Lee" <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?


> I'm not trying to play nice liberal or anything like it. I'm just saying
> that the way to convince people isn't by calling them idiots or dumbfucks.
>
> The "Bush cheated" meme is pretty lame too. Bush won for various reasons,
> but cheating isn't one of them.
>
> I think there's an artifically created ideology gap between the left and
the
> right. Repubs have been polarizing voters on stuff like gay marriage while
> most lefties and righties agree ideologically.
>
> Don't mind Rush et al, they only preach to the converted (and strange
people
> who hate them but listen anyway).
>
> BAL
>
> >From: Robbie Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:03:53 -1000
> >
> >1)  I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for Bush
> >the second time (well, okay, the first time too).  That was far less than
> >51% of Americans, even voting-age americans.  Morelike 22%.  I stand by
my
> >statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
> >2)  I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
> >3)  I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
> >4)  No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just
thinking
> >individuals who decide for themselves what to do.  If someone in Texas is
> >upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're probably neo-cons
> >anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.  Our hope is that
they'll
> >continue sending their offspring to war en masse and eventually evolution
> >will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts will die off OR they'll
finally
> >see that on the other side of the ridicule, there's a better way.
> >
> >I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before I
was
> >a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've realized that
> >situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that would let
> >people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks, and then
> >respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation.  Now, if I see
a
> >lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk.  This is a bit
> >reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told me "If you use
bad
> >words it's because you don't have anything to say".
> >
> >I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun of
> >liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said
> >everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my
mamma
> >forgives me in this particular case.
> >
> >In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes those
> >dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make fun
of
> >someone, it makes them feel superior.  Well, if what they like is
ridicule
> >then I say give'em what they want.  -Remember that Wally George, Imus and
> >Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.
> >
> >Put it in conservative language.  There comes a time for talking, when
you
> >have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a chance
to
> >come to a peaceful resolution.  But sometimes the enemy is soo
beligerent,
> >so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational discussion is
useless.
> >  Then what?  In grade school it was time to start kicking the shins.
> >Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot senators.  I don't have
enough
> >money to afford the kind of lawyers that would be needed to tie them up
in
> >court so I do what I can - I tell the truth about what they do and then
> >yell mean names at them 'till I'm blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY
> >people will come to see things my way - even if they end up hating me in
> >the process.
> >
> >Thankfully, this has recently happened:
> >
> >Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be less
> >than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at 42%).  On
Iraq
> >he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.
> >
> >Things like this make my day.  I hope this lasts until the 2006
mid-terms.
> >What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the slumps, the
> >ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to nuke Iran, I
don't
> >foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity.  On the other hand, he may be
able
> >to drag us into another war in order to bolster his popularity.  Ve shall
> >see.
> >
> >Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all
means,
> >go for it!  The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?
> >
> >R
> >
> >
> >On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
> >
> >>I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being stupid and
> >>then express your own stupidity by calling them "country-bumpkin
citizens
> >>of dumbf*ckistan".
> >>
> >>There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of others:
> >>fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that
> >>you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think
> >>calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your cause. You're
going
> >>to need to understand the right and why they win elections in order to
> >>regain control of the US. Belittling constituents is not the way to go
> >>about it.
> >>
> >>BAL
> >>
> >>>From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
> >>>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >>>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
> >>>
> >>>Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better.  The convinced
> >>>are convinced - so vat else is new?
> >>>
> >>>"nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
> >>>
> >>>In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness,
> >>>saying we haven't is just absurd.
> >>>
> >>>Robbie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the war
> >>>>ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is
> >>>>America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It
> >>>>probably is.
> >>>>And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum is
> >>>>the lifeblood of the economy.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Great.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
> >>>>>administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say that
> >>>>>the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body bags
> >>>>>and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories
from
> >>>>>Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
> >>>>>Kill, Kill, Kill!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no
longer
> >>>>>make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television show.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
> >>>>>good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears the
> >>>>>only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into
it.
> >>>>>If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq
remembering
> >>>>>some essential facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and
both
> >>>>>the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
> >>>>>British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
> >>>>>make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
> >>>>>this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of
war,
> >>>>>they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
> >>>>>unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome
economic
> >>>>>burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
> >>>>>their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to
the
> >>>>>outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
> >>>>>terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British
targets,
> >>>>>has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of
Iraq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
> >>>>>company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
> >>>>>billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
> >>>>>without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
> >>>>>board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor and
to
> >>>>>date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the
war
> >>>>>itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
> >>>>>spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job
number
> >>>>>1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
> >>>>>money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
> >>>>>weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that actually
> >>>>>ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
> >>>>>invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
> >>>>>fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
> >>>>>within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea
and
> >>>>>Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country into
a
> >>>>>complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes,
further
> >>>>>plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and
you
> >>>>>know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
> >>>>>for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
> >>>>>won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
> >>>>>opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
> >>>>>quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will
be
> >>>>>gone anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
> >>>>>punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
> >>>>>court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
> >>>>>talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps you
> >>>>>didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about
it,
> >>>>>h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So
what
> >>>>>did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
> >>>>>about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 Trillion
> >>>>>dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
> >>>>>the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
> >>>>>bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
> >>>>>your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
> >>>>>vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
> >>>>>but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so far
up
> >>>>>the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
> >>>>>surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked with
> >>>>>odoriferous bile.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
> >>>>>right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the country-bumpkin
> >>>>>citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why anyone
> >>>>>is
> >>>>>against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
> >>>>>Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
> >>>>>pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more
is
> >>>>>there to say? Was something overlooked?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Robbie Lindauer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should you
> >>>>>take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
> >>>>>continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of
the
> >>>>>fence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-
> >>>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> >>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> >>>>> >> To: ExI chat list
> >>>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or
whatever?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
> >>>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum spewer"
and
> >>>>> >>> for
> >>>>> >>> "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers in
> >>>>> >>> this
> >>>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > 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
> >>>>Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> >>>>page_______________________________________________
> >>>>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
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 15:42:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Quest 4 John Calvin was Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush
	admin lied over Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <022a01c59bda$006286c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050808154258.46697.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> From: "John Calvin" <john.h.calvin at gmail.com> 
> > Osama Bin Laden released a tape claiming responsibility for the
> 9/11
> > attacks, and intelligence places clear links to the Al Qaeda
> > organization for the planning and execution. 
> 
> Is that a fact John?  Did he explicitly claim responsibility on
> behalf of
> Al Qaeda and/or himself or did he sort of verbally handwave and say
> god-willing yes the infidels were a-smitten and we observed with the
> satisfaction of the righteous or some such. 
> 
> Reason I ask is that it *was* my impression but I didn't personally
> see or watch any such tape, and lately here in Australia a couple
> of radical muslim talking heads have said that they did not think
> that OBL had claimed responsibility for september 11.

A lot of the anti-US crowd is trying to claim OBL never copped to
responsibility, that he's just a convenient patsy, and even that the
9.11 events were staged. For instance, there are widespread claims that
no airliner struck the pentagon, that it was a smaller plane. Typically
these are by people who have no experience in weaponry, physics, or
civil engineering. Do some googling beyond the radical left and right
pabulum.

> 
> In at least one case, the more reliably source involved, the ABC
> (Australian public Broad Caster) interviewer, seemd to be surprised
> that his interviewee was unaware of that "fact".
> 
> I think the "terrorists" are sometimes of like mind with the
> Bush-admin and the govts that like to demonise them in perhaps
> being willing to take "credit" for more than their due. 

The London bombings are the first of the current era that had more than
one group claiming responsibility, though Zawahiri in his most recent
tape claimed the bombing as well as al Qaeda in Europe and a third
group. There are established protocols in terrorism for proving one's
bona fides in claims sent to media and police, typically disclosing
details about the incident that police either were not yet aware of or
had not released.
Furthermore, videos were found of OBL in Afghanistan that were
captured, not produced for public propaganda, in which OBL explicitly
admitted to approving 9/11 and referring to his civil engineering
experience in directing the hijacker pilots to strike the buildings
where they did.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From adam at adamkolson.com  Mon Aug  8 15:49:48 2005
From: adam at adamkolson.com (Adam K. Olson)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:49:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <20050807061504.71309.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050807061504.71309.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d228b19df22cba21ad9e41b4cfbc391b@adamkolson.com>

2004's Sundance winning film _Primer_ ranks my top time travel movie,  
mainly because of its believability. It's quite an amazing film, but  
really showcases more of the human condition in greed (not positive).  
It's also not a movie for kids.

However, beyond presenting a vehicle for abstract non-linear thinking,  
I don't think a time travel movie would make science sexy again. I  
could be proven wrong though.

Time travel movies seem to suffer from too many paradoxes that are  
resolved in half-baked crackpot theories on "how the universe works out  
what happens when you kill your grandma before you were born" rather  
than any hard science. I can think of numerous scenes (i.e. _Timecop_)  
where special effects explain these paradoxes rather than explanation  
or understanding. Perhaps a time travel flick could be pulled off in a  
scientific and sexy fashion (never say never), but I think scifi should  
stick to ideas or science. Throwing around junk science flotsam is not  
very good for today's youth.

I would second _Fallen Angels_ as an excellent example of something to  
make science sexy again for the youth. The premise is pretty damn fun  
by itself.

On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> Does anyone here like time travel films? This is a
> plot I wrote down: a Jewish scientist's daughter
> travels from the year 2097 to the year 1945, to sleep
> with Hitler.
>  If the film were well done it would be guaranteed a
> success, as the notoriety of such a plot would draw a
> large audience.
>
>
>> My current favorites for transhumanist movies are
>> The First Immortal
>> and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
>> But any good story with a human angle and set in a
>> rear-singularity
>> world with uploading technology would do. A series
>> would perhaps be
>> even better than a movie in terms of impact.
>> G.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I concur. Such movies should also, besides
>> portraying science and
>>> transhumanism positively, show the true dark
>> underbelly of luddism. One
>>> movie I think actually did this quite well was
>> "AI", which portrayed
>>> the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its
>> fears of AI negatively.
>>>
>>> I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry
>> Pournelle novel "Fallen
>>> Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie.
>> Neal Stephenson's
>>> "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
>>>
>>> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have long been persuaded that the best way to
>> promote a positive
>>>> and
>>>> hopeful attitude toward future developments in
>> science and technology
>>>> is
>>>> through movies. Apparently the idea has been
>> taken up by the US
>>>> establishment.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/ 
> 1413200&from=rss>:
>>>>
>>>> *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon
>> is funding classes in
>>>> screenplay writing for 15
>>>>
>>>
>>
> scientists<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html? 
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
>>>> The idea is to encourage kids to go into science
>> and engineering
>>>> through
>>>> mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster
>> long-term US national
>>>>
>>>> security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for
>> the researchers
>>>> involved,
>>>> and anything that stems the spiral of the US
>> into a culture of
>>>> anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
>> Will glamorizing
>>>> science in
>>>> the movies make kids pay better attention in
>> chemistry class?
>>>> *In the New York Times
>>>>
>>>
>>
> article<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html? 
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
>>>> idea is using movies to make science sexy again
>> so that American kids
>>>> chose technical careers and replenish a pool of
>> US experts on
>>>> technologies
>>>> for national security. Professional scientists
>> and science
>>>> communicators are
>>>> asked to contribute to film making as they are
>> the ones who can
>>>> develop
>>>> realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the
>> cinematic suspension of
>>>>
>>>> disbelief with the scientific method and with
>> their basic purpose of
>>>> bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching
>> screenwriting to scientists
>>>> was
>>>> the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor
>> of electrical
>>>> engineering at
>>>> the University of Southern California and
>> sometime Hollywood
>>>> technical
>>>> adviser. Recently, he was asked to review
>> screenplays by the Sloan
>>>> Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific
>> accuracy, and found
>>>> most to
>>>> be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought
>> was, since scientists
>>>> have to
>>>> write so much, for technical journals and
>> papers, why not consider
>>>> them as a
>>>> creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
>>>> I believe the same concepts can be used to
>> promote a friendlier
>>>> attitude
>>>> toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific
>> advances and their
>>>> deployment in
>>>> society through technological (and legal)
>> developments. We need
>>>> movies set
>>>> in believable and "accurate" future scenarios
>> and with a positive or
>>>> at
>>>> least non-threatening view of future
>> technologies such as radical
>>>> life
>>>> extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and
>> eventually mind
>>>> uploading.
>>>> I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a
>> very dark atmosphere
>>>> and
>>>> made viewers actually scared of the future.
>> There are many excellent
>>>> science
>>>> fiction novels that could be turned to good
>> pro-science,
>>>> "transhumanist"
>>>> movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry
>> with ideas and
>>>> scenarios.
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
--
Adam K. Olson
Student Designer, Comm Tech Lab
http://commtechlab.msu.edu



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug  8 15:49:37 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:49:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <5861FDE6-F957-4720-9673-E60EBFC141B4@bonfireproductions.com>


I've been wanting to send this to the list for a while, and am glad  
to be prompted rather than introduce a thread.
Let me paste in what I've got so far, from this morning's train ride:

I am NOT referring to the movie, here. So when you read it, don't  
think "meh. that movie was so-so."
This is in reference to Ghost in the Shell, Stand Alone Complex, or  
GITS:SAC

It is a 2 season 26 episode per season Anime with pretty much the  
same characters as the movies.


I know cartoon network (I believe) just ran the first season, and the  
english version of this was "ok" - the first 6+ episodes are kind of  
standard future/CSI/bladerunner feel to them, but it goes in some  
good directions after that. Season two is very, very good when it  
comes to fiction, character development and plausible future  
plotlines. As always, the subtitled versions are superior in plot,  
ideas and dialogue, not to mention that the original Japanese  
episodes are a couple minutes longer because of being edited to fit  
the US timeslot.

Here are some things featured in the series:

person to person linking
ai to person linking
ai to ai linking
person uploads
cybernetic 'disease' from the human/machine interface (similar to MS)
a future 'disorder' resultant from too much linking/overstimulation  
(similar to Autism)
nano-pharmaceutical treatments, and of course drug-company/government  
profiteer liason stuff
body changing
surrogate bodies/experiences
mind hacking/body hacking
unsolicited nano-infiltration
ai 'wakeups'
network-only conscious entities
multi-conscious uploaded entities
'leftover' cybernetic parts that are still 'occupied'
a character that grows up as an 90% augment, needing cybernetic body  
changes/upgrades
     every few years to accommodate leftover human body part  growth.
experience hacking
(what is probably) a criminal sentient network virus
intentional meme propagation/cold war/hot war i.e. memetic warfare
copies existing without originals
co-joined physical and "cyberspace" locations


... and pretty much everything about the mind/body problem you'd get  
from four semesters of philosophy courses, all wrapped in the  
wonderful artistic backdrop of Master Shirow Masamune.

The opening is haunting, a blend of English, Russian and Latin choir/ 
industrial. It gives me goosebumps to this day:
http://www.bretorium.com/opening_credits.mov



Maybe if we can 'tear ourselves away' from 20th century political  
motivations for a little while, some would be up for enjoying and  
(dare I say) discussing some of the aspects of this show. ]=)


]3


On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:45 AM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
>>
> ...
>
>> A great transhumanist movie would be based on a great plot in a
>> believable and well researched future scenario...
>>
>
>
> The closest thing we have to a future friendly fiction
> is the Jetsons cartoon from the 60s.  Star Trek was mostly
> about the future of warfare.  Every future-based movie
> or TV program I can think of was filled with conflict.  In
> the Jetsons it was just middle class Americana in a 25th
> century setting.  Of course it was comedy and a kid's show.
>
> Are there *any* examples of future fiction in which things
> worked out well all around?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 15:53:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <b3fdb301e5e1dfd0b150dd23035a5822@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808155356.32244.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Exactly: The Simulation Argument. This is our hook for implanting
> > transhumanist philosophy in the population.
> >
> > Nor does there need to be an original IDer. The chain of designers
> > could easily be a loop, given that all universes are
> indistinguishable
> > from a closed time-like curve, there could also be a Meta-loop of
> > universe designers.
> >
> 
> Oy vey.
> 
> Let's consider a causal chain of events where a cause is considered 
> simply a sufficient condition (nevermind necessary conditions for
> now):
> 
> 
> a -> b -> c -> d -> e
> 
> Let's say that each event is time indexed and that causal loops are 
> essentially related to their temporal series:

Error: each universe has its own time axis independent of any other.

> 
> 
> a at t1
> b at t2
> c at t3
> d at t4
> e at t5
> 
> 
> The series is comprehensible in both quasi-causal systems (eg. QM)
> and in traditional models (NM and GR).

But overly simplistic wrt M Theory. Go back to class.

> 
> Now consider the possibility: 
> e -> a
> 
> Leaving us the loop:
> 
> a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> a -> b -> c -> d ...
> 
> 
> This loop has some rather disturbing characteristics:
> 
> 1)  Some events temporally precede themselves violating GR.

No, because each universe is on its own independent time axis. You need
to use M theory.

> 2)  Some events are sufficient for themselves, violating QM (since
> the occurence of a, for instance, would cause the occurence of a,
> making it completely determinate whether or not a would happen).

Try M theory, again.

> 3)  Some -apparently contingent- events would be necessary events
> (e.g. we might think of -a- as possibly not happening, but if this is
> right, then a is a necessary fact about our universe).

The M-branes of each universe create uniquely separate time and space
axes, from the spawning universe, ergo there is no continuity of events
that is mandated, thus looping is possible. This is the nature of
closed timelike curves: if you travel back in time, copulate with your
mother, who then gives birth to you, then you are a necessary fact
about yourself.

> So we put the matter thusly:
> 
> either GR and QM are false and all apparently contingent series of 
> events are actually necessary series of events OR
> 
> There are no temporally causal loops of this kind.
> 
> QED by reductio, there are no temporally causal loops of this kind
> 
> _____
> 
> 
> The other commonly considered possibility is that there are
> infinitely 
> descending causal chains, eg..
> 
> 
> a <- a' <- a'' <- a''' <- a'''' ...
> 
> Where each succeeding a(') precedes the a for which it is a
> temporally sufficient condition (e.g. cause).
> 
> It follows, in such cases, that there are aleph-0 events in that
> given series.  However, the series as a whole (e.g. considered as a
whole) is still a contingent series, itself having a sufficient
condition, let's call it b.
> 
> b, being contingent, has a sufficient condition.  Given the
> no-boundary condition of infinite regress, we get the series
> 
> (a <- a' ...) <- b <- b' ...
> 
> and then also the series:
> 
> ((a <- a'...) <- b <- b'...) <- c' ...
> 
> etc.
> 
> This series, the total series of events, then, has the power of
> Omega, being an absolutely infinite multiplicity.  But by Cantor's
> proof to Dedekind, there are no absolutely infinite multiplicities. 

In which sort of universe? Euclidian or non, and what type of
non-Euclidian?

Again, you are using the wrong maths.

> 
> _______________
> 
> Finally, that there are necessary beings has been demonstrated here 
> already and it is not necessary to repeat it.  There is a common 
> misunderstanding that a necessary being could not be a sufficient 
> condition for a contingent being, but this rests on the mistake of 
> assuming that every aspect of a being must be necessitated by its 
> sufficient condition which isn't the case.  It may be a sufficient 
> condition of some being's existence that it be born, but that may not
> be sufficient to explain why, for instance, it dies, intermediate 
> causes may be involved.  It's granted that every series of events
> must have a causal resolution in a necessary event, but this doesn't
> prevent necessary events from being intertwined temporally with
> contingent ones (for instance, my own will to think about Marx
> being a sufficient and necessary condition of my thinking about
> Marx making it a necessary event).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robbie Lindauer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 17:25:14 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] competent superhack
In-Reply-To: <f3d709bd92f7e90665a92de4f56bf44c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808172514.73645.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

America could have a true heavyweight president yet they feel more comfortable with competent hacks. Bush is tough & competent, self assured. But he, like his father was, is in government for the Career of Service-- emphasis on Career. That's how they were brought up, high at their level they see it as their calling but also their due. Joe Bloch told me "you hate Bush". No, not at all; there's not enough there to hate. He isn't smart enough to attempt an imperial presidency, as Nixon did. He's not interested, he just wants to serve his term of office, write his memoirs, look after grandchildren later on. If Bush is a monster, he is a monster-cornball. I don't see a sinister usurper in Bush, merely a competent superhack.

1) I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for 
Bush the second time (well, okay, the first time too). That was far 
less than 51% of Americans, even voting-age americans. Morelike 22%. 
I stand by my statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
2) I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
3) I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
4) No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just 
thinking individuals who decide for themselves what to do. If someone 
in Texas is upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're 
probably neo-cons anyway and I couldn't care less what they think. Our 
hope is that they'll continue sending their offspring to war en masse 
and eventually evolution will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts 
will die off OR they'll finally see that on the other side of the 
ridicule, there's a better way.

I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before I 
was a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've realized 
that situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that 
would let people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks, 
and then respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation. 
Now, if I see a lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk. 
This is a bit reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told 
me "If you use bad words it's because you don't have anything to say".

I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun 
of liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said 
everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my 
mamma forgives me in this particular case.

In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes those 
dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make fun 
of someone, it makes them feel superior. Well, if what they like is 
ridicule then I say give'em what they want. -Remember that Wally 
George, Imus and Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.

Put it in conservative language. There comes a time for talking, when 
you have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a 
chance to come to a peaceful resolution. But sometimes the enemy is 
soo beligerent, so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational 
discussion is useless. Then what? In grade school it was time to 
start kicking the shins. Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot 
senators. I don't have enough money to afford the kind of lawyers that 
would be needed to tie them up in court so I do what I can - I tell the 
truth about what they do and then yell mean names at them 'till I'm 
blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY people will come to see things 
my way - even if they end up hating me in the process.

Thankfully, this has recently happened:

Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be 
less than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at 42%). 
On Iraq he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.

Things like this make my day. I hope this lasts until the 2006 
mid-terms. What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the 
slumps, the ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to 
nuke Iran, I don't foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity. On the 
other hand, he may be able to drag us into another war in order to 
bolster his popularity. Ve shall see.

Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all 
means, go for it! The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?

R


On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:

> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being stupid 
> and then express your own stupidity by calling them "country-bumpkin 
> citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>
> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of 
> others: fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in your 
> belief that you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both 
> ways. I think calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your 
> cause. You're going to need to understand the right and why they win 
> elections in order to regain control of the US. Belittling 
> constituents is not the way to go about it.
>
> BAL
>
>> From: Robert Lindauer 
>> To: ExI chat list 
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
>>
>> Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better. The 
>> convinced are convinced - so vat else is new?
>>
>> "nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
>>
>> In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, 
>> saying we haven't is just absurd.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me the 
>>> war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position is 
>>> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It 
>>> probably is.
>>> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given; petroleum 
>>> is the lifeblood of the economy.
>>>
>>>> Great.
>>>>
>>>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>>>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say 
>>>> that
>>>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body 
>>>> bags
>>>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while stories 
>>>> from
>>>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go team!
>>>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no 
>>>> longer
>>>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television 
>>>> show.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes such a
>>>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it appears 
>>>> the
>>>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy into 
>>>> it.
>>>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq 
>>>> remembering
>>>> some essential facts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years, and 
>>>> both
>>>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American and
>>>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war and
>>>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there verifying
>>>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats of 
>>>> war,
>>>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>>>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome 
>>>> economic
>>>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war and
>>>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due to 
>>>> the
>>>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic extremist
>>>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British 
>>>> targets,
>>>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of 
>>>> Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton - the
>>>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year - LOST a
>>>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government contract
>>>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on whose
>>>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor 
>>>> and to
>>>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to the 
>>>> war
>>>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up the
>>>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job 
>>>> number
>>>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for the
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>>>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that 
>>>> actually
>>>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're not
>>>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our job to
>>>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor is it
>>>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North Korea 
>>>> and
>>>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country 
>>>> into a
>>>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, 
>>>> further
>>>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags - and 
>>>> you
>>>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they stood
>>>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would have
>>>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>>>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>>>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America will 
>>>> be
>>>> gone anyway.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got himself
>>>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the supreme
>>>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>>>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession (perhaps 
>>>> you
>>>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do about 
>>>> it,
>>>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies. So 
>>>> what
>>>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to think
>>>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 
>>>> Trillion
>>>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had balanced
>>>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided to
>>>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you leave
>>>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go on
>>>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like Lorrey,
>>>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so 
>>>> far up
>>>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>>>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked 
>>>> with
>>>> odoriferous bile.
>>>>
>>>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That the
>>>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the 
>>>> country-bumpkin
>>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why 
>>>> anyone is
>>>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or stupidity.
>>>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media only
>>>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What more 
>>>> is
>>>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>>>
>>>> Robbie Lindauer
>>>>
>>>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up, should 
>>>> you
>>>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal to
>>>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side of 
>>>> the
>>>> fence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
>>>> [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>>>> >> To: ExI chat list
>>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>> >>
>>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or 
>>>> whatever?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum 
>>>> spewer" and
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>>  "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing stormtroopers 
>>>> in
>>>> >>> this
>>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
>>> page_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/dc94697c/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 17:40:12 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <d228b19df22cba21ad9e41b4cfbc391b@adamkolson.com>
Message-ID: <20050808174012.86033.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

Correct on every count. And I don't even like sex in SF at all, it is distracting. However films have to appeal to a vast cross section of taste, including the lowest common denominator, to become successful enough to make it worth the investment and interest of all those responsible for production & release. And that often means scantily clad spacecraft sirens being chased by aliens and engineers, all the rest of the silly cliches. 'Spaceballs' got it exactly right, it was an underrated comedy. 
Of course there are high quality SF films but they float in a sea of mediocrity or light entertainment-- depending on whether the viewer is a truck driver or a scientist.

2004's Sundance winning film _Primer_ ranks my top time travel movie, 
mainly because of its believability. It's quite an amazing film, but 
really showcases more of the human condition in greed (not positive). 
It's also not a movie for kids.

However, beyond presenting a vehicle for abstract non-linear thinking, 
I don't think a time travel movie would make science sexy again. I 
could be proven wrong though.

Time travel movies seem to suffer from too many paradoxes that are 
resolved in half-baked crackpot theories on "how the universe works out 
what happens when you kill your grandma before you were born" rather 
than any hard science. I can think of numerous scenes (i.e. _Timecop_) 
where special effects explain these paradoxes rather than explanation 
or understanding. Perhaps a time travel flick could be pulled off in a 
scientific and sexy fashion (never say never), but I think scifi should 
stick to ideas or science. Throwing around junk science flotsam is not 
very good for today's youth.

I would second _Fallen Angels_ as an excellent example of something to 
make science sexy again for the youth. The premise is pretty damn fun 
by itself.

On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> Does anyone here like time travel films? This is a
> plot I wrote down: a Jewish scientist's daughter
> travels from the year 2097 to the year 1945, to sleep
> with Hitler.
> If the film were well done it would be guaranteed a
> success, as the notoriety of such a plot would draw a
> large audience.
>
>
>> My current favorites for transhumanist movies are
>> The First Immortal
>> and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
>> But any good story with a human angle and set in a
>> rear-singularity
>> world with uploading technology would do. A series
>> would perhaps be
>> even better than a movie in terms of impact.
>> G.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>> I concur. Such movies should also, besides
>> portraying science and
>>> transhumanism positively, show the true dark
>> underbelly of luddism. One
>>> movie I think actually did this quite well was
>> "AI", which portrayed
>>> the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its
>> fears of AI negatively.
>>>
>>> I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry
>> Pournelle novel "Fallen
>>> Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie.
>> Neal Stephenson's
>>> "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
>>>
>>> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have long been persuaded that the best way to
>> promote a positive
>>>> and
>>>> hopeful attitude toward future developments in
>> science and technology
>>>> is
>>>> through movies. Apparently the idea has been
>> taken up by the US
>>>> establishment.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> Slashdot> 1413200&from=rss>:
>>>>
>>>> *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon
>> is funding classes in
>>>> screenplay writing for 15
>>>>
>>>
>>
> scientists> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
>>>> The idea is to encourage kids to go into science
>> and engineering
>>>> through
>>>> mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster
>> long-term US national
>>>>
>>>> security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for
>> the researchers
>>>> involved,
>>>> and anything that stems the spiral of the US
>> into a culture of
>>>> anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
>> Will glamorizing
>>>> science in
>>>> the movies make kids pay better attention in
>> chemistry class?
>>>> *In the New York Times
>>>>
>>>
>>
> article> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
>>>> idea is using movies to make science sexy again
>> so that American kids
>>>> chose technical careers and replenish a pool of
>> US experts on
>>>> technologies
>>>> for national security. Professional scientists
>> and science
>>>> communicators are
>>>> asked to contribute to film making as they are
>> the ones who can
>>>> develop
>>>> realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the
>> cinematic suspension of
>>>>
>>>> disbelief with the scientific method and with
>> their basic purpose of
>>>> bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching
>> screenwriting to scientists
>>>> was
>>>> the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor
>> of electrical
>>>> engineering at
>>>> the University of Southern California and
>> sometime Hollywood
>>>> technical
>>>> adviser. Recently, he was asked to review
>> screenplays by the Sloan
>>>> Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific
>> accuracy, and found
>>>> most to
>>>> be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought
>> was, since scientists
>>>> have to
>>>> write so much, for technical journals and
>> papers, why not consider
>>>> them as a
>>>> creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
>>>> I believe the same concepts can be used to
>> promote a friendlier
>>>> attitude
>>>> toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific
>> advances and their
>>>> deployment in
>>>> society through technological (and legal)
>> developments. We need
>>>> movies set
>>>> in believable and "accurate" future scenarios
>> and with a positive or
>>>> at
>>>> least non-threatening view of future
>> technologies such as radical
>>>> life
>>>> extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and
>> eventually mind
>>>> uploading.
>>>> I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a
>> very dark atmosphere
>>>> and
>>>> made viewers actually scared of the future.
>> There are many excellent
>>>> science
>>>> fiction novels that could be turned to good
>> pro-science,
>>>> "transhumanist"
>>>> movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry
>> with ideas and
>>>> scenarios.
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
--
Adam K. Olson
Student Designer, Comm Tech Lab
http://commtechlab.msu.edu

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/86f2912f/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 18:11:30 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the next In thing
In-Reply-To: <69be0bd96bb00da58f71be57e7ac2f36@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808181130.77573.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Perhaps I'm arguing about straw me. Perhaps not. It wasn't aimed at you, but at those who who think they can endlessly recapitulate the Vietnam protest chills and thrills, the Seattle- type protesters who yell "CRUSH INJUSTICE" ;"STAMP OUT VIOLENCE"; "SMASH OPPRESSION & WARFARE". 
Not to lump protesters into one mass nonetheless there are alot of protester faddists who will move on to the next In thing later on. You might say 'they're not for you to judge we need young protesters who learn from the experience'. Okay however I saw it all 35 years ago, boatloads of posturing. There's a Tom Wolfe's cartoon concerning a guy who starts out as a peace 'n' love hippy; moves on to being a working class hero shouting in combat boots and a helmet; then he discovers Jesus Christ Superstar so he is depicted praying in a diaper. Eventually he wears a Hunter Thompson outfit, smoking a cigarette, overseeing his servants in a marijuana warehouse. I saw it all up close back then. In a few years it will be the Next Big Thing;  chanting hare krishna at the Pentagon. Sufi Woodstock festivals,. nude surfing protests outside naval bases. Pass the $3 non-GMO candy bars out...

>Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better. The convinced 
>are convinced - so vat else is new?

>"nobody's innocent" - Kingpin

>In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank goodness, 
>saying we haven't is just absurd.
>Rob

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/55160fcb/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Aug  8 18:18:21 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:18:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <20050808174012.86033.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <d228b19df22cba21ad9e41b4cfbc391b@adamkolson.com>
	<20050808174012.86033.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>

How can one of the most basic human activities be "distracting?
Two options: if they do it like us, then a good sex scene is always
good. If they do it different from us, then it becomes interesting
doesn't it?
I think a good SF movie must be, first, a good movie. Some good movies
have sex, some don't. All have a story with human interest. Good
movies have a good director, good actors (not necessarily stars), good
photography and good music.
I have been thinking of the best SF movies I have seen, I still rate
good old 2001 as first. Vanilla Sky (or the original Open your eyes)
is also good.
G.

On 8/8/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correct on every count. And I don't even like sex in SF at all, it is
> distracting. However films have to appeal to a vast cross section of taste,
> including the lowest common denominator, to become successful enough to make
> it worth the investment and interest of all those responsible for production
> & release. And that often means scantily clad spacecraft sirens being chased
> by aliens and engineers, all the rest of the silly cliches. 'Spaceballs' got
> it exactly right, it was an underrated comedy. 
> Of course there are high quality SF films but they float in a sea of
> mediocrity or light entertainment-- depending on whether the viewer is a
> truck driver or a scientist.
> 2004's Sundance winning film _Primer_ ranks my top time travel movie, 
> mainly because of its believability. It's quite an amazing film, but 
> really showcases more of the human condition in greed (not positive). 
> It's also not a movie for kids.
> 
> However, beyond presenting a vehicle for abstract non-linear thinking, 
> I don't think a time travel movie would make science sexy again. I 
> could be proven wrong though.
> 
> Time travel movies seem to suffer from too many paradoxes that are 
> resolved in half-baked crackpot theories on "how the universe works out 
> what happens when you kill your grandma before you were born" rather 
> than any hard science. I can think of numerous scenes (i.e. _Timecop_) 
> where special effects explain these paradoxes rather than explanation 
> or understanding. Perhaps a time travel flick could be pulled off in a 
> s! cientific and sexy fashion (never say never), but I think scifi should 
> stick to ideas or science. Throwing around junk science flotsam is not 
> very good for today's youth.
> 
> I would second _Fallen Angels_ as an excellent example of something to 
> make science sexy again for the youth. The premise is pretty damn fun 
> by itself.
> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone here like time travel films? This is a
> > plot I wrote down: a Jewish scientist's daughter
> > travels from the year 2097 to the year 1945, to sleep
> > with Hitler.
> > If the film were well done it would be guaranteed a
> > success, as the notoriety of such a plot would draw a
> > large audience.
> >
> >
> >> My current favorites for transhumanist movies are
> >> The First Immortal
> >> and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
> >> But any good story with a human angle and set in a
> >> rear-singularity
> ! >> world with uploading technology would do. A series
> >> would perhaps be
> >> even better than a movie in terms of impact.
> >> G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>> I concur. Such movies should also, besides
> >> portraying science and
> >>> transhumanism positively, show the true dark
> >> underbelly of luddism. One
> >>> movie I think actually did this quite well was
> >> "AI", which portrayed
> >>> the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its
> >> fears of AI negatively.
> >>>
> >>> I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry
> >> Pournelle novel "Fallen
> >>> Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie.
> >> Neal Stephenson's
> >>> "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
> >>>
> >>> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have long been persuaded that the best way to
> >> promote a positive
> >>>> and
> >>>> hopeful attitude toward future developments in
> >> science and technology
> >>>> is
> >>>> through movies. Apparently the idea has been
> >> taken up by the US
> >>>> establishment.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > Slashdot> 1413200&from=rss>:
> >>>>
> >>>> *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon
> >> is funding classes in
> >>>> screenplay writing for 15
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > scientists>
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
> >>>> The idea is ! to encourage kids to go into science
> >> and engineering
> >>>> through
> >>>> mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster
> >> long-term US national
> >>>>
> >>>> security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for
> >> the researchers
> >>>> involved,
> >>>> and anything that stems the spiral of the US
> >> into a culture of
> >>>> anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
> >> Will glamorizing
> >>>> science in
> >>>> the movies make kids pay better attention in
> >> chemistry class?
> >>>> *In the New York Times
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > article>
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
> 
> >>>> idea is using movies to make science sexy again
> >! > so that American kids
> >>>> chose technical careers and replenish a pool of
> >> US experts on
> >>>> technologies
> >>>> for national security. Professional scientists
> >> and science
> >>>> communicators are
> >>>> asked to contribute to film making as they are
> >> the ones who can
> >>>> develop
> >>>> realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the
> >> cinematic suspension of
> >>>>
> >>>> disbelief with the scientific method and with
> >> their basic purpose of
> >>>> bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching
> >> screenwriting to scientists
> >>>> was
> >>>> the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor
> >> of electrical
> >>>> engineering at
> >>>> the University of Southern California and
> >> sometime Hollywood
> >>>> technical
> >>>> adviser. Recently, he was asked to review
> >> screenplays by the Sloan
> >>>> Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific
> >> accuracy, and found
> >>>> most to
> >>>> be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought
> >> was, since scientists
> >>>> have to
> >>>> write so much, for technical journals and
> >> papers, why not consider
> >>>> them as a
> >>>> creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
> >>>> I believe the same concepts can be used to
> >> promote a friendlier
> >>>> attitude
> >>>> toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific
> >> advances and their
> >>>> deployment in
> >>>> society through technological (and legal)
> >> developments. We need
> >>>> movies set
> >>>> in believable and "accurate" future scenarios
> >> and with a positive or
> >>>> at
> >>>> least non-threatening view of future
> >> technologies such as radical
> >>>> life
> >>>> extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and
> >> eventually mind
> >>>> uploading.
> >>>> I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a
> >> very dark atmosphere
> >>>> and
> >>>> made viewers actually scared of the future.
> >> There are many excellent
> >>>> science
> >>>> fiction novels that could be turned to good
> >> pro-science,
> >>>> "transhumanist"
> >>>> movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry
> >> with ideas and
> >>>> scenarios.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> extropy-chat mailing list
> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> --
> Adam K. Olson
> Student Designer, Comm Tech Lab
> http://commtechlab.msu.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 18:29:51 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050808182951.92041.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

Okay. 
Anyhow I'm old enough now so the distraction isn't much. But when younger the distraction was too unpleasant. What to do? put saltpeter in the popcorn butter?
Say how about a comedy film concerning insane nuclear physicists on the moon who remove  their bikinis and blow up the earth while listening to Hip Hop?

>How can one of the most basic human activities be "distracting?
>Two options: if they do it like us, then a good sex scene is always
>good. If they do it different from us, then it becomes interesting
>doesn't it?
>I think a good SF movie must be, first, a good movie. Some good movies
>have sex, some don't. All have a story with human interest. Good
>movies have a good director, good actors (not necessarily stars), good
>photography and good music.
>I have been thinking of the best SF movies I have seen, I still rate
>good old 2001 as first. Vanilla Sky (or the original Open your eyes)
>is also good.
G.

On 8/8/05, Al Brooks wrote:
> Correct on every count. And I don't even like sex in SF at all, it is
> distracting. However films have to appeal to a vast cross section of taste,
> including the lowest common denominator, to become successful enough to make
> it worth the investment and interest of all those responsible for production
> & release. And that often means scantily clad spacecraft sirens being chased
> by aliens and engineers, all the rest of the silly cliches. 'Spaceballs' got
> it exactly right, it was an underrated comedy. 
> Of course there are high quality SF films but they float in a sea of
> mediocrity or light entertainment-- depending on whether the viewer is a
> truck driver or a scientist.
> 2004's Sundance winning film _Primer_ ranks my top time travel movie, 
> mainly because of its believability. It's quite an amazing film, but 
> really showcases more of the human condition in greed (not positive). 
> It's also not a movie for kids.
> 
> However, beyond presenting a vehicle for abstract non-linear thinking, 
> I don't think a time travel movie would make science sexy again. I 
> could be proven wrong though.
> 
> Time travel movies seem to suffer from too many paradoxes that are 
> resolved in half-baked crackpot theories on "how the universe works out 
> what happens when you kill your grandma before you were born" rather 
> than any hard science. I can think of numerous scenes (i.e. _Timecop_) 
> where special effects explain these paradoxes rather than explanation 
> or understanding. Perhaps a time travel flick could be pulled off in a 
> s! cientific and sexy fashion (never say never), but I think scifi should 
> stick to ideas or science. Throwing around junk science flotsam is not 
> very good for today's youth.
> 
> I would second _Fallen Angels_ as an excellent example of something to 
> make science sexy again for the youth. The premise is pretty damn fun 
> by itself.
> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone here like time travel films? This is a
> > plot I wrote down: a Jewish scientist's daughter
> > travels from the year 2097 to the year 1945, to sleep
> > with Hitler.
> > If the film were well done it would be guaranteed a
> > success, as the notoriety of such a plot would draw a
> > large audience.
> >
> >
> >> My current favorites for transhumanist movies are
> >> The First Immortal
> >> and Down and Out in Magic Kingdom.
> >> But any good story with a human angle and set in a
> >> rear-singularity
> ! >> world with uploading technology would do. A series
> >> would perhaps be
> >> even better than a movie in terms of impact.
> >> G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>> I concur. Such movies should also, besides
> >> portraying science and
> >>> transhumanism positively, show the true dark
> >> underbelly of luddism. One
> >>> movie I think actually did this quite well was
> >> "AI", which portrayed
> >>> the AI boy sympathetically and humanity and its
> >> fears of AI negatively.
> >>>
> >>> I have long thought that the Larry Niven/Jerry
> >> Pournelle novel "Fallen
> >>> Angels" would make a good transhumanist movie.
> >> Neal Stephenson's
> >>> "Cryptonomicon" would do well also.
> >>>
> >>> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have long been persuaded that the best way to
> >> promote a positive
> >>>> and
> >>>> hopeful attitude toward future developments in
> >> science and technology
> >>>> is
> >>>> through movies. Apparently the idea has been
> >> taken up by the US
> >>>> establishment.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > Slashdot> 1413200&from=rss>:
> >>>>
> >>>> *According to the New York Times, the Pentagon
> >> is funding classes in
> >>>> screenplay writing for 15
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > scientists>
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
> >>>> The idea is ! to encourage kids to go into science
> >> and engineering
> >>>> through
> >>>> mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster
> >> long-term US national
> >>>>
> >>>> security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for
> >> the researchers
> >>>> involved,
> >>>> and anything that stems the spiral of the US
> >> into a culture of
> >>>> anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book.
> >> Will glamorizing
> >>>> science in
> >>>> the movies make kids pay better attention in
> >> chemistry class?
> >>>> *In the New York Times
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > article>
> ex=1280808000&en=b35c2085878bcf51&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>the
> 
> >>>> idea is using movies to make science sexy again
> >! > so that American kids
> >>>> chose technical careers and replenish a pool of
> >> US experts on
> >>>> technologies
> >>>> for national security. Professional scientists
> >> and science
> >>>> communicators are
> >>>> asked to contribute to film making as they are
> >> the ones who can
> >>>> develop
> >>>> realistic future scenarios: "to reconcile the
> >> cinematic suspension of
> >>>>
> >>>> disbelief with the scientific method and with
> >> their basic purpose of
> >>>> bringing accuracy to the screen".Teaching
> >> screenwriting to scientists
> >>>> was
> >>>> the brainstorm of Martin Gundersen, a professor
> >> of electrical
> >>>> engineering at
> >>>> the University of Southern California and
> >> sometime Hollywood
> >>>> technical
> >>>> adviser. Recently, he was asked to review
> >> screenplays by the Sloan
> >>>> Foundation, which awards prizes for scientific
> >> accuracy, and found
> >>>> most to
> >>>> be "pretty dismal," as he put it."My thought
> >> was, since scientists
> >>>> have to
> >>>> write so much, for technical journals and
> >> papers, why not consider
> >>>> them as a
> >>>> creative source?" Dr. Gundersen said.
> >>>> I believe the same concepts can be used to
> >> promote a friendlier
> >>>> attitude
> >>>> toward radical, "transhumanist" scientific
> >> advances and their
> >>>> deployment in
> >>>> society through technological (and legal)
> >> developments. We need
> >>>> movies set
> >>>> in believable and "accurate" future scenarios
> >> and with a positive or
> >>>> at
> >>>> least non-threatening view of future
> >> technologies such as radical
> >>>> life
> >>>> extension, Mind Machine Interfaces (MMI), and
> >> eventually mind
> >>>> uploading.
> >>>> I think Matrix was a horrible movie as it had a
> >> very dark atmosphere
> >>>> and
> >>>> made viewers actually scared of the future.
> >> There are many excellent
> >>>> science
> >>>> fiction novels that could be turned to good
> >> pro-science,
> >>>> "transhumanist"
> >>>> movies. I am sure we can help the movie industry
> >> with ideas and
> >>>> scenarios.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> extropy-chat mailing list
> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> --
> Adam K. Olson
> Student Designer, Comm Tech Lab
> http://commtechlab.msu.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/659e9e5b/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Aug  8 18:33:47 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F41C64.6060609@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808183347.10257.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> Obviously this is an inappropriate place for a complete discussion of
> the important issues you raise

...I was going to debate your points, but on this one you are correct.
If you want a more thorough proof of why "evolution" is not the same as
"God's will" than I can provide, go talk to professional biologists.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Aug  8 18:45:28 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] technology optimists vs pessimists
In-Reply-To: <200508040529.j745TFR24703@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050808184528.25213.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> "The study defines a tech optimist as believing technology will make
> life
> more enjoyable, while pessimists are indifferent or even hostile to
> technology. Pessimists outnumber optimists 51 percent to 49 percent."
> 
> I was shocked!  Half the population are indifferent or 
> even hostile to technology?  Oy freaking vey.  spike  

That's not as bad as it might sound at first.  Consider the following
survey:

Which of the following best describes your beliefs?
* Technology will make my life more enjoyable.
* Technology will force me to learn more stuff, and I hate learning.
* Technology won't change what I really care about.

With the right phrasing, you'd expect a roughly 1:1:1 distribution
among the three choices (possibly more in the latter, if you make it
the choice selected for "no response" or "no opinion").  But almost
half the people chose the first option!


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 18:58:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] technology optimists vs pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050808184528.25213.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050808185804.23082.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, it is wrong to count 'indifferent' as 'pessimists'. "Indifferent"
is the same as "undecided". For this reason, I'd count us as in the
lead.

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > "The study defines a tech optimist as believing technology will
> make
> > life
> > more enjoyable, while pessimists are indifferent or even hostile to
> > technology. Pessimists outnumber optimists 51 percent to 49
> percent."
> > 
> > I was shocked!  Half the population are indifferent or 
> > even hostile to technology?  Oy freaking vey.  spike  
> 
> That's not as bad as it might sound at first.  Consider the following
> survey:
> 
> Which of the following best describes your beliefs?
> * Technology will make my life more enjoyable.
> * Technology will force me to learn more stuff, and I hate learning.
> * Technology won't change what I really care about.
> 
> With the right phrasing, you'd expect a roughly 1:1:1 distribution
> among the three choices (possibly more in the latter, if you make it
> the choice selected for "no response" or "no opinion").  But almost
> half the people chose the first option!
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 07:15:49 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:15:49 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42F85825.90801@aol.com>

Brian Lee wrote:

> I'm not trying to play nice liberal or anything like it. I'm just 
> saying that the way to convince people isn't by calling them idiots or 
> dumbfucks.


Maybe, maybe not.  When someone keeps hitting their hand with a hammer, 
one way of convincing them to stop is to call them stupid.  It's 
dishonest not to.

It's the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on 
me.  Well, "We won't get fooled again" as the potus in chief likes to say.

>
> The "Bush cheated" meme is pretty lame too. Bush won for various 
> reasons, but cheating isn't one of them.


Yes it is. 

The ACLU won its case against florida the first time, the state of 
florida was -convicted- of racially profiling voters in the 2000 
election.  Let's not forget that.

The second time, the number of voting irregularities were STAGGERING 
including many reports of unsupervised "technicians" modifying the 
voting equipment during the elections in Ohio, among other places.  Oh 
yes, and of course, the racial profiling thing happened again.

>
> I think there's an artifically created ideology gap between the left 
> and the right. Repubs have been polarizing voters on stuff like gay 
> marriage while most lefties and righties agree ideologically.

No doubt among the ways that the ruling class polarizes the labor class 
is to group them according to non-essential factions (race, religion, 
smokers, gun lovers, hetero-homosexual, etc.) and therebye polarize them 
and prevent them from uniting as a single economic interest.

>
> Don't mind Rush et al, they only preach to the converted (and strange 
> people who hate them but listen anyway). 


The dumbf*cks who voted for Bush, in particular.

Robbie


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 07:35:11 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:35:11 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605080805453f8d2f8b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050805184505.69302.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<42F41D27.4040701@aol.com>	<CB2439C0-49DC-4B50-8F83-8F6DF695F0FE@mac.com>	<ae0c1f114cb5a1d25fa598069717c93f@aol.com>	<001301c59b66$0f2bdef0$8cee4d0c@MyComputer>	<c2f10a23c9fd96ed251b7ee62cdf734d@aol.com>	<ee50357e0508080228450480e6@mail.gmail.com>	<ae82e5f18f3e2fa02f734021af694ab0@aol.com>
	<7641ddc605080805453f8d2f8b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F85CAF.5050704@aol.com>

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>
> ### Nah, it's not smugness, it's realism. ID is just a new name for 
> old nonsense.
>
> Rafal
>

Hmm, not smug, huh?

Robbie



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Aug  8 19:35:31 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050808193531.15552.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of
> tech
> / architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
> simply, I try to embrace them.
> 
> I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
> idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
> always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
> building something using one or more of them.
> 
> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks). I find I need to change my POV like
> this to really get a feeling for the deep meaning behind whatever the
> thing is. And often I suddenly see things from that other point of
> view, and learn something!
> 
> Or, at this point I can reject the idea if it still seems like crap,
> or if I can see why it is not good, but why its supporters would
> think
> it is good (because I've tried being one).

An alternate strategy I've tried (not saying it works better or worse
than yours, just that it works for me): for any popular tech that I
don't like, do a thorough and honest mental evaluation of why I don't
like it.  There is, of course, the danger of rationalizing from false
evidence or unjustified assumptions - so examine the evidence and
assumptions, *especially* if they're based on data that's more than a
few years old (given how fast tech changes these days, any data that
old about a certain technology might have become incorrect in that
time).

If the reason why is uncertain or unclear, or possibly disproven, then
look at the tech again (if there's a reason to, for instance if it's a
potentially viable component of my next project, or if the employers
seem to be wanting it), and play with it if possible.  (Of course, if
it's only available to those willing to spend $10000+ on it, that alone
is reason to be suspicious...and to know that that alone would limit
its adoption, thus excusing personal inexperience with it where such
might otherwise be expected.)  Pay particular attention to the reasons
it's so popular, and to my own previous objections (to see if they are
in fact still valid).

Case in point: one of my professional skills is Web programming.
There's word of a new method out there, called AJAX, which is based on
advanced Javascript.  My personal experience with Javascript, from 2000
and before, was that it's unreliable (especially across browsers),
didn't always perform according to the documentation (even within a
given browser: i.e., MSIE's flavor of Javascript and MS's documentation
of same did not agree), and was limited in functionality (mainly to
form actions and simple tricks).  Thus, it seemed unsuited to serious
Web applications.  That data is over 5 years old now, though; perhaps
Javascript has dealt with those issues...or perhaps they're still
there, and AJAX is just a bunch of hype that will fall through.  It's
easy enough for me to build some simple AJAX applications and see if
they are robust enough to use.

Another case in point: instant messaging.  For many years now, I've had
an unreliable schedule - my employers needed me to accomplish tasks by
certain times, but they only rarely needed my actual presence at
meetings, and if they needed to contact me on an emergency basis they
had my phone number.  I viewed IMs as a way to chain me down: to have
absolute reporting of when I was online and when I was not, which would
not help me but would help them micromanage me (to their detriment:
they had better things to do with their time).  I grant that that's a
more emotional than practical reason, and yet...it's just as true
today, and the factual basis behind it is also somewhat true (even
though I've tried to select employers who don't have tendencies to
micromanage anyway).  My current employer really really wanted me to
get AIM, since that was "the company standard" for communication.
Eventually it worked out that it was actually
emergency-contact-equivalent, so I upgraded my cell phone (at their
expense, with their agreement) to get AIM...and they rarely use it.
E-mail and telephone calls continue to be the actual standard for
communication.  IM has become an emergency contact that is understood
to not always be on - *especially* since it's on my cell phone only,
and thus subject to cell phone usage limits (for instance, if I'm out
in the boonies, or inside a building I sometimes visit that's
apparently the equivalent of a Faraday cage, no service).


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Aug  8 19:37:20 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:37:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d228b19df22cba21ad9e41b4cfbc391b@adamkolson.com>	<20050808174012.86033.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F7B470.8090105@neopax.com>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>How can one of the most basic human activities be "distracting?
>Two options: if they do it like us, then a good sex scene is always
>good. If they do it different from us, then it becomes interesting
>doesn't it?
>  
>
3 - They don't use sexual repro.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 19:40:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] competent superhack
In-Reply-To: <20050808172514.73645.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050808194005.37021.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is one reason why I find the left's hatred of Bush so laughable:
they can't seem to decide if he is a retard or a genius supervillain.
C'mon, MOVE ON, make up your minds already.

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> America could have a true heavyweight president yet they feel more
> comfortable with competent hacks. Bush is tough & competent, self
> assured. But he, like his father was, is in government for the Career
> of Service-- emphasis on Career. That's how they were brought up,
> high at their level they see it as their calling but also their due.
> Joe Bloch told me "you hate Bush". No, not at all; there's not enough
> there to hate. He isn't smart enough to attempt an imperial
> presidency, as Nixon did. He's not interested, he just wants to serve
> his term of office, write his memoirs, look after grandchildren later
> on. If Bush is a monster, he is a monster-cornball. I don't see a
> sinister usurper in Bush, merely a competent superhack.
> 
> 1) I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for 
> Bush the second time (well, okay, the first time too). That was far 
> less than 51% of Americans, even voting-age americans. Morelike 22%. 
> I stand by my statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
> 2) I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
> 3) I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
> 4) No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just 
> thinking individuals who decide for themselves what to do. If someone
> 
> in Texas is upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're 
> probably neo-cons anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.
> Our 
> hope is that they'll continue sending their offspring to war en masse
> 
> and eventually evolution will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts 
> will die off OR they'll finally see that on the other side of the 
> ridicule, there's a better way.
> 
> I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before
> I 
> was a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've
> realized 
> that situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that 
> would let people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks,
> 
> and then respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation. 
> Now, if I see a lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk. 
> This is a bit reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told
> 
> me "If you use bad words it's because you don't have anything to
> say".
> 
> I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun
> 
> of liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said 
> everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my 
> mamma forgives me in this particular case.
> 
> In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes
> those 
> dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make
> fun 
> of someone, it makes them feel superior. Well, if what they like is 
> ridicule then I say give'em what they want. -Remember that Wally 
> George, Imus and Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.
> 
> Put it in conservative language. There comes a time for talking, when
> 
> you have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a
> 
> chance to come to a peaceful resolution. But sometimes the enemy is 
> soo beligerent, so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational 
> discussion is useless. Then what? In grade school it was time to 
> start kicking the shins. Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot
> 
> senators. I don't have enough money to afford the kind of lawyers
> that 
> would be needed to tie them up in court so I do what I can - I tell
> the 
> truth about what they do and then yell mean names at them 'till I'm 
> blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY people will come to see
> things 
> my way - even if they end up hating me in the process.
> 
> Thankfully, this has recently happened:
> 
> Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be 
> less than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at
> 42%). 
> On Iraq he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.
> 
> Things like this make my day. I hope this lasts until the 2006 
> mid-terms. What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the
> 
> slumps, the ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to 
> nuke Iran, I don't foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity. On the 
> other hand, he may be able to drag us into another war in order to 
> bolster his popularity. Ve shall see.
> 
> Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all 
> means, go for it! The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?
> 
> R
> 
> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
> 
> > I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being
> stupid 
> > and then express your own stupidity by calling them
> "country-bumpkin 
> > citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
> >
> > There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of 
> > others: fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in
> your 
> > belief that you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes
> both 
> > ways. I think calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further
> your 
> > cause. You're going to need to understand the right and why they
> win 
> > elections in order to regain control of the US. Belittling 
> > constituents is not the way to go about it.
> >
> > BAL
> >
> >> From: Robert Lindauer 
> >> To: ExI chat list 
> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
> >>
> >> Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better. The 
> >> convinced are convinced - so vat else is new?
> >>
> >> "nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
> >>
> >> In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank
> goodness, 
> >> saying we haven't is just absurd.
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me
> the 
> >>> war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position
> is 
> >>> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It 
> >>> probably is.
> >>> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given;
> petroleum 
> >>> is the lifeblood of the economy.
> >>>
> >>>> Great.
> >>>>
> >>>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
> >>>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say
> 
> >>>> that
> >>>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body
> 
> >>>> bags
> >>>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while
> stories 
> >>>> from
> >>>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go
> team!
> >>>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
> >>>>
> >>>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no 
> >>>> longer
> >>>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television 
> >>>> show.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes
> such a
> >>>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it
> appears 
> >>>> the
> >>>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy
> into 
> >>>> it.
> >>>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq 
> >>>> remembering
> >>>> some essential facts:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years,
> and 
> >>>> both
> >>>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American
> and
> >>>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war
> and
> >>>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there
> verifying
> >>>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats
> of 
> >>>> war,
> >>>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
> >>>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome 
> >>>> economic
> >>>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war
> and
> >>>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due
> to 
> >>>> the
> >>>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic
> extremist
> >>>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British 
> >>>> targets,
> >>>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of
> 
> >>>> Iraq.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton -
> the
> >>>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year -
> LOST a
> >>>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government
> contract
> >>>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on
> whose
> >>>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor
> 
> >>>> and to
> >>>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to
> the 
> >>>> war
> >>>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up
> the
> >>>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job
> 
> >>>> number
> >>>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for
> the
> >>>> money.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
> >>>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that 
> >>>> actually
> >>>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're
> not
> >>>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our
> job to
> >>>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor
> is it
> >>>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North
> Korea 
> >>>> and
> >>>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country
> 
> >>>> into a
> >>>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes, 
> >>>> further
> >>>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags -
> and 
> >>>> you
> >>>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they
> stood
> >>>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would
> have
> >>>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
> >>>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
> >>>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America
> will 
> >>>> be
> >>>> gone anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got
> himself
> >>>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the
> supreme
> >>>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
> >>>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession
> (perhaps 
> >>>> you
> >>>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do
> about 
> >>>> it,
> >>>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies.
> So 
> >>>> what
> >>>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to
> think
> >>>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9 
> >>>> Trillion
> >>>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had
> balanced
> >>>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided
> to
> >>>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you
> leave
> >>>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go
> on
> >>>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like
> Lorrey,
> >>>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so
> 
> >>>> far up
> >>>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
> >>>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked
> 
> >>>> with
> >>>> odoriferous bile.
> >>>>
> >>>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That
> the
> >>>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the 
> >>>> country-bumpkin
> >>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why 
> >>>> anyone is
> >>>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or
> stupidity.
> >>>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media
> only
> >>>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What
> more 
> >>>> is
> >>>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
> >>>>
> >>>> Robbie Lindauer
> >>>>
> >>>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up,
> should 
> >>>> you
> >>>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal
> to
> >>>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side
> of 
> >>>> the
> >>>> fence?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> >>>> [mailto:extropy-chat-
> >>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> >>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> >>>> >> To: ExI chat list
> >>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or 
> >>>> whatever?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
> >>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum 
> >>>> spewer" and
> >>>> >>> for
> >>>> >>>  "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing
> stormtroopers 
> >>>> in
> >>>> >>> this
> >>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > 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
> >>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
> >>> page_______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com >
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug  8 19:43:37 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:43:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F23AD0FFA26EBC8E89377BEB4B80@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F23AD0FFA26EBC8E89377BEB4B80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <47026106-7810-4ECF-9502-501CBAAE8A2D@mac.com>


On Aug 8, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Brian Lee wrote:

>> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:21:30 -0700
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2005, at 2:25 AM, Brian Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being   
>>> stupid and then express your own stupidity by calling them  
>>> "country- bumpkin citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>>>
>>> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of   
>>> others: fundamentalists.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but no.  That is not the meaning of "fundamentalist".
>>
>
> Yes, it is actually. In this case, the source providing the Truth  
> is himself. He does not consider the opinions of others when making  
> decisions. Throw up your definition of fundamentalist, maybe I'm  
> just getting disconnected

fundamentalism |?f?nd??mentl?iz?m| |?f?nd??m?n(t)l??z?m|  
|f?nd??m?nt(?)l?z(?)m|
noun
a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict  
and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives,  
doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws.
? strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any  
religion or ideology, notably Islam.

Not considering the opinion of others is not part of the definition.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> You're acting like a fundamentalist in your belief that you are   
>>> correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes both ways. I think   
>>> calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further your cause.
>>>
>>
>> Over 70% of Americans believe in literal miracles and think  
>> evolution  is bunk.  Clearly more than 51% of Americans are in  
>> fact idiots.
>>
>
> No, this doesn't mean they are idiots. It just means they have an  
> incorrect view on miracles/evolution. I once worked with a content  
> director who was in the habit of saying stuff like "Who was the  
> fucking idiot who misspelled 'the' on the main page". An error does  
> not create an idiot (especially when made by a CS graduate from  
> Yale who was pretty smart).


I stand corrected in that the definition of idiot includes actual low  
intelligence.  So what is a good word for the apparent majority of  
the population which is (largely willingly) clinging to indefensible  
BS?  It is not that they have honest incorrect views.   There is a  
huge defense racket to preserve those notions regardless of any and  
all evidence, argument or logic.   They are functionally dumb.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/3e70cac5/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 19:54:16 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] peace and love or I'll kill you
In-Reply-To: <42F85825.90801@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808195416.15219.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

Bush is no innocent, but no monster, either. It's fun to lampoon Bush and his corn- pone religion. Nothing wrong with making light of him. However please allow some of us to make fun of some protesters on the other side. Not you, but the youth who dont know enough yet. 36 years ago it was long ironed hair at the Peace Rally. Today it's dreadlocks at the anti-globalization rally. The fad is the message, not the medium.
I would rather talk to born again xians with their illusion of love than fist shaking 'change the world'ers. Perhaps in a few years protesters will discover life extension, then they'll gobble pills. A few years later they might discover transhumanism and they'll be shaking their fists at luddites. They'll go to Seattle to stage a riot: "off the luddite pigs!", 'down with ludd fascism'.
Just in case you don't understand that this refers to merely some protesters and not all, it will be reiterated: there are too many fools in the ranks of protesters, and some of us wont join a protest that has us as members. Been there, done that.
 They can protest all they want, just stay away or I'll pour organic linseed oil on their dreadlocks.

>The ACLU won its case against florida the first time, the state of 
>florida was -convicted- of racially profiling voters in the 2000 
>election. Let's not forget that.

>The second time, the number of voting irregularities were STAGGERING 
>including many reports of unsupervised "technicians" modifying the 
>voting equipment during the elections in Ohio, among other places. Oh 
>yes, and of course, the racial profiling thing happened again.


>No doubt among the ways that the ruling class polarizes the labor class 
>is to group them according to non-essential factions (race, religion, 
>smokers, gun lovers, hetero-homosexual, etc.) and therebye polarize them 
>and prevent them from uniting as a single economic interest.

>
> Don't mind Rush et al, they only preach to the converted (and strange 
> people who hate them but listen anyway). 


The dumbf*cks who voted for Bush, in particular.

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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/101c4873/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 20:04:58 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:04:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The list is not dead...
In-Reply-To: <5861FDE6-F957-4720-9673-E60EBFC141B4@bonfireproductions.co
 m>
References: <200508071447.j77El9R14299@tick.javien.com>
	<5861FDE6-F957-4720-9673-E60EBFC141B4@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808150050.01dad1a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

... it just seems to be.

I wondered why there were so few posts arriving lately from extropy-chat. 
Nosed around a bit, realized that almost everything posted there was being 
shunted straight into my trash bin, and good riddance. Leaves rather a 
hole, though. Sad to see this place finally turn into entropy-chat, a fate 
that's been threatening for a couple of years.

Damien Broderick



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug  8 20:03:58 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:03:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] competent superhack
In-Reply-To: <20050808194005.37021.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808194005.37021.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DA53D354-D76A-4D1A-9C09-1BF660ED8AC6@mac.com>

I despise the creature wearing the mantle of president and this  
administration.  For that matter I despise what that mantle now  
includes.  But I am not a member of some simplistic category like  
"left".  Your continued baiting and false simplistic categorization  
is annoying as hell since I know you in fact know better.   This sort  
of sloppy insult definitely does belong somewhere else like in the  
unsent pointless rants email folder.

- s

On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> This is one reason why I find the left's hatred of Bush so laughable:
> they can't seem to decide if he is a retard or a genius supervillain.
> C'mon, MOVE ON, make up your minds already.
>
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> America could have a true heavyweight president yet they feel more
>> comfortable with competent hacks. Bush is tough & competent, self
>> assured. But he, like his father was, is in government for the Career
>> of Service-- emphasis on Career. That's how they were brought up,
>> high at their level they see it as their calling but also their due.
>> Joe Bloch told me "you hate Bush". No, not at all; there's not enough
>> there to hate. He isn't smart enough to attempt an imperial
>> presidency, as Nixon did. He's not interested, he just wants to serve
>> his term of office, write his memoirs, look after grandchildren later
>> on. If Bush is a monster, he is a monster-cornball. I don't see a
>> sinister usurper in Bush, merely a competent superhack.
>>
>> 1) I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for
>> Bush the second time (well, okay, the first time too). That was far
>> less than 51% of Americans, even voting-age americans. Morelike 22%.
>> I stand by my statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
>> 2) I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
>> 3) I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
>> 4) No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just
>> thinking individuals who decide for themselves what to do. If someone
>>
>> in Texas is upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're
>> probably neo-cons anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.
>> Our
>> hope is that they'll continue sending their offspring to war en masse
>>
>> and eventually evolution will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts
>> will die off OR they'll finally see that on the other side of the
>> ridicule, there's a better way.
>>
>> I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before
>> I
>> was a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've
>> realized
>> that situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that
>> would let people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks,
>>
>> and then respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation.
>> Now, if I see a lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk.
>> This is a bit reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told
>>
>> me "If you use bad words it's because you don't have anything to
>> say".
>>
>> I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun
>>
>> of liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said
>> everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my
>> mamma forgives me in this particular case.
>>
>> In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes
>> those
>> dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make
>> fun
>> of someone, it makes them feel superior. Well, if what they like is
>> ridicule then I say give'em what they want. -Remember that Wally
>> George, Imus and Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.
>>
>> Put it in conservative language. There comes a time for talking, when
>>
>> you have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a
>>
>> chance to come to a peaceful resolution. But sometimes the enemy is
>> soo beligerent, so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational
>> discussion is useless. Then what? In grade school it was time to
>> start kicking the shins. Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot
>>
>> senators. I don't have enough money to afford the kind of lawyers
>> that
>> would be needed to tie them up in court so I do what I can - I tell
>> the
>> truth about what they do and then yell mean names at them 'till I'm
>> blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY people will come to see
>> things
>> my way - even if they end up hating me in the process.
>>
>> Thankfully, this has recently happened:
>>
>> Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be
>> less than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at
>> 42%).
>> On Iraq he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.
>>
>> Things like this make my day. I hope this lasts until the 2006
>> mid-terms. What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the
>>
>> slumps, the ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to
>> nuke Iran, I don't foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity. On the
>> other hand, he may be able to drag us into another war in order to
>> bolster his popularity. Ve shall see.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all
>> means, go for it! The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being
>>>
>> stupid
>>
>>> and then express your own stupidity by calling them
>>>
>> "country-bumpkin
>>
>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
>>>
>>> There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of
>>> others: fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in
>>>
>> your
>>
>>> belief that you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes
>>>
>> both
>>
>>> ways. I think calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further
>>>
>> your
>>
>>> cause. You're going to need to understand the right and why they
>>>
>> win
>>
>>> elections in order to regain control of the US. Belittling
>>> constituents is not the way to go about it.
>>>
>>> BAL
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Robert Lindauer
>>>> To: ExI chat list
>>>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
>>>>
>>>> Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better. The
>>>> convinced are convinced - so vat else is new?
>>>>
>>>> "nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
>>>>
>>>> In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank
>>>>
>> goodness,
>>
>>>> saying we haven't is just absurd.
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position
>>>>>
>> is
>>
>>>>> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It
>>>>> probably is.
>>>>> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given;
>>>>>
>> petroleum
>>
>>>>> is the lifeblood of the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
>>>>>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> bags
>>>>>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while
>>>>>>
>> stories
>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go
>>>>>>
>> team!
>>
>>>>>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no
>>>>>> longer
>>>>>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television
>>>>>> show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes
>>>>>>
>> such a
>>
>>>>>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it
>>>>>>
>> appears
>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy
>>>>>>
>> into
>>
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq
>>>>>> remembering
>>>>>> some essential facts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years,
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there
>>>>>>
>> verifying
>>
>>>>>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats
>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>> war,
>>>>>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
>>>>>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome
>>>>>> economic
>>>>>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic
>>>>>>
>> extremist
>>
>>>>>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British
>>>>>> targets,
>>>>>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton -
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year -
>>>>>>
>> LOST a
>>
>>>>>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government
>>>>>>
>> contract
>>
>>>>>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on
>>>>>>
>> whose
>>
>>>>>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> and to
>>>>>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> war
>>>>>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
>>>>>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're
>>>>>>
>> not
>>
>>>>>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our
>>>>>>
>> job to
>>
>>>>>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor
>>>>>>
>> is it
>>
>>>>>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North
>>>>>>
>> Korea
>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> into a
>>>>>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes,
>>>>>> further
>>>>>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags -
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they
>>>>>>
>> stood
>>
>>>>>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would
>>>>>>
>> have
>>
>>>>>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
>>>>>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
>>>>>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America
>>>>>>
>> will
>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> gone anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got
>>>>>>
>> himself
>>
>>>>>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the
>>>>>>
>> supreme
>>
>>>>>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
>>>>>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession
>>>>>>
>> (perhaps
>>
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do
>>>>>>
>> about
>>
>>>>>> it,
>>>>>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies.
>>>>>>
>> So
>>
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to
>>>>>>
>> think
>>
>>>>>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9
>>>>>> Trillion
>>>>>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had
>>>>>>
>> balanced
>>
>>>>>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you
>>>>>>
>> leave
>>
>>>>>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go
>>>>>>
>> on
>>
>>>>>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like
>>>>>>
>> Lorrey,
>>
>>>>>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> far up
>>>>>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
>>>>>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> odoriferous bile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the
>>>>>> country-bumpkin
>>>>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why
>>>>>> anyone is
>>>>>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or
>>>>>>
>> stupidity.
>>
>>>>>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media
>>>>>>
>> only
>>
>>>>>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What
>>>>>>
>> more
>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robbie Lindauer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up,
>>>>>>
>> should
>>
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side
>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
>>>>>>>> To: ExI chat list
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> &! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> whatever?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
>>>>>>> going anywhere in particular. spike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> spewer" and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>  "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing
>>>>>>>>>
>> stormtroopers
>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> most politically polarized town I live in...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
>>>>> page_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com >
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
>
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 20:07:18 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mike...
In-Reply-To: <20050808194005.37021.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050808200718.39260.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

I don't know if you refer to myself, Mike, but I've never for one nanosecond thought of Bush as a ' tard. Bush is extremely savvy, a savant, alot of coke and alcohol but so what. He is not in any way a retard, he can memorize speeches, he is nobody's fool. I try to hate Bush but can't, it's like hating silly old Jimmy Carter.
Want to know what I dislike about so may xians? (glad you asked) They say they love but they don't. They love their kids, sure. Maybe their spouses. But when they hug me and say I love you it is disgusting. If someone calls you a 'brother in christ', you get the frick away from that scumbag without delay.


 
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is one reason why I find the left's hatred of Bush so laughable:
>they can't seem to decide if he is a retard or a genius supervillain.
>C'mon, MOVE ON, make up your minds already.


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/684638b4/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 20:08:29 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The list is not dead...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808150050.01dad1a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050808200829.74390.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

Who do you want to leave? just say it. don't be shy.
 


Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
... it just seems to be.

I wondered why there were so few posts arriving lately from extropy-chat. 
Nosed around a bit, realized that almost everything posted there was being 
shunted straight into my trash bin, and good riddance. Leaves rather a 
hole, though. Sad to see this place finally turn into entropy-chat, a fate 
that's been threatening for a couple of years.

Damien Broderick

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

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/d3684faa/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 20:46:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not dead...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808150050.01dad1a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050808204605.86375.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

In the interest of giving Damien's trash bin a break, I'd like to
restart the debate we had a year or two ago about the definition of
"planet". I believe it was back when Sedna or Quaoar was discovered
that the hew and froe began. 

At that time, I proposed, almost literally word for word, the
definition that Southwest Research Institute's Alan Stern is now
proposing: "A planet is a body that directly orbits a star, is large
enough to be round because of self gravity, and is not so large that it
triggers nuclear fusion in its interior."

NASA has also begged off, saying that it is not NASAs job to decide
what is or is not a planet, as it is the IAU's job.

If my, and Stern's, definition of a planet is accepted, as Stern seems
to think, Brown's discovery would become the 12 or 14th or so planet in
our solar system. Stern favors calling the smaller objects dwarf
planets, for example. Other astronomers prefer the term minor planet.
Another term bandied about is Kuiper Belt planets. Some don't like the
idea of applying the planet label at all. 

Caltech's Mike Brown, who discovered the most recent KBO, 2003 UB313,
which is about 1.5 times the mass of Pluto is calling for scientists to
give up using the term "planet" altogether, saying that it has become a
cultural, not a scientific, term. Brown was the first, in the 1990's,
to propose that Pluto be demoted from planet status, but with his most
recent announcement declared 2003 UB313 the "10th planet".

I myself would, beyond my and Sterns definition, divide planets up into
the following categories: gas giants, terrestrial planets, and ice
planets. I would regard the round asteroid Ceres as a terrestrial
planet (that it suffers from Jupiter's gravitational imperialism is a
separate issue), and all the KBOs that are round as ice planets.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Aug  8 20:58:23 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:58:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d228b19df22cba21ad9e41b4cfbc391b@adamkolson.com>	<20050808174012.86033.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520508081118334ab6ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F7C76F.1020101@jefallbright.net>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>How can one of the most basic human activities be "distracting?
>Two options: if they do it like us, then a good sex scene is always
>good. If they do it different from us, then it becomes interesting
>doesn't it?
>  
>
Many of us enjoy a good science fiction book or movie for its novel 
ideas.  I can think of several examples where sex did play an integral 
role or added depth to the plot, but when the gratuitous sex scene comes 
along, it can be extremely distracting to have part of one's mind  point 
out that the scene serves no purpose other than marketing and hooking 
the audience--now customer--in the same way as many of the commercials 
on TV.

- Jef


From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Aug  8 21:08:01 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:08:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508080926.j789QBR14515@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508080926.j789QBR14515@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42F7C9B1.6060207@lineone.net>

"A -particular- mule is produced by some mutation.  One animal.  It's
important that we're clear that -one animal- is required here, not
millions of years of animals, but ONE ANIMAL that can no longer mate
with members of its parents' species."

This is not how it works.
You are quite correct that this scenario is extremely unlikely. This 
doesn't mean that evolution is incorrect, it means that that's not how 
evolution works.

"This mutation, despite it disrupting the genetic structure of the 
animal radically..."

The vast majority of mutations that 'radically disrupt the genetic 
structure' (by which i assume you mean mutations that have a large 
effect on an organism's ontogeny or on it's physiology) are lethal. The 
ones that aren't lethal tend to be small changes, even tiny ones.

Here's a different - and much more likely - example:

A - particular - organism is produced by some mutation. One animal (or 
plant or bacterium, etc.). Just one, no problem.
The mutation does not mean that it's incapable of mating and producing 
viable offspring with others of IT'S SPECIES (yes, it's still the same 
species). When/if it does mate, the particular mutation is passed on to 
it's offspring. Note that i haven't said that it's a beneficial or 
harmful mutation. It is, of course, a non-lethal one. It doesn't even 
have to be a dominant trait, in fact, it's probably better if it isn't.
The mutation could be something like a minor variation in the gene for a 
subunit of haemoglobin, making the complete molecule have a greater 
affinity for oxygen at some particular pH, or in the presence of some 
other substance, a micronutrient maybe.

Imagine this sort of thing happening millions of times in a population 
of some animal. No breeding problems, no dramatic changes.

Then, one day, something does change. Maybe the climate, maybe some 
change in the creatures' predators, or it's food, or, well, just about 
anything.

This produces a selective pressure. The various combinations of all 
those accumulated genetic changes mean that there is a lot of variety in 
the kinds of reponse that the members of the population can display. 
Some of them will be less able to survive, some better able to. Some of 
them might wander off to somewhere else where the conditions are the 
same as they were before. The individuals that are less fit in the new 
environment will do poorly, the ones that are more fit will do better. 
After a number of generations, the population will be slightly different 
that the starting population. Their genome will be different. Maybe just 
slightly, maybe quite a bit.

After this happens enough times, the population will not be able to 
interbreed successfully with the starting population, or, more 
accurately, with the descendants of the starting population that 
wandered off and stayed more genetically similar to it.

This is not the only way evolution works, just an example of one way. 
Sometimes things are more dramatic. Usually they are more complicated, 
involving collections of genes that form a king of 'functioning unit', 
or interrelated networks. But the thing i'm trying to point out is that 
the 'mule' idea is almost totally irrelevant to how evolution works.

A million monkeys with a million years. Yes, exactly. Can you see how 
it's easy for a million monkeys with a million years to turn into a 
bunch of guys banging rocks together? Because it is. It's very easy.
And a few billion prokaryotes with a few billion years going spare will 
turn into giraffes and redwood trees and crocodiles and giant condors.

The rats example suffers from the same problem as the mule idea. Massive 
overkill. Why do you want to irradiate them "enough so that its eggs are 
a chromosome short"? (not that i have a clue how that could actually 
happen, but i'm going with the spirit of the argument here). What you 
are saying is "let's irradiate these rats so much that they are dead or 
sterile or incapable of producing viable offspring. Oh, look, dead rats! 
So much for evolution, then".
If you want to see evolution at work in rats, expose them to a low-level 
background radiation (something like that found on the surface of the 
earth for example), and a selective pressure of some sort (sub-optimal 
levels of a rat's essential amino acid, or such. I don't know much about 
rat's dietary requirements, but you get the idea), and see if we get any 
unusually healthy rats after a while.



"Obviously, if it exists, God created it or created the thing that 
created it, or created the thing that created the thing, etc."

Doh. Just read that.
OK, sorry to have wasted your (and my) time.

ben

PS One - just one -  question, i can't resist it: What created god, then?


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug  8 21:22:47 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:22:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] "The pace of human rights"  FRIDAY 
Message-ID: <380-22005818212247828@M2W110.mail2web.com>

Fort Mason, San Francisco, 
Friday, August 12th

At the suggested forward request from Stewart Brand:

"From time to time a portion of humanity declares a new human right. 
Behavior thought normal for thousands of years is suddenly 
challenged.  What does it take for the new right to prevail?  It 
takes steady bearing down on the issue over decades and centuries...

"Patient Revolution: Human Rights Past and Future," Robert Fuller," 
7pm (doors open), Friday, August 12, Fort Mason Conference Center, 
San Francisco.  The lecture starts promptly at 7:30pm.  Admission is 
free ($10 donation very welcome, not required).

Bob Fuller is the author of SOMEBODIES AND NOBODIES: OVERCOMING THE 
ABUSE OF RANK.  The book defines "rankism"--- the pervasive misuse of 
power relationships that is expressed not just in racism and sexism 
but in every form of humiliation.  Humans have the universal right, 
the new movement insists, to be treated with dignity.  Fuller was 
president of Oberlin College when it integrated racially in the early 
1970s.  Before that he was a highly regarded physicist working with 
John Wheeler.  After that he was a "citizen diplomat" quietly helping 
end the Cold War.  On stage he is a vivid story teller.

This is one of a monthly series of Seminars About Long-term Thinking, 
given every second Friday at Fort Mason, organized by The Long Now 
Foundation.  Future speakers in the series include Ray Kurzweil, 
Freeman Dyson (with Esther Dyson and George Dyson), Clay Shirky, Sam 
Harris (author of THE END OF FAITH), and Stephen Lansing.  If you 
would like to be notified by email of forthcoming talks, please 
contact Simone Davalos--- simone at longnow.org, 415-561-6582.

You are welcome to forward this note to anyone you think might be
interested."

				--Stewart Brand

-- 


Stewart Brand -- sb at gbn.org
The Long Now Foundation - http://www.longnow.org
Seminars: http://www.longnow.org/10klibrary/Seminars.htm
Seminar downloads:   http://seminars.longnow.org

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Aug  8 21:56:28 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807185616.0493ab48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050808215628.43309.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

What kinds of help do you need?  (I'd list my skills, but I'd like to
stimulate others into thinking of the specific things they can do to
help, that they might not otherwise think you need - and thus might not
think it worth their while to participate, if they can't help you
significantly.)

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> Transhumanists and Futurists,
> 
> Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005
> conference 
> that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in
> the 
> process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their 
> fields.  The webpages will roll out during this fall semester.
> 
> We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning, 
> systems thinking, framework and scenario development for
> transhumanism.
> 
> We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are 
> interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly
> valuable 
> program for transhumanism.
> 
> If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.
> 
> Educate!
> 
> Natasha
> 
> 
> <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
> Cultural Strategist, Designer
> Studies of the Future, University of Houston
> President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
> Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
> 
> Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler
> Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 10:29:58 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:29:58 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <001301c59c2e$70e59550$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl>
	<001301c59c2e$70e59550$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <42F885A6.3060409@aol.com>

kevinfreels.com wrote:

>It's such a shame that you have such a limited view of people. You have this
>nasty problem with grouping people rather than looking at them as
>individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am hardly the idiot that you are
>speaking of.
>
Fooled twice, huh?  Sad.

> I am a thinking individual.
>

Everyone is.  See, my opinion of people generally isn't so bad.

> I am not a neo-con
>

Maybe you are, have you checked their official views?

> and I certainly
>don't support his religious views.
>

They're unrelated.

> I am an atheist and I disagree with many
>parts of the Bush agenda.
>  
>
Just the part about killing arabs for grins and giggles, huh?

>If you are the thinking person that you claim to be, you will realize soon
>that the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to polarizing
>voters in an attempt to win elections.
>

Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a shill for the so-called 
"right".  I think I've said that here before.

>So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an administration
>with a religious ideology? 
>

And a penchant for war profiteering?

>Kerry though, probably
>couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
>
Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he was going to do.  He 
was going to go to the UN, appologize for having invaded Iraq and ask 
for their assistance in establishing a legitmate and peaceful government 
in Iraq.  A reasonable proposition that I think would have been welcomed 
at the UN.

>I knew exactly where Bush stands 
>
Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard.  Bush is a sturdy known quantity.  I 
get it.  Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as unbearable 
and anything was worth the switch.

>And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
>
We all make only practical choices.  I'm not a kerry supporter, so in 
the end, I voted for my father.   I learned long ago that they never 
listen to me anyway.

> I could care less who the
>president is or what party he is affiliated with.
>

Me neither.

> The issues are much
>greater than any one person. I will be glad to debate you on any issue, but
>a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
>
Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal and should he be tried 
for his crimes?

I, personally, think that was the most decisive reason -not- to vote for 
georgy last time around.

> A reasonable debate can
>only be obtained if we could first agree on each objective, every issue and
>it's importance. Then we could argue about how effectively this president
>carried out those objectives and handled each issue. Otherwise you are
>wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
>  
>

I don't think this  the proper, but I'm willing to have a civil 
conversation about it.

Robbie



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 10:35:26 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:35:26 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050808155356.32244.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808155356.32244.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F886EE.4000301@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Exactly: The Simulation Argument. This is our hook for implanting
>>>transhumanist philosophy in the population.
>>>
>>>Nor does there need to be an original IDer. The chain of designers
>>>could easily be a loop, given that all universes are
>>>      
>>>
>>indistinguishable
>>    
>>
>>>from a closed time-like curve, there could also be a Meta-loop of
>>>universe designers.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Oy vey.
>>
>>Let's consider a causal chain of events where a cause is considered 
>>simply a sufficient condition (nevermind necessary conditions for
>>now):
>>
>>
>>a -> b -> c -> d -> e
>>
>>Let's say that each event is time indexed and that causal loops are 
>>essentially related to their temporal series:
>>    
>>
>
>Error: each universe has its own time axis independent of any other.
>  
>

Which universes?  How do we -empirically- have any evidence of their 
existence?  So we can grant that if you're willing to just make stuff up 
out of thin air, the argument might have an error, although, even so, 
each universe -assuming they were causal ones- would still have a causal 
relationship to some uncaused event.

>  
>
>>a at t1
>>b at t2
>>c at t3
>>d at t4
>>e at t5
>>
>>
>>The series is comprehensible in both quasi-causal systems (eg. QM)
>>and in traditional models (NM and GR).
>>    
>>
>
>But overly simplistic wrt M Theory. Go back to class.
>  
>

Sure, but adequate for our purpose.  Nondiscursive.

>  
>
>>Now consider the possibility: 
>>e -> a
>>
>>Leaving us the loop:
>>
>>a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> a -> b -> c -> d ...
>>
>>
>>This loop has some rather disturbing characteristics:
>>
>>1)  Some events temporally precede themselves violating GR.
>>    
>>
>
>No, because each universe is on its own independent time axis. You need
>to use M theory.
>  
>

Even so, if causality is retained in a multiverse, there remain the 
causal paradoxes mentioned here.

>  
>
>>2)  Some events are sufficient for themselves, violating QM (since
>>the occurence of a, for instance, would cause the occurence of a,
>>making it completely determinate whether or not a would happen).
>>    
>>
>
>Try M theory, again.
>
>  
>
>>3)  Some -apparently contingent- events would be necessary events
>>(e.g. we might think of -a- as possibly not happening, but if this is
>>right, then a is a necessary fact about our universe).
>>    
>>
>
>The M-branes of each universe create uniquely separate time and space
>axes, from the spawning universe, ergo there is no continuity of events
>that is mandated, thus looping is possible. This is the nature of
>closed timelike curves: if you travel back in time, copulate with your
>mother, who then gives birth to you, then you are a necessary fact
>about yourself.
>  
>

Irrelevant, perhaps you should try to look at the argument in more 
detail.  "Sufficient conditions" is the key word. 

>  
>
>>So we put the matter thusly:
>>
>>either GR and QM are false and all apparently contingent series of 
>>events are actually necessary series of events OR
>>
>>There are no temporally causal loops of this kind.
>>
>>QED by reductio, there are no temporally causal loops of this kind
>>
>>_____
>>
>>
>>The other commonly considered possibility is that there are
>>infinitely 
>>descending causal chains, eg..
>>
>>
>>a <- a' <- a'' <- a''' <- a'''' ...
>>
>>Where each succeeding a(') precedes the a for which it is a
>>temporally sufficient condition (e.g. cause).
>>
>>It follows, in such cases, that there are aleph-0 events in that
>>given series.  However, the series as a whole (e.g. considered as a
>>    
>>
>whole) is still a contingent series, itself having a sufficient
>condition, let's call it b.
>  
>
>>b, being contingent, has a sufficient condition.  Given the
>>no-boundary condition of infinite regress, we get the series
>>
>>(a <- a' ...) <- b <- b' ...
>>
>>and then also the series:
>>
>>((a <- a'...) <- b <- b'...) <- c' ...
>>
>>etc.
>>
>>This series, the total series of events, then, has the power of
>>Omega, being an absolutely infinite multiplicity.  But by Cantor's
>>proof to Dedekind, there are no absolutely infinite multiplicities. 
>>    
>>
>
>In which sort of universe? Euclidian or non, and what type of
>non-Euclidian?
>
>Again, you are using the wrong maths.
>  
>

Gotcha!

Irrelevant to the point at hand.  Look up Cantor's letter to dedekind on 
the impossibility of the absolute infinite.  It's the standard 
interpretation -currently-.

And, actually, my maths is quite good :)

Robbie




From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  8 23:01:07 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <42F885A6.3060409@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050808230107.92080.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

Questions for both of you: do you think we can elect a heavyweight, a man or woman of Churchillian caliber for president in 2008? The founders wanted us to select a president every four years, so since we're saddled with that system for the forseeable future do you think we can make better choices in electing our chief executives? 
Or is the concept of great statesmen & women passe'?

:
kevinfreels.com wrote:

>It's such a shame that you have such a limited view of people. You have this
>nasty problem with grouping people rather than looking at them as
>individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am hardly the idiot that you are
>speaking of.
>
Fooled twice, huh? Sad.

> I am a thinking individual.
>

Everyone is. See, my opinion of people generally isn't so bad.

> I am not a neo-con
>

Maybe you are, have you checked their official views?

> and I certainly
>don't support his religious views.
>

They're unrelated.

> I am an atheist and I disagree with many
>parts of the Bush agenda.
> 
>
Just the part about killing arabs for grins and giggles, huh?

>If you are the thinking person that you claim to be, you will realize soon
>that the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to polarizing
>voters in an attempt to win elections.
>

Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a shill for the so-called 
"right". I think I've said that here before.

>So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an administration
>with a religious ideology? 
>

And a penchant for war profiteering?

>Kerry though, probably
>couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
>
Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he was going to do. He 
was going to go to the UN, appologize for having invaded Iraq and ask 
for their assistance in establishing a legitmate and peaceful government 
in Iraq. A reasonable proposition that I think would have been welcomed 
at the UN.

>I knew exactly where Bush stands 
>
Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard. Bush is a sturdy known quantity. I 
get it. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as unbearable 
and anything was worth the switch.

>And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
>
We all make only practical choices. I'm not a kerry supporter, so in 
the end, I voted for my father. I learned long ago that they never 
listen to me anyway.

> I could care less who the
>president is or what party he is affiliated with.
>

Me neither.

> The issues are much
>greater than any one person. I will be glad to debate you on any issue, but
>a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
>
Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal and should he be tried 
for his crimes?

I, personally, think that was the most decisive reason -not- to vote for 
georgy last time around.

> A reasonable debate can
>only be obtained if we could first agree on each objective, every issue and
>it's importance. Then we could argue about how effectively this president
>carried out those objectives and handled each issue. Otherwise you are
>wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
> 
>

I don't think this the proper, but I'm willing to have a civil 
conversation about it.

Robbie

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

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/55c0dd28/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 00:33:25 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050808230107.92080.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809003325.18098.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No. This requires a man of conviction (who isn't automatically
condemned by the screechers for anything he ever said or anyone he did
business with) who is not beholden to any special interests. You are
asking for someone qualified for the Supreme Court who is willing to
dredge their life through the media cesspool. Anyone fit for the first
is too smart or self respecting to submit to the second. The concept is
not passe, our society just doesn't deserve such a person, even though
it needs one badly.

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Questions for both of you: do you think we can elect a heavyweight, a
> man or woman of Churchillian caliber for president in 2008? The
> founders wanted us to select a president every four years, so since
> we're saddled with that system for the forseeable future do you think
> we can make better choices in electing our chief executives? 
> Or is the concept of great statesmen & women passe'?
> 
> :
> kevinfreels.com wrote:
> 
> >It's such a shame that you have such a limited view of people. You
> have this
> >nasty problem with grouping people rather than looking at them as
> >individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am hardly the idiot that
> you are
> >speaking of.
> >
> Fooled twice, huh? Sad.
> 
> > I am a thinking individual.
> >
> 
> Everyone is. See, my opinion of people generally isn't so bad.
> 
> > I am not a neo-con
> >
> 
> Maybe you are, have you checked their official views?
> 
> > and I certainly
> >don't support his religious views.
> >
> 
> They're unrelated.
> 
> > I am an atheist and I disagree with many
> >parts of the Bush agenda.
> > 
> >
> Just the part about killing arabs for grins and giggles, huh?
> 
> >If you are the thinking person that you claim to be, you will
> realize soon
> >that the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to
> polarizing
> >voters in an attempt to win elections.
> >
> 
> Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a shill for the
> so-called 
> "right". I think I've said that here before.
> 
> >So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an
> administration
> >with a religious ideology? 
> >
> 
> And a penchant for war profiteering?
> 
> >Kerry though, probably
> >couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
> >
> Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he was going to do. He 
> was going to go to the UN, appologize for having invaded Iraq and ask
> 
> for their assistance in establishing a legitmate and peaceful
> government 
> in Iraq. A reasonable proposition that I think would have been
> welcomed 
> at the UN.
> 
> >I knew exactly where Bush stands 
> >
> Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard. Bush is a sturdy known quantity. I
> 
> get it. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
> 
> Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as
> unbearable 
> and anything was worth the switch.
> 
> >And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
> >
> We all make only practical choices. I'm not a kerry supporter, so in 
> the end, I voted for my father. I learned long ago that they never 
> listen to me anyway.
> 
> > I could care less who the
> >president is or what party he is affiliated with.
> >
> 
> Me neither.
> 
> > The issues are much
> >greater than any one person. I will be glad to debate you on any
> issue, but
> >a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
> >
> Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal and should he be
> tried 
> for his crimes?
> 
> I, personally, think that was the most decisive reason -not- to vote
> for 
> georgy last time around.
> 
> > A reasonable debate can
> >only be obtained if we could first agree on each objective, every
> issue and
> >it's importance. Then we could argue about how effectively this
> president
> >carried out those objectives and handled each issue. Otherwise you
> are
> >wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
> > 
> >
> 
> I don't think this the proper, but I'm willing to have a civil 
> conversation about it.
> 
> Robbie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
>  Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Aug  9 00:31:29 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:31:29 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
References: <380-22005818133139915@M2W069.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <032401c59c79$af409bb0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> From: Brett Paatsch
>
> "Natasha,
>
> I organised a little marketing focus group with myself.
> "
> It found the Max More and Natasha Vita More brands to be very clearly
> still good,
>
> (It's Vita-More)

Sorry, I was typing in a hurry, and spelt phonetically. When I say a
hyphenated name as opposed to seeing it, the hyphen disappears.

I'll take that as a warning I was in too much of a hurry for such a
potentially sensitive topic as branding.

My problem is that I want to give feedback but can't spare too
much time so sometimes, like above, I am clumsy rather than silent.

> "the Exi-chat list to be good, the Extropy brand to be possibly a
> bit worn out or diluted by some of its associations since it was first
> encountered by the focus group, but, basically, still good."
>
> ** This runs counter to my stats.

Your stats are likely coming from a bigger group of people. I was
just speaking for myself. A focus group of one.

> Could you let us  know your criteria for
> brand quality?

Essentially brands that try to be all things to all people can't
possibly succeed, the brand becomes meaningless.

> Can you explain why the new website, VP Summit and
> Proactionary Principle are diluting ExI?

Briefly, the VP Summit I have no opinion on as I didn't pay
enough attention to it, the Proactionary Principle was a net
plus and the new website, when I looked at it briefly looked
more sophisticated than the old.

The problem for me is the associations. Extropy associated
with cryonics and Drexlerian nanotech doesn't work well with
Extropy in association with teaching critical thinking.

To be blunt, from what I have seen, some of the champions of
cryonics and Drexlerian nanotech conduct themselves less
honourably than do Max and yourself in the way they write and
deal with criticism. I don't want to get into criticising others that
aren't here to defend themselves but I do need to say something
in order to warn you that there are downsides of posting lists of
affiliated or associated organisations as well as upsides and you
may not be aware of all the downsides because people may not
tell you because they do not want to invoke an understandable
defence of your friends reaction.

The Extropian Principles are core to the ExI brand as I perceive
it, they go to values not technology. The Exi-chat list is sort of
living culture where each poster is developing their own mini
brand with their name when they post.

Add too much corporate-slickness, get too eager to bring in
revenue and you might harm some of what you have that is
good.

 >The feedback I have
> gotten from these elements are positive and membership has
> risen because of them.
>
> Re the list:  "still good" is not good enough.  I has to be excellent.
> What can we do to improve your findings?

Nothing that I can think of.  The only way for Exi-chat to be excellent
rather than good would be for the posts to be excellent rather than
good and you can't do as host it is up to the posters. If you try to
censor, for instance, to improve quality you will probably go backwards
rather than forwards.

One of the best things about the Exi-chat list is that the moderators and
ExI largely leave it alone. Unfortunately that also means that there is a
lot of noise on the list from time to time. But the noise is preferrable to 
the
alternative.

> "The focus group
> is slightly interested in and wishes well any derivative brands like 
> Extropy
> Campus but doesn't always have the time to keep track of them. My focus
> group hopes it works out well for the "parent" brands."
>
> This is an idea I came up with a couple of years ago but wanted to manage
> the other elements before arriving at the announcement.

I remember.

> "The good thing about focus groups is that one doesn't have to worry about
> em too much, if one is sure one has a great product or service."
>
> True, but they can bring in diverse comments and findings.  I was just on
> onen with Future Lab here in Austin.  I was surprised at the insufficient
> level of global and futurist experiences and knowledge from other groups
> participants.

My opinions are just mine.

Brett Paatsch




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 00:35:53 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:05:53 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <20050808193531.15552.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050808193531.15552.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0508081735537d342f@mail.gmail.com>

On 09/08/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of
> > tech
> > / architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
> > simply, I try to embrace them.
> >
> > I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
> > idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
> > always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
> > building something using one or more of them.
> >
> > Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> > in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> > for a while (maybe a few weeks). I find I need to change my POV like
> > this to really get a feeling for the deep meaning behind whatever the
> > thing is. And often I suddenly see things from that other point of
> > view, and learn something!
> >
> > Or, at this point I can reject the idea if it still seems like crap,
> > or if I can see why it is not good, but why its supporters would
> > think
> > it is good (because I've tried being one).
> 
> An alternate strategy I've tried (not saying it works better or worse
> than yours, just that it works for me): for any popular tech that I
> don't like, do a thorough and honest mental evaluation of why I don't
> like it.  There is, of course, the danger of rationalizing from false
> evidence or unjustified assumptions - so examine the evidence and
> assumptions, *especially* if they're based on data that's more than a
> few years old (given how fast tech changes these days, any data that
> old about a certain technology might have become incorrect in that
> time).

This reason I use the strategy I described was specifically as an
alternative to what you've described here, for the reason you've
noted; the danger of rationalization disguised as rational thinking.
The problem is that skilled debaters can and do fool themselves all
the time, thinking they are rationally evaluating something when in
fact they are coming from a pre-conceived, emotionally supported
position. And I propose that there is no safe way to use rational
thinking alone to guard against its highjacking by your internal PR
department; you need external, immovable indicators to tell you that
you are on or off track.

>From the above, you've pointed out an excellent external indicator,
the age of data.

> 
> If the reason why is uncertain or unclear, or possibly disproven, then
> look at the tech again (if there's a reason to, for instance if it's a
> potentially viable component of my next project, or if the employers
> seem to be wanting it), and play with it if possible.  (Of course, if
> it's only available to those willing to spend $10000+ on it, that alone
> is reason to be suspicious...and to know that that alone would limit
> its adoption, thus excusing personal inexperience with it where such
> might otherwise be expected.)  Pay particular attention to the reasons
> it's so popular, and to my own previous objections (to see if they are
> in fact still valid).

With tech, I find that it's often pretty difficult to evaluate a
technology without doing something semi-serious with it; the devil is
usually in the detail. I agree about the expensive software bit, you
can safely ignore it imo (and in the end, what choice do you have?)

> 
> Case in point: one of my professional skills is Web programming.
> There's word of a new method out there, called AJAX, which is based on
> advanced Javascript.  My personal experience with Javascript, from 2000
> and before, was that it's unreliable (especially across browsers),
> didn't always perform according to the documentation (even within a
> given browser: i.e., MSIE's flavor of Javascript and MS's documentation
> of same did not agree), and was limited in functionality (mainly to
> form actions and simple tricks).  Thus, it seemed unsuited to serious
> Web applications.  That data is over 5 years old now, though; perhaps
> Javascript has dealt with those issues...or perhaps they're still
> there, and AJAX is just a bunch of hype that will fall through.  It's
> easy enough for me to build some simple AJAX applications and see if
> they are robust enough to use.
> 

Have you given it a go?

> Another case in point: instant messaging.  For many years now, I've had
> an unreliable schedule - my employers needed me to accomplish tasks by
> certain times, but they only rarely needed my actual presence at
> meetings, and if they needed to contact me on an emergency basis they
> had my phone number.  I viewed IMs as a way to chain me down: to have
> absolute reporting of when I was online and when I was not, which would
> not help me but would help them micromanage me (to their detriment:
> they had better things to do with their time).  I grant that that's a
> more emotional than practical reason, and yet...it's just as true
> today, and the factual basis behind it is also somewhat true (even
> though I've tried to select employers who don't have tendencies to
> micromanage anyway).  My current employer really really wanted me to
> get AIM, since that was "the company standard" for communication.
> Eventually it worked out that it was actually
> emergency-contact-equivalent, so I upgraded my cell phone (at their
> expense, with their agreement) to get AIM...and they rarely use it.
> E-mail and telephone calls continue to be the actual standard for
> communication.  IM has become an emergency contact that is understood
> to not always be on - *especially* since it's on my cell phone only,
> and thus subject to cell phone usage limits (for instance, if I'm out
> in the boonies, or inside a building I sometimes visit that's
> apparently the equivalent of a Faraday cage, no service).

On IM, I have a totally different point of view. I got into using IM
some years ago through exactly the technique I described above. It
seemed like a stupid toy to me, but it seemed to have currency, so I
thought "imagine I thought IM was really cool, why would I think that,
what would it be like". I tried it out, tried the thought experiment,
and found that it was actually excellent.

Now I have a network of collegues and friends on my MSN Messenger
contact list who I speak (ie: IM chat) with regularly, which has
somehow maintained itself over years. This is in contrast to any other
method of communication, where I completely lose touch with people
after a short time because I'm just not a maintenance person; I don't
write, I don't visit, I don't pick up the phone. But IM has stuck
somehow (it and the extro chat list actually), and is my only conduit
to long term friends and invaluable professional contacts.

-

In contrast, I used exactly this method to give Visual Basic a proper
go. I had an unnatural loathing of it, some years back, picked up from
the general environment, and a predjudice toward vb programmers, and
realised one day that it was founded on ignorance. I had a chance to
do some paid work using it, so I put on my "what if I loved Visual
Basic hat" and gave it a proper work out.

After "loving it" for a month or so, and building something serious in
it, I sat back and evaluated the whole thing. It sucked, and for real
reasons that I could enumerate. But I feel far more secure in saying
that now, because I've given it a serious go, and tried to like it.
Unfortunately, I have quite a bit of it on my resume now (some dark
days there), but that's another story...

-- 
Emlyn
(trying with all my heart to love CVS right at the moment, difficult!...)


http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 01:10:15 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050809003325.18098.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809011016.61479.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>

This is almost self-evidently true. So then one might
be best off not voting in a presidential election and
after the inauguration one would support that
president to the fullest, save for going along with
the policies the president advocates that one
thoroughly disagrees with. How otherwise would there
be enough consensus to fight a very long war? If
Warren G. Harding were C & C today we would have to
smooth over our distaste for him in merely the
prosecution, putting aside the favorable outcome, of
the war on terror.

>Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No. This requires a man of conviction (who isn't
> automatically
> condemned by the screechers for anything he ever
> said or anyone he did
> business with) who is not beholden to any special
> interests. You are
> asking for someone qualified for the Supreme Court
> who is willing to
> dredge their life through the media cesspool. Anyone
> fit for the first
> is too smart or self respecting to submit to the
> second. The concept is
> not passe, our society just doesn't deserve such a
> person, even though
> it needs one badly.
> 
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Questions for both of you: do you think we can
> elect a heavyweight, a
> > man or woman of Churchillian caliber for president
> in 2008? The
> > founders wanted us to select a president every
> four years, so since
> > we're saddled with that system for the forseeable
> future do you think
> > we can make better choices in electing our chief
> executives? 
> > Or is the concept of great statesmen & women
> passe'?
> > 
> > :
> > kevinfreels.com wrote:
> > 
> > >It's such a shame that you have such a limited
> view of people. You
> > have this
> > >nasty problem with grouping people rather than
> looking at them as
> > >individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am
> hardly the idiot that
> > you are
> > >speaking of.
> > >
> > Fooled twice, huh? Sad.
> > 
> > > I am a thinking individual.
> > >
> > 
> > Everyone is. See, my opinion of people generally
> isn't so bad.
> > 
> > > I am not a neo-con
> > >
> > 
> > Maybe you are, have you checked their official
> views?
> > 
> > > and I certainly
> > >don't support his religious views.
> > >
> > 
> > They're unrelated.
> > 
> > > I am an atheist and I disagree with many
> > >parts of the Bush agenda.
> > > 
> > >
> > Just the part about killing arabs for grins and
> giggles, huh?
> > 
> > >If you are the thinking person that you claim to
> be, you will
> > realize soon
> > >that the left is just as guilty as the right when
> it comes to
> > polarizing
> > >voters in an attempt to win elections.
> > >
> > 
> > Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a
> shill for the
> > so-called 
> > "right". I think I've said that here before.
> > 
> > >So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in
> support of an
> > administration
> > >with a religious ideology? 
> > >
> > 
> > And a penchant for war profiteering?
> > 
> > >Kerry though, probably
> > >couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
> > >
> > Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he
> was going to do. He 
> > was going to go to the UN, appologize for having
> invaded Iraq and ask
> > 
> > for their assistance in establishing a legitmate
> and peaceful
> > government 
> > in Iraq. A reasonable proposition that I think
> would have been
> > welcomed 
> > at the UN.
> > 
> > >I knew exactly where Bush stands 
> > >
> > Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard. Bush is a
> sturdy known quantity. I
> > 
> > get it. Better the devil you know than the devil
> you don't.
> > 
> > Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up
> my @ss as
> > unbearable 
> > and anything was worth the switch.
> > 
> > >And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
> > >
> > We all make only practical choices. I'm not a
> kerry supporter, so in 
> > the end, I voted for my father. I learned long ago
> that they never 
> > listen to me anyway.
> > 
> > > I could care less who the
> > >president is or what party he is affiliated with.
> > >
> > 
> > Me neither.
> > 
> > > The issues are much
> > >greater than any one person. I will be glad to
> debate you on any
> > issue, but
> > >a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
> > >
> > Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal
> and should he be
> > tried 
> > for his crimes?
> > 
> > I, personally, think that was the most decisive
> reason -not- to vote
> > for 
> > georgy last time around.
> > 
> > > A reasonable debate can
> > >only be obtained if we could first agree on each
> objective, every
> > issue and
> > >it's importance. Then we could argue about how
> effectively this
> > president
> > >carried out those objectives and handled each
> issue. Otherwise you
> > are
> > >wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > I don't think this the proper, but I'm willing to
> have a civil 
> > conversation about it.
> > 
> > Robbie
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> > 		
> > ---------------------------------
> >  Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> page >
> _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Aug  9 02:18:14 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:18:14 -0400
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <20050808204605.86375.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808204605.86375.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>

Mike Lorrey writes: 

> I myself would, beyond my and Sterns definition, divide planets up into
> the following categories: gas giants, terrestrial planets, and ice
> planets. I would regard the round asteroid Ceres as a terrestrial
> planet (that it suffers from Jupiter's gravitational imperialism is a
> separate issue), and all the KBOs that are round as ice planets.

I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, moons and 
planets.  We should describe objects based on their characteristics.  I 
would prefer a system like this: 

X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar etc.
Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris 

 --
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 



From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Aug  9 02:25:38 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:25:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>
References: <20050808204605.86375.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <42F81422.20504@pobox.com>

mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
> 
> I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, moons 
> and planets.  We should describe objects based on their 
> characteristics.  I would prefer a system like this:
> X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar etc.
> Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris

I have no idea if you're joking, but either way, this is such a wonderful post.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 02:33:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <20050809023338.35217.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:

> Mike Lorrey writes: 
> 
> > I myself would, beyond my and Sterns definition, divide planets up
> into
> > the following categories: gas giants, terrestrial planets, and ice
> > planets. I would regard the round asteroid Ceres as a terrestrial
> > planet (that it suffers from Jupiter's gravitational imperialism is
> a
> > separate issue), and all the KBOs that are round as ice planets.
> 
> I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars,
> moons and planets. We should describe objects based on their
> characteristics. I would prefer a system like this: 
> 
> X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar
> etc.
> Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments,
> debris 

Harvey, you sound like you have a testicular fixation... ;)

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From smcclenahan at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 02:39:13 2005
From: smcclenahan at comcast.net (Simon McClenahan)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:39:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Future friendly movies
Message-ID: <42F81751.2070007@comcast.net>

Not really hard-core sci-fi or futuristic, but the story does reference 
a non-apocolyptic future. Most people would classify this as a 
chick-flick romantic comedy, which it is but I think this story actually 
captures your interest the whole way through.

Happy Accidents
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208196/


  Plot Summary for
  *Happy Accidents (2000 <http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2000>)*

Ruby Weaver has man trouble: she tries to fix them, so she's stuck 
herself with a string of losers. Her current lover, Sam Deed, seems 
different: he's sweet, tender, just in from Dubuque. But, as Ruby tells 
her therapist about Sam, in flashbacks we see someone not quite of this 
world. In fact, Sam informs Ruby that he's from the future, 2470 to be 
exact, traveling back in time to avoid prosecution for his sister's 
death, and to find Ruby, whose photo he saw back home. Ruby's sure he's 
delusional, but most of the time she wants to keep him - and maybe fix 
him. Although he seems sane, maybe Sam hasn't told her the real story: 
what's he up to, and who is Chrystie Delancey?

Summary written by {jhailey at hotmail.com} 
<http://www.imdb.com/SearchPlotWriters?%7Bjhailey at hotmail.com%7D>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/fc7c7444/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 02:50:01 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <42F81751.2070007@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20050809025002.31600.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

Yeah it must be a chick flick.
Isn't it unlikely whatever beings exist in the year 2470 would have siblings? 395 years from now siblings ought be outmoded.


Sam informs Ruby that he's from the future, 2470 to be exact, traveling back in time to avoid prosecution for his sister's death, and to find Ruby, whose photo he saw back home. 

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050808/55f5f317/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 03:26:19 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:26:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
In-Reply-To: <42F7C76F.1020101@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <200508090328.j793SJR19741@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Future friendly movies
> 
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> 
> >How can one of the most basic human activities be "distracting?...
> >
> >
> Many of us enjoy a good science fiction book or movie for its novel
> ideas.  I can think of several examples where sex did play an integral
> role or added depth to the plot...
> 
> - Jef



I know one:  the sex scene in Orwell's 1984.  That is the
best example I know of in sci-fi where it just wouldn't work 
right without the copulation.

spike






From jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 03:35:01 2005
From: jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com (Jacques Mathieu)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The list is not dead...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808150050.01dad1a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050809033501.9624.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com>

I rarely ever post on this list, so my opinion doesn't
really count for squat, but I used to really enjoy a
lot of the posts. Now, however, a lot of the talk on
this list is very political or irrelevant to
transhumanism. All I can say from an outside
perspective is that it seems much of the serious
intellectual conversation (specifically scientific and
technological) has gone elsewhere, to other boards. I
still peruse the list for the few good gems, but I do
have it sent to my "junk mail" account where I have my
spam sent. I've been a reader of this list for at
least five years off and on, and I guess I'd just
rather see it the way it used to be.

Jacques

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> ... it just seems to be.
> 
> I wondered why there were so few posts arriving
> lately from extropy-chat. 
> Nosed around a bit, realized that almost everything
> posted there was being 
> shunted straight into my trash bin, and good
> riddance. Leaves rather a 
> hole, though. Sad to see this place finally turn
> into entropy-chat, a fate 
> that's been threatening for a couple of years.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 




		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 03:56:14 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] comic relief
In-Reply-To: <200508090328.j793SJR19741@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050809035614.90658.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com>

ACTUAL HEADLINE: "What Will We Do Now That Peter
Jennings Is Gone?".
----------------------------------------
Why, we'll just have to put an end to it all, wont we?
Without this beloved ABC talking head, that
irreplacable anchorman, our lives are devoid of
wisdom. How can we be informed of what is transpiring
in this great big world of ours without him?
 Everytime a great anchorman passes away we lose a
part of ourselves, and some dark day will see the
passing of the last great anchorman; then my friends
on such a day we will find that nothing can be left of us.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 03:57:50 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] comic relief
In-Reply-To: <200508090328.j793SJR19741@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050809035751.15226.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

ACTUAL HEADLINE: "What Will We Do Now That Peter
Jennings Is Gone?".
----------------------------------------
Why, we'll just have to put an end to it all, wont we?
Without this beloved ABC talking head, that
irreplacable anchorman, our lives are devoid of
wisdom. How can we be informed of what is transpiring
in this great big world of ours without him?
 Everytime a great anchorman passes away we lose a
part of ourselves, and some dark day will see the
passing of the last great anchorman; then my friends
on such a day we will find that nothing can be left of us.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Aug  9 03:59:59 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <20050809023338.35217.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809035959.14830.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
> > X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> > Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> > Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> > Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> > Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> > Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> > Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar
> > etc.
> > Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids,
> fragments,
> > debris 
> 
> Harvey, you sound like you have a testicular fixation... ;)

Nah.  He's just seriously wanting to play pool with solar systems (as
in that one episode of Red Dwarf).


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 04:04:22 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:34:22 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mike...
In-Reply-To: <20050808200718.39260.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808194005.37021.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050808200718.39260.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050808210472f52357@mail.gmail.com>

This is clearly an email to Mike Lorrey, why post it here? His email
address is mlorrey at yahoo.com

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *

On 09/08/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know if you refer to myself, Mike, but I've never for one nanosecond
> thought of Bush as a ' tard. Bush is extremely savvy, a savant, alot of coke
> and alcohol but so what. He is not in any way a retard, he can memorize
> speeches, he is nobody's fool. I try to hate Bush but can't, it's like
> hating silly old Jimmy Carter.
> Want to know what I dislike about so may xians? (glad you asked) They say
> they love but they don't. They love their kids, sure. Maybe their spouses.
> But when they hug me and say I love you it is disgusting. If someone calls
> you a 'brother in christ', you get the frick away from that scumbag without
> delay.
> 
>  
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >This is one reason why I find the left's hatred of Bush so laughable:
> >they can't seem to decide if he is a retard or a genius supervillain.
> >C'mon, MOVE ON, make up your minds already.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 04:11:40 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:11:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <42F81422.20504@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
> 
> mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
> >
> > I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, moons
> > and planets...
> 
> I have no idea if you're joking, but either way, this is such a wonderful
> post.
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky 

YES!  We are becoming all politics all the time.

I am reminded of the Simpsons episode when the mob 
nominated Ned Flanders to lead them, chanting 
"Ned Flanders! Ned Flanders!"  In his characteristic 
modesty, Ned says "I don't feel worthy of such 
a profound honor."  So the crowd starts chanting 
"Someone Else! Someone Else!"

{8^D  

Politics is the Ned Flanders of extropianism.  
Do let us cool that for a while, shall we?  Note that
we are not booting anything anywhere, just asking for
something else for a few days.  Anything else.  Please.

spike


                         



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug  9 04:46:55 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:46:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
In-Reply-To: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
References: <42F81422.20504@pobox.com>
	<200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808234048.01d4cee0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:11 PM 8/8/2005 -0700, spike wrote:

>We are becoming all politics all the time.

No, there's also the endless babble about how evolution is crap, and about 
how god is the answer, and any day now probably an onslaught against 
fluoridation and genetic engineering and that awful optimistic rational 
thinking.

>Do let us cool that for a while, shall we?  Note that
>we are not booting anything anywhere, just asking for
>something else for a few days.  Anything else.  Please.

Not *anything* else than politics. Please. The tedious trolling is not a 
good look for this list.

Damien Broderick
[the grouch at the table]





From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 04:54:44 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050808183347.10257.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809045444.86692.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> ...I was going to debate your points, but on this
> one you are correct.
> If you want a more thorough proof of why "evolution"
> is not the same as
> "God's will" than I can provide, go talk to
> professional biologists.

      Hold on tiger. I AM a professional biologist and
although I can prove that, given an existing organism,
evolution can proceed without the existence of God,
nothing that I know, nor experiments that I can
conceive of with existing technology, can prove that
evolution can proceed without some a priori life form.
Nor can I prove that evolution is NOT the will of God.
I think its a shame that both camps don't realize that
evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. If one
posits that life was a bunch of special creations
(sort of like product patents) by some designer, well
I can show you a ton of evidence why this is not the
case (like dinosaurs with feathers). But if one posits
that God or whoever instead simply designed the
progenote and its capacity to reproduce and undergo
evolution (like a process patent), there is no way to
disprove it. Indeed, in the complete lack of evidence,
experimental proof, and a sample size of one, this
hypothesis is by Bayesian standards of equal
probability of being true as any other hypothesis
about the origin of life.
      
     I KNOW evolution is true. The theory of evolution
alone however is not capable of disproving nor proving
the existense of an intelligent designer. Only that
that designer was not needed to explain the diversity
of life on Earth. One can speculate either way, but
one CANNOT know. Not unless we can figure out a way to
empirically determine it one way or another. I am not
talking about the synthesis of amino acids in the lab,
I am talking about the spontaneous generation of de
novo life in vitro.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 04:57:14 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:57:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808234048.01d4cee0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508090459.j794xDR28831@tick.javien.com>

> Not *anything* else than politics. Please. The tedious trolling is not a
> good look for this list.

Ja you are so right Damien.

Posters please review the Extropian principles and 
decide for yourself, after some calm and thorough
introspection, if this is the right place for you
to hang out.  

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm

This is what we are about.  Please read it over 
and ask yourself: is this me?

I have been getting a pile of offlist complaints
recently from several credible sources, and
they are right.  Our extro-signal to noise ratio
is way down.  Let us work on that, shall we?

spike


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
> 
...
> 
> No, there's also the endless babble about how evolution is crap...
> 
> Damien Broderick
> [the grouch at the table]




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Aug  9 05:28:11 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Correcting oneself (was: PR: Lanier trashing >Hism
	again...)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0508081735537d342f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050809052811.75879.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> And I propose that there is no safe way to use rational
> thinking alone to guard against its highjacking by your internal PR
> department; you need external, immovable indicators to tell you that
> you are on or off track.

I would tend to agree with that.

> With tech, I find that it's often pretty difficult to evaluate a
> technology without doing something semi-serious with it; the devil is
> usually in the detail. I agree about the expensive software bit, you
> can safely ignore it imo (and in the end, what choice do you have?)

Not just expensive software.  Hardware too: there exists hardware
cheap enough to play with on a hobby basis, although this is rarer than
with software.  (One of the end goals of personal manufacturing is to
lower hardware costs in order to enable more hardware to be played with
on a hobby basis.  Imagine what biotech would be like, if playing with
cells could be made as cheap as playing with programming code.)

> Have you given it a go?

Going to in the near future, probably later this week, once I have
enough free time (and sufficiently few "really should be done in the
near future" tasks to distract me).  My conclusion that I should play
with AJAX came this past weekend.

> After "loving it" for a month or so, and building something serious
> in
> it, I sat back and evaluated the whole thing. It sucked, and for real
> reasons that I could enumerate. But I feel far more secure in saying
> that now, because I've given it a serious go, and tried to like it.

Yeah.  One can try to honestly review something without trying it, and
come up with rational reasons for one's dislike, but that's difficult
and imperfect in the long run.

Another backup technique I've acquired is keeping some credible tech
news source in my daily news feed.  In my case it's Wired News, but
there are others out there (I used to read Slashdot, but I kept getting
distracted by the comments in order to verify if seemingly signidicant
stories were on the money...not that the comments were usually much
help with that).  Anything that starts getting mentioned a lot, I try
to find out at least the basics about - just enough to find out if I
need to investigate in depth.

I've kind of spun this into a pseudo-business.  When I meet people
professionally, and they think I'm running a business but don't know
quite what it is, I tell them I'm a technology matchmaker: I keep my
ear to the ground for the new and emerging technologies, then when I
happen across businesses in need of them, I introduce them - for a fee.
In reality, I don't actually do much of this (I'm closer to a serial
entrepeneur, matching tech solutions to problems and putting in just
enough effort to swing a profit), but the story is quite believable.
Unfortunately (or sometimes fortunately), it also keeps the usual
business networking institutions at arm's length: I'm unusual enough
that I don't fit nicely into their categories.  This leaves me time to
concentrate on my actual businesses...


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 05:40:09 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 06:40:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
In-Reply-To: <200508090459.j794xDR28831@tick.javien.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050808234048.01d4cee0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200508090459.j794xDR28831@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050808224017746d08@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/9/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I have been getting a pile of offlist complaints
> recently from several credible sources, and
> they are right.  Our extro-signal to noise ratio
> is way down.  Let us work on that, shall we?

I agree completely, at the moment I'd guess 70-80% of extropy-chat is
getting filtered to my Trash folder because it's just endless arguing
about SL0 politics. If you're engaged in a heated debate about such,
consider just saying your piece and letting the other party have the
last word.

- Russell


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Aug  9 05:43:56 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050809045444.86692.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809054356.72874.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ...I was going to debate your points, but on this
> > one you are correct.
> > If you want a more thorough proof of why "evolution"
> > is not the same as
> > "God's will" than I can provide, go talk to
> > professional biologists.
> 
>       Hold on tiger. I AM a professional biologist and
> although I can prove that, given an existing organism,
> evolution can proceed without the existence of God,
> nothing that I know, nor experiments that I can
> conceive of with existing technology, can prove that
> evolution can proceed without some a priori life form.
> Nor can I prove that evolution is NOT the will of God.

In this case, "God's will" != God's will.  I meant "God's will" and
"evolution" as in ways to justify things.  Evolution could indeed be
God's will...but believing that still means one believes evolution.
Believing in just God's will, without reference to the specific method
(say, by erasing all teaching of evolution), leaves room for a lot of
provably false beliefs.  (It's a lot simpler to believe that God just
poofed monkeys and man into existance, than to believe that God slowly
influenced mutations and chance encounters over many millenia in order
to evolve the chimpanzee genome into the homo sapiens genome.  Thus,
teaching just "God's will" in place of evolution naturally leads to the
former, erroneous belief, even though the latter is technically
consistent with "God's will".)

If intelligent design was being pitched as a philosophy - the reason
behind evolution - instead of as a "science", with the request that
teaching of ID take resources away from teaching of evolution, then I
suspect there would be a lot less resistance.  But that is not the
case.  ID is explicitly being proposed as an alternative to evolution.

Which really is a shame.  ID as a justification for evolution, instead
of an "alternative" to evolution, could be furthered for >H causes.  If
one believes that God used evolution to create mankind, that suggests
that (responsibly) taking advantage of the universe we've been
presented may in fact be God's will...including such things as altering
ourselves to be longer-lived, more intelligent (more capable of
perceiving God's wisdom?), et al.  Why fight the Catholic church if we
could co-opt it?  (Or, failing that, most of the Protestant churches.)
And that's just the Christian part of the world...


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Aug  9 06:02:08 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:02:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE:  Extropy Campus
References: <380-22005818133432680@M2W075.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <015101c59ca7$e3437e90$0300a8c0@Nano>

This sounds very exciting. Congrats! Just shoot me an email anytime..........if it's to bounce ideas around in a conceptual manner, for a specific design, or for something completely out of the graphics range. Whenever, what ever, I am always at your disposal. 


Gina`
www.nanogirl.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus

   

  From: Gina Miller 


  "I'm here if you need graphics assistance."

  Yes, this would be great.

  Natasha


  Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
  Nanotechnology Industries
  http://www.nanoindustries.com
  Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
  Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
  Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
  3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
  Microscope Jewelry
  http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
  Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
  "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Natasha Vita-More 
    To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; 
    Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 5:03 PM
    Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Campus


    Transhumanists and Futurists,

    Recently, I made a public announcement at the TransVision 2005 conference
  that Extropy Institute is opening its "Extropy Campus".  We are in the
  process of developing a lecture series from professionals in their fields. 
  The webpages will roll out during this fall semester. 

    We are focusing on skills for critical thinking, strategic planning,
  systems thinking, framework and scenario development for transhumanism.

    We at Extropy Institute look forward to hearing from you if you are
  interested in being a part of this richly designed and highly valuable
  program for transhumanism.

    If you would like to be involved in the campus, please let us know.

    Educate!

    Natasha



      Natasha Vita-More 
      Cultural Strategist, Designer 
      Studies of the Future, University of Houston 
      President, Extropy Institute 
      Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 


      Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.  Alvin Toffler 
      Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet




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


    _______________________________________________
    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/ .


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050808/15a91988/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Aug  9 08:13:29 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:13:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
References: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>

Mike Lorrey:

> Exactly: The Simulation Argument.
> This is our hook for implanting
> transhumanist philosophy in the population.

Robert M. Wald [1][2], in his recent paper "The Arrow 
of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe" [3], 
reminds us that the state of the very early universe 
was one of very low entropy. At the end of the paper 
he suggests that he lacks an answer, exactly like Boltzmann
many and many decades ago, as to why this is the case. 
But he is also suggesting not to look at dynamics 
(i.e. inflation) and philosophy (i.e. anthropic principles) 
for a solution of this Boltzmann's 'paradox' (early universe 
full of randomness ... at global low entropy state).
Now, assuming there *is* a time arrow, did *somebody* 
inject some information, or some negative entropy, 
at the very beginning? Or do *we*, here and now, create 
our present state, our future state, and even our past
cosmological state, in this smoky and, supposed, 
'participatory' universe :-)? 
s. 

[1] Wald, R. M., 'General Relativity', 
University of Chicago Press, 1984. 
[2] Wald, R. M., 'Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory 
of the Big Bang and Black Holes', University of Chicago 
Press, 1977.
[3] http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0507094





From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 08:20:13 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:20:13 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F7C9B1.6060207@lineone.net>
References: <200508080926.j789QBR14515@tick.javien.com>
	<42F7C9B1.6060207@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <fc47c9bf478b92c62c1f832433cf1ba8@aol.com>


On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:08 AM, ben wrote:

> "A -particular- mule is produced by some mutation.  One animal.  It's
> important that we're clear that -one animal- is required here, not
> millions of years of animals, but ONE ANIMAL that can no longer mate
> with members of its parents' species."
>
> This is not how it works.
> You are quite correct that this scenario is extremely unlikely. This 
> doesn't mean that evolution is incorrect, it means that that's not how 
> evolution works.

Obviously.

>
> After this happens enough times, the population will not be able to 
> interbreed successfully with the starting population, or, more 
> accurately, with the descendants of the starting population that 
> wandered off and stayed more genetically similar to it.


What you're describing is adaptation -within- a species which has not 
been contested seriously by anyone.  What we're trying to get at is 
large-scale adaptations on the order of Rhinoceros-elephant splits 
where the early rhino-fant was split into to two "subspecies" with only 
mildly different genetic profiles.   The elephants got trunks, the 
rhinos got horns, say.  At some point, though, some particular 
rhinofant is no longer able to reproduce with its cousins.  There is 
the -chance- that it may be able to reproduce with its siblings.   The 
problem is not the story up to the point of the rhinofant, the problem 
is with the one that can't do it any more and yet manages to take over 
the world.

That animal's mutation is 1)  reproduction related and 2)  apparently 
somewhat harmful since they can't reproduce with the rest of the 
eligible population.  They consequently have very, very low chances of 
surviving and mating.  That is to say, we are still left with the very, 
very unlikely and experimentally unverified need for a particular mule.

The addition of the complication of "over thousands of generations" 
doesn't do anything to remove the problem of the ONE that can't 
reproduce with the rest of the reproductively eligible population 
around it and yet manages to form the next species against the odds.

> This is not the only way evolution works,

The correct word would be 'might work' since, and this is the real 
problem, nobody really -knows- how it works/worked in the way that say, 
a mechanic knows how to fix a carburetor.

> A million monkeys with a million years. Yes, exactly. Can you see how 
> it's easy for a million monkeys with a million years to turn into a 
> bunch of guys banging rocks together?

Not really.  I can imagine them losing their hair, getting smarter, 
taller and better fed.  I can even imagine them mutating into something 
other.  But that's just my vivid imagination.  My scientific scepticism 
says "Exactly what mechanism would be required for that to happen and 
what evidence is there that such a mechanism existed".  Then I'd start 
looking at the microbiology of genes and realize that gene strands that 
isolate an animal from its potential reproductive partners are harmful 
and then I might start looking elsewhere.  I might also look at the 
fossil record for all the in-between species that we should be finding 
and when I didn't find them there, I might perservere or I might 
thinking about other options.  It depends on how dedicated I was to the 
idea.  On the other hand, if I'd gone and found that creating new 
species of animals was easy and likely to happen all the time and also 
found that in fact, outside the laboratory, there were lots of species 
being created all the time, then I'd be impressed with myself.  Until 
then, I'd use the term "theory" for my pet idea if I were responsible 
and honest.

Again, I have no problem -imagining- the world in which evolution might 
be true.  I just don't think our level of knowledge of the matter is as 
definitive as you apparently do.  This I think because the biology 
books I've read always manage to throw the monkeys and millenia 
argument around as though species were beachfronts being worn by waves. 
   But that kind of analogy breaks down quickly.

>  Because it is. It's very easy.
> And a few billion prokaryotes with a few billion years going spare 
> will turn into giraffes and redwood trees and crocodiles and giant 
> condors.

Sorry, don't see it.  I'm a litteralist,  I need actual historical 
events and mechanisms and evidence that those events and mechanisms are 
real.  Otherwise, they're theories.

> The rats example suffers from the same problem as the mule idea. 
> Massive overkill. Why do you want to irradiate them "enough so that 
> its eggs are a chromosome short"?

Because that's the kind of event that would produce something 
-actually- in a different reproductive group.  E.g something unable to 
reproduce with its cousins but able to reproduce with another thing 
that allows it to carry the gene.  I took the time to read up on the 
liger and tigon.  The females, apparently, are able to reproduce but 
not with other ligers or tigons as the case may be, because the males 
are mules.  Genetically, you can see that the liger or tigon can't ever 
become dominant because as each successive generation moves forth, the 
number of specifically liger/tigon genes are diluted since you need a 
real lion or real tiger to do the daddy work.  And these are with 
animals with a relatively healthy -mutation- one that doesn't kill all 
of them immediately or make them all completely unable to reproduce.

Here's what I'm getting at, which I'm sure you know.  The vast majority 
of mutations produce animals that are not viable - animals unable to 
survive or reproduce because of the handicap of having been -damaged- 
by some mutation.  The likelihood of accidentally producing -good- 
mutations by sheer chance is near nil.  The likelihood of then finding 
another animal with which to reproduce is even less likely as the 
diluted mutation is then poured back into the general gene pool of the 
species in question.   If there are lots of the other kind of animal - 
the competition from the herd is intense and unless the advantage 
caused by the mutation is genuinely staggering, it's not likely to make 
enough of a difference to push the mutated individual's genes forward.  
Put it this way - if a lion can hunt on the savannah successfully, so 
can a cheetah.  If the cheetah is a relative of the lion, the puny 
cheetah pup born from the lioness would be the runt with funny legs, 
but really fast.  If she reproduced -with another lion- her genes would 
be diluted, her children wouldn't necessarily carry her strange 
mutations, and if they did, they have a chance of being recessive.  So 
unless something -really drastic- happens like a lioness has mutant 
cubs that are subsequently isolated from the rest of the den and those 
mutant cubs are able to reproduce successfully with each other, then 
you get nothing.  If on top of that the mutant cubs are unable to 
reproduce with the mother's nephews, they might make a new species.  
But again, what's the likelihood that a mutation that affects one's 
ability to reproduce with the majority of your potential mating 
population is going to be a good one?

Net, net, we're guessing at probabilities.  What's the probability that 
if the Sixers won game 4 that they'd win game 5?  Some people estimate 
it 40/60, others 50/50, there are many methods of calculating 
probabilities that are equally valid.  Unless we back it up with some 
-causal mechanical theory- and some -actual observations- (say, the 
Sixers' average players are 4" taller than the opposing team, are 
faster and have better coaching or something) then our actual state of 
knowledge of the situation is nil.  We don't know, given that the 
Sixers won game 4, what the probability is that they'll win game 5 
-without further evidence.  I say we're in this situation with regard 
to Evolution.  Millions of years ago, the evolutionist tells us, the 
small apes were seperated into two groups somewhere in africa, one 
species lived in arid land, the other tropical.  The arid-land-apes 
developed techniques for survival in their new environment, etc.

Maybe, it's a nice story.  It's certainly not like the documentation we 
have on Hannibal's invasion of Italy.  Instead, it's a nice story.  
What's the likelihood that it happened?   Well, it depends on how you 
calculate odds.  The only reason to say something like "something like 
that must have happened, because we're here!" is that one is already 
committed to the theory.

>  (not that i have a clue how that could actually happen, but i'm going 
> with the spirit of the argument here). What you are saying is "let's 
> irradiate these rats so much that they are dead or sterile or 
> incapable of producing viable offspring. Oh, look, dead rats! So much 
> for evolution, then".

Events severe enough to cause animals not to be able to mate with their 
cousins are typically "evolutionarily deadly" - no kids - , I guess you 
get that already.

> If you want to see evolution at work in rats, expose them to a 
> low-level background radiation (something like that found on the 
> surface of the earth for example), and a selective pressure of some 
> sort (sub-optimal levels of a rat's essential amino acid, or such. I 
> don't know much about rat's dietary requirements, but you get the 
> idea), and see if we get any unusually healthy rats after a while.

Well, we get the ones we have, not unusually healthy, not unusually 
unhealthy, we get the mass of, from the point of view of the 
ever-improving genetic force of mutation and selective force, a really 
rather mediocre gene-pool all around.  If this force is as ubiquitous 
as you say, why don't we have super-rats and super-dogs and super-men?

>
> "Obviously, if it exists, God created it or created the thing that 
> created it, or created the thing that created the thing, etc."
>
> Doh. Just read that.
> OK, sorry to have wasted your (and my) time.
>
> ben
>
> PS One - just one -  question, i can't resist it: What created god, 
> then?

God is a necessary being, not contingent.  Your question is a category 
error like: "what causes there to be a number six?"

R



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 08:34:47 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:34:47 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050808230107.92080.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050808230107.92080.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4ca9597beefc84d008a20020afcc0b0e@aol.com>

What was so great about Churchill?

Agesilaus was the lame king of Sparta who was revered in Sparta for 
being nice and turned the balance of power from the senate to the king. 
Among his many victories as a warrior (for he was trained as a warrior, 
not as a king, he was the king's brother who took power when the senate 
decided they didn't like the king's real heir) was that over the 
Persians. He defeated them by signaling to their king Tisaphernes that 
he was going to attack Lydia and instead he attacked Phrygia, he used 
this tactic many times to his advantage and thus became well liked and 
honored among the Spartans who decided to coin the proverb in his 
honor:

To lie to one's countrymen is cowardly but to deceive an enemy in open 
war is honorable.

By all accounts, he was a good man, honorable, well-liked, wise and 
even kind for a Spartan.

However, the net effect of his rule was the downfall of Sparta because 
the Senate so trusted him as king that they gave the kingship too much 
power and subsequent generations of Spartan kings abused this power and 
ruined their fair city, allowing it to be overrun by the weaker greeks 
because their kings desired power too much.

Robbie


On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

> Questions for both of you: do you think we can elect a heavyweight, a 
> man or woman of Churchillian caliber for president in 2008? The 
> founders wanted us to select a president every four years, so since 
> we're saddled with that system for the forseeable future do you think 
> we can?make better choices?in?electing our chief executives?
> Or is the concept of great statesmen & women passe'?
>
> :
>> kevinfreels.com wrote:
>>
>> >It's such a shame that you have such a limited view of people. You 
>> have this
>> >nasty problem with grouping people rather than looking at them as
>> >individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am hardly the idiot that 
>> you are
>> >speaking of.
>> >
>> Fooled twice, huh? Sad.
>>
>> > I am a thinking individual.
>> >
>>
>> Everyone is. See, my opinion of people generally isn't so bad.
>>
>> > I am not a neo-con
>> >
>>
>> Maybe you are, have you checked their official views?
>>
>> > and I certainly
>> >don't support his religious views.
>> >
>>
>> They're unrelated.
>>
>> > I am an atheist and I disagree with many
>> >parts of the Bush agenda.
>> >
>> >
>> Just the part about killing arabs for grins and giggles, huh?
>>
>> >If you are the thinking person that you claim to be, you will real! 
>> ize soon
>> >that the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to 
>> polarizing
>> >voters in an attempt to win elections.
>> >
>>
>> Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a shill for the 
>> so-called
>> "right". I think I've said that here before.
>>
>> >So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an 
>> administration
>> >with a religious ideology?
>> >
>>
>> And a penchant for war profiteering?
>>
>> >Kerry though, probably
>> >couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
>> >
>> Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he was going to do. He
>> was going to go to the UN, appologize for having invaded Iraq and ask
>> for their assistance in establishing a legitmate and peaceful 
>> government
>> in Iraq. A reasonable proposition that I think would have been 
>> welcomed
>> at the UN.
>>
>> >I knew exactly where Bush stands
>> >
>> Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard. Bush is a sturdy known quantity. I
>> get it! . Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
>>
>> Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as 
>> unbearable
>> and anything was worth the switch.
>>
>> >And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
>> >
>> We all make only practical choices. I'm not a kerry supporter, so in
>> the end, I voted for my father. I learned long ago that they never
>> listen to me anyway.
>>
>> > I could care less who the
>> >president is or what party he is affiliated with.
>> >
>>
>> Me neither.
>>
>> > The issues are much
>> >greater than any one person. I will be glad to debate you on any 
>> issue, but
>> >a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
>> >
>> Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal and should he be 
>> tried
>> for his crimes?
>>
>> I, personally, think that was the most decisive reason -not- to vote 
>> for
>> georgy last time around.
>>
>> > A reasonable debate can
>> >only be obtained if we could first agree on each objective, every 
>> issue and
>> >it's importance. Then we could argue about how effectively this 
>> president
>> >carried out those objectives and handled each issue. Otherwise you 
>> are
>> >wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think this the proper, but I'm willing to have a civil
>> conversation about it.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home 
> page_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 09:17:55 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050809054356.72874.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Which really is a shame.  ID as a justification for
> evolution, instead
> of an "alternative" to evolution, could be furthered
> for >H causes.  If
> one believes that God used evolution to create
> mankind, that suggests
> that (responsibly) taking advantage of the universe
> we've been
> presented may in fact be God's will...including such
> things as altering
> ourselves to be longer-lived, more intelligent (more
> capable of
> perceiving God's wisdom?), et al.  Why fight the
> Catholic church if we
> could co-opt it?  (Or, failing that, most of the
> Protestant churches.)
> And that's just the Christian part of the world...

Amen, brother!

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From outlawpoet at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 09:49:05 2005
From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:49:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <fc47c9bf478b92c62c1f832433cf1ba8@aol.com>
References: <200508080926.j789QBR14515@tick.javien.com>
	<42F7C9B1.6060207@lineone.net>
	<fc47c9bf478b92c62c1f832433cf1ba8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3ad827f305080902494fc65f6f@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/9/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  What we're trying to get at is
> large-scale adaptations on the order of Rhinoceros-elephant splits
> where the early rhino-fant was split into to two "subspecies" with only
> mildly different genetic profiles.   The elephants got trunks, the
> rhinos got horns, say.  At some point, though, some particular
> rhinofant is no longer able to reproduce with its cousins.  There is
> the -chance- that it may be able to reproduce with its siblings.   The
> problem is not the story up to the point of the rhinofant, the problem
> is with the one that can't do it any more and yet manages to take over
> the world.

You continue to show a serious misunderstanding here about the process
of natural selection. Large net genetic differentials accrue within
breeding populations, not individuals. The rhinofant example, requires
that two separate mating pools occur, through environmental changes,
or perhaps geographic separation. The rhinos continue changing
according to their environmental pressures, and the elephants do the
same. Eventually the two populations are unable to interbreed because
of size differential, or chromosomal mismatch, or whatever. There is
no 'one animal' which defines speciation between taxonomic distinct
groups.



> 
> That animal's mutation is 1)  reproduction related and 2)  apparently
> somewhat harmful since they can't reproduce with the rest of the
> eligible population.  They consequently have very, very low chances of
> surviving and mating.  That is to say, we are still left with the very,
> very unlikely and experimentally unverified need for a particular mule.

Again with the mules. Genetic diversity within species exists because
of mutation, and built in differentiating mechanisms like diploid
chromosomal expression(recessive genes, for example). A breeding
population will change, as you have admitted, in response to
environment and activity. Two breeding populations with separate
pressures will go separate ways.

I've given references to you earlier in this thread for observed
speciation where the new species could not breed with the parent
species. You are either uninterested in this, or willfully ignorant.

> The addition of the complication of "over thousands of generations"
> doesn't do anything to remove the problem of the ONE that can't
> reproduce with the rest of the reproductively eligible population
> around it and yet manages to form the next species against the odds.

Many generations are required for genetic changes to express
significant changes. Biologists fiercely argue about the speed at
which evolution occurs, "Punctuated Equilibrium", "Cambrian Explosion"
and similar terms will get you the references.

In a modern and interesting example, take the so called 'brisk biter'
mosquitoes. molestus mosquitoes were separated from their parent
species, Culex pipiens, by the construction of the London Underground
in 1863. They were first studied in 1999, when Byrne and Nichols
showed that they were unable to breed with Culex pipiens, and showed
vastly different behavior. This is fantastically quick for observed
natural evolution, something on the order of 500 generations.

> My scientific scepticism
> says "Exactly what mechanism would be required for that to happen and
> what evidence is there that such a mechanism existed".

The mechanism of natural selection has many interesting evidential
claims. You may wish to peruse them. Fossil evidence is the most
famous, of course, and radio-carbon, geologic strata, ocean sediment
deposit dating all tend to show a wonderful progression of more
complex species over time.


>  Then I'd start
> looking at the microbiology of genes and realize that gene strands that
> isolate an animal from its potential reproductive partners are harmful
> and then I might start looking elsewhere.

Isolating from potential reproductive partners is of course, not the
mechanism of natural selection. A breeding population accrues changes
by preferential mating in higher sexed animals, and simple relative
reproductive fecundity in simpler.

>  I might also look at the fossil record for all the in-between species that we should be 
> finding and when I didn't find them there, I might perservere or I might  thinking about 
> other options. 

This is of course a very silly claim. Let me introduce you just a few
of the most famous transitional fossils that have been found. First,
Archeopteryx, the most famous dinosaur transitional fossil, was found
less than two years after the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the
Species". Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil, showing the descent
of birds from some dinosaurs. It has several subspecies that have been
found, each being more or less towards one side or the other.
Archeopteryx has been the subject of many creationist claims, but it
has stood the test of time, with 8 full specimens of the species
having been found, and several other transitional bird-dinosaur forms
in different stages of development of bird features(most notably the
1996 discovery of a feathered therapod).

Second are more close to home, the transitional human descendants.
Homo Habilis is perhaps the most contentious, with several skeletons
showing various brain sizes, and tooth development. H. Habilis brain
sizes range from 550cc to 750cc, compared to a modern human skull of
1350cc.

My favorite transitional fossils are whales. Whales are fascinating
creatures, that started out as big land mammals, and began living in
shallows and rivers, eventually losing their rear legs, and developing
blowholes instead of nostrils. (most whales still have teeny foot
bones in their tails that aren't connected to anything). Basilosaurus
isis, a whale ancestor who still has well developed legs(but they're
really small and would be useless for walking on land).


> It depends on how dedicated I was to the
> idea.  On the other hand, if I'd gone and found that creating new
> species of animals was easy and likely to happen all the time and also
> found that in fact, outside the laboratory, there were lots of species
> being created all the time, then I'd be impressed with myself.

So glad you mentioned this too. In the laboratory, many species have
been created in controlled conditions, the most common are plants,
whose robust ability to hybridize has surprised many an incautious
scientist.(see recent stories of genetically engineered crops
hybridizing with local weeds to create resistant strains). Most of
these are trivial kinds of crosses, like more robust rubber plants,
and so on, but a few are really fantastic, like a fireweed species,
which polyploidized with itself somehow, creating a new species that
could not reproduce with the original strain(since you like that
speciation test so much., ref:  Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for
autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 
21:713-719)

> Again, I have no problem -imagining- the world in which evolution might
> be true.  I just don't think our level of knowledge of the matter is as
> definitive as you apparently do.  This I think because the biology
> books I've read always manage to throw the monkeys and millenia
> argument around as though species were beachfronts being worn by waves.

Species are pretty transitory in the larger scheme of things. You see
any trilobites around? Save for very long lived things like Sharks
(triassic) particular species rarely stay put. The situation is always
changing. Wolves and dogs(since you seem to like them too) for
example, don't appear in the fossil record more than a few million
years ago, being preceded by ancestors like Cynodictus, dawn-wolf. Why
is that, do you suppose?

> Here's what I'm getting at, which I'm sure you know.  The vast majority
> of mutations produce animals that are not viable - animals unable to
> survive or reproduce because of the handicap of having been -damaged-
> by some mutation.

Mutations and genetic diversity are far subtler, generally than the
genetic disorders you are likely thinking of here. A slightly taller
person qualifies perfectly well for a differentiating factor which may
nudge a reproductive group into a new niche.

>  The likelihood of accidentally producing -good-
> mutations by sheer chance is near nil.

This happens to be true, but it's not important. Genetic diversity
comes from many sources, only one of which is random mutation. Green
eyes, slightly thicker fingernails, a more aggressive potassium
intracellular pump, these all come from the same place, and are more
than enough to select on. The rarity of mutation doesn't matter, so
long as the traits enter the breeding population, either as first-line
changes, or as recessive characteristics that will express under later
conditions.

> The likelihood of then finding another animal with which to reproduce is even less likely as > the diluted mutation is then poured back into the general gene pool of the
> species in question.

The wonderful thing about sex is that we carry twice as many
chromosomes as we need. I don't think you really appreciate what that
does for the carry capacity of traits per organism, per breeding
population. Your arguments only apply to haploid organisms, and do
actually make evolution slightly harder, which is why diploids and
polyploids are so much more common and adaptable.

 
>  Millions of years ago, the evolutionist tells us, the
> small apes were seperated into two groups somewhere in africa, one
> species lived in arid land, the other tropical.  The arid-land-apes
> developed techniques for survival in their new environment, etc.

Well, it's pretty humble, to be sure, but we do have a few hundred
fossils, of ascending dates, showing this migration and species
change. How would you explain these fossils, particularly the fact
that many of them belong to species that seem to no longer exist? And
are post-dated by other fossils, similar but different, who are
post-dated by other fossils still?

> Well, we get the ones we have, not unusually healthy, not unusually
> unhealthy, we get the mass of, from the point of view of the
> ever-improving genetic force of mutation and selective force, a really
> rather mediocre gene-pool all around.  If this force is as ubiquitous
> as you say, why don't we have super-rats and super-dogs and super-men?

See, this is where I wonder if you're being willfully silly. Of course
they're not 'unusually healthy'. Unusual compared to what? Other
species? Those other species that are acted on by the same forces? We
have rats turning into other things, but we can't necessarily see
which changes will lead to super-rats, and which will simply die out.
Evolution has no end goals, only local reproductive differentials.
Look at all the different species of rats and mice, each in their
environment, with different characteristics. Know that they are
thought to descend from Tribosphenomys minutus. Humans are super,
compared to Homo Erectus, with pitiful brain sizes, and poor running
legs.


> God is a necessary being, not contingent.  Your question is a category
> error like: "what causes there to be a number six?"

This is entirely off-topic, but I have to point out. Your categories
of necessary and contingent are not coherent. What distinguishes
contingent and necessary beings? Well, necessary beings are necessary
by definition, and contingent beings are contingent on other beings
existing. By this definition, you would be justified cutting off the
chain at any point, and calling that necessary. You could call Humans
the uncaused causer, if you weren't interested in investigating any
further behind them. God could be contingent on other beings you have
no way of knowing about, without investigation. Unless 'god' is
semantic, a category which automatically redefines to whomever is
first, in which case, you can ascribe God no characteristics, because
you can never know if you've found the right God.

-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com


From jedwebb at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  9 09:53:50 2005
From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:53:50 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired Article on Life Extension
In-Reply-To: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY102-F1062B23C63952A50844573B6BB0@phx.gbl>

There is an article on life extension on the wired web site at:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,68073,00.html

Jeremy Webb




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 11:13:38 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <fc47c9bf478b92c62c1f832433cf1ba8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> What we're
> trying to get at is 
> large-scale adaptations on the order of
> Rhinoceros-elephant splits 
> where the early rhino-fant was split into to two
> "subspecies" with only 
> mildly different genetic profiles.   The elephants
> got trunks, the 
> rhinos got horns, say.  At some point, though, some
> particular 
> rhinofant is no longer able to reproduce with its
> cousins.

Only pre-genomic era biologists, working entirely on
morphology, would place elephants in the same clade as
rhinos. Phylogenetically, elephants are more closely
related to manatees and sea cows than they are to
rhinos. Rhinos are more closely related to lions and
zebras than they are to elephants. 
http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/Phylogeny.htm

Convergent evolution is a tricky and misleading
phenomenon. But barring your incorrect example, I see
the argument you are trying to make. I will try as
briefly as I can to show you how speciation works.

Lets say you have two related but mating incompatable
species the jabberwocks and the bandersnatches. Now
both bandersnatches and jabberwocks are ferocious
carnivorous reptiles that descended from a common
ancestor: the humble insect eating slithy tove.
At first there are only slithy toves and they live in
an envoronment called the wabe where they gyre and
gimble.

Now the first thing you must note is that there are
several varieties of mutation. Aneuploidy, gene
deletion, gene duplication, chromosomal tranlocations,
transposons, retroviruses, and some simple single base
pair mutations.

Now in any eukaryotic organisms (i.e. anything more
complex than a bacterium or an archaea) a large
majority of the genome consists of intergenic regions
of so-called junk DNA. Which aren't really junk, but
they doesn't encode genes either. Moreover the genetic
code is degenerate and redundant which means that you
can often change the 2 out the 3 bases that code for
an amino acid without changing the amino acid. 

Because of these facts, it is a misconception that the
vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Instead
the vast majority of mutations are silent meaning they
have absolutely no effect on the relative fitness of
the organism. Of the remaining mutations a large
number are minutely beneficial or minutely
deleterious. Only a handful are extremely damaging or
extremely beneficial. 

Keep in mind, I am not talking about dumping plutonium
into the wabe here, I am talking about natural normal
mutation rates which are governed by such factors as
the amount of repair enzymes in germline cells and
other regulatory mechanisms. Now every so often a
slithy tove is born with a mutation in one of its
genes that encodes for a larger sturdier hip that
allows them to run after flying insects on their hind
legs. 

While some others get born with stronger claws that
help them burrow for insects. With no natural
predators in the swampy morass of the wabe, a fair
number of these mutations go by unoticed. And they are
all still interbreeding such that 80% of them are
"normal", 10% have strong hips, and 10% of them
burrow.

Many generations go by and then the weather changes a
little and the wabe becomes a somewhat milder climate.
Now the happy paradise of the slithy toves is lost
because the voracious jubjub bird has moved in to
wabe. Now after several more generations of being
preyed upon by jubjub birds, the wabe is a very
different place. 

The burrowing toves have been succesful because they
could burrow away from the jubjub bird. The running
toves are successful because they can run away from
the jubjub birds. While the poor slithy toves that can
only gyre and gimble are being decimated by the
voracious jubjub birds. So now the population is 40%
burrowing toves, 40% running toves, and only 20%
slithy toves.

While it is still possible for the various toves to
interbreed, they almost never do because the none of
the other toves will stop digging or stop running long
enough to mate with the poor slithy toves. Moreover
the burrowers have evolved an acute sense of smell to
find their food and their mates underground. So male
burrowing toves just LOVE the stinky females because
he can find them in the dark.

While on the surface, the female running toves really
LOVE the big bright colorful males because any male
that can be bright blue in a jubjub bird infested
swamp must really be able to run fast. To neither
subspecies is the slithy tove any longer at all
sexually attractive because well its to busy getting
eaten to mate.

A few more thousands of generations go by. Some
mosquitos bearing west nile virus move into the wabe.
There is a plague amongst the jubjub birds and their
ranks start to thin out. The slithy toves are nearly
extinct now. The running toves have become larger and
faster spending more time running around searching for
prey. The burrowing toves have become larger and have
grown long sharp teeth in addition to their burrowing
grasping claws. 

Futhermore unbeknownst to any of the creatures
concerned because it is a SILENT mutation to the their
respective gene pools, somewhere down the line the
acrosomes on the egg cells of the females have changed
in all 3 species such that they can no longer
interbreed. The sperm just can't fertilize the eggs of
the other species any longer. Not that the burrowing
or running descendants of the toves would want to
since they are so different now any way. 

A few more thousands of generations go by, the slithy
toves are make a slight comeback because the jubjub
birds have all been wiped out. But because of the
progressively cooler climate and the sheer efficiency
of the burrowers and the runners, insects have been
becoming more scarce. Thus the burrowers have become
still larger so that they can eat more types of prey
like the large borogoves, and occasionally the now
rare jubjub birds, the pitiful slithy toves. In short,
they have become full fledged jabberwocks. The runners
have also become larger and more frumious and have
become bandersnatchs, and relish chasing down large
mome raths to feast upon.

     Notice that at no time was there an intelligent
designer or "mules" involved in the evolution of the
ecology of the wabe. Just mutation, environmental
change, and adaptation. 



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 13:17:51 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20050809131751.52524.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> Robert M. Wald [1][2], in his recent paper "The
> Arrow 
> of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe"
> [3], 
> reminds us that the state of the very early universe
> 
> was one of very low entropy. At the end of the paper
> 
> he suggests that he lacks an answer, exactly like
> Boltzmann
> many and many decades ago, as to why this is the
> case.
> But he is also suggesting not to look at dynamics 
> (i.e. inflation) and philosophy (i.e. anthropic
> principles) 
> for a solution of this Boltzmann's 'paradox' (early
> universe 
> full of randomness ... at global low entropy state).

Might I posit the Einstein hypothesis to explain the
Boltzmann paradox. The Einstein hypothesis is simply
that the early high randomness low entropy state of
the universe corresponded to the universe being ALIVE
at that stage.

Your condition of high energy and thermal activity in
a suprisingly low entropy system far from equilibrium
yet stably so has a parallel in biology: the cell.
What if the universe was once all a single possibly
intelligent being? Then as its entropy increased, the
uberbeing degenerated into small isolated subsystems
that still used the thermodynamic cycles of the
original uberbeing. Like a zygote undergoing cleavage,
cell division, and apoptosis.

What if God didn't create us... what if God broke
himself into little pieces and BECAME us like Brahma
in hinduism.

I choose to call it the Einstein Hypothesis because
Einstein was, like myself, a pantheist. He believed
the universe was a rational being synonymous with God. 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Aug  9 13:26:55 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:26:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>
References: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050809092344.01ef6f80@mail.gmu.edu>

At 04:13 AM 8/9/2005, scerir at libero.it wrote:
>Robert M. Wald [1][2], in his recent paper "The Arrow
>of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe" [3],
>reminds us that the state of the very early universe
>was one of very low entropy. At the end of the paper
>he suggests that he lacks an answer, exactly like Boltzmann
>many and many decades ago, as to why this is the case.
>But he is also suggesting not to look at dynamics
>(i.e. inflation) and philosophy (i.e. anthropic principles)
>for a solution of this Boltzmann's 'paradox' (early universe
>full of randomness ... at global low entropy state). ...
>[1] Wald, R. M., 'General Relativity',
>University of Chicago Press, 1984.
>[2] Wald, R. M., 'Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory
>of the Big Bang and Black Holes', University of Chicago
>Press, 1977.
>[3] http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0507094

I prefer these thoughtful commentaries on the subject:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0210527
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0405270



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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Aug  9 13:28:23 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:28:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
Message-ID: <380-22005829132823144@M2W070.mail2web.com>


From: Damien Broderick 

At 09:11 PM 8/8/2005 -0700, spike wrote:

>We are becoming all politics all the time.

No, there's also the endless babble about how evolution is crap, and about 
how god is the answer, and any day now probably an onslaught against 
fluoridation and genetic engineering and that awful optimistic rational 
thinking.

>Do let us cool that for a while, shall we?  Note that
>we are not booting anything anywhere, just asking for
>something else for a few days.  Anything else.  Please.

"Not *anything* else than politics. Please. The tedious trolling is not a 
good look for this list.

Damien Broderick
[the grouch at the table]"

But grouches at the table speak up because they care and thank you for
speaking up.

I reviewed some of the threads recently and I agree with Damien and Spike. 
Some of the posts are overly sentimental, lacking in direction and
contribution to the ideas of extropic transhumanism.

Each day is a new day and let's start fresh in making a giant step for
transhumanism by practicing extropy!

Natasha






_______________________________________________
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 dirk at neopax.com  Tue Aug  9 13:45:19 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:45:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Psi
Message-ID: <42F8B36F.9040209@neopax.com>

Any women or couples in the London area willing to take part in a Psi expt?
We are trying to recreate the Owen experiment of the 1970s in an updated 
seance-like atmosphere and need a gender balanced group (for reasons I 
won't go into now). It will probably need a weekly committment for 
several months, based in S London for now.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 09/08/2005



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Aug  9 13:46:39 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:46:39 -0400
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is
	notdead...
Message-ID: <380-220058291346397@M2W076.mail2web.com>

From:  mail at harveynewstrom.com

"We should describe objects based on their characteristics.  I 
would prefer a system like this: 

X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar etc.
Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris"

Nice.  :-)  

Natasha


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




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Aug  9 13:51:20 2005
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:51:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <a8805c344cde8ca0cb398c8957e3e4a6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 12:11 AM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
>> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
>>
>> mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, 
>>> moons
>>> and planets...
>>
>> I have no idea if you're joking, but either way, this is such a 
>> wonderful
>> post.
>>
>> --
>> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
>
> YES!  We are becoming all politics all the time.

I am still tempted to ban politics.  Not because they are left or 
right.  But because they are past and present.  Why don't we talk about 
the future for a while?

> Politics is the Ned Flanders of extropianism.
> Do let us cool that for a while, shall we?  Note that
> we are not booting anything anywhere, just asking for
> something else for a few days.  Anything else.  Please.

Harv says:  "When you want to talk about the future, current events are 
spam."

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2375 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050809/de9d1069/attachment.bin>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 15:04:45 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:04:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
In-Reply-To: <380-22005829132823144@M2W070.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <200508091506.j79F6jR02985@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com
...
> 
> "Not *anything* else than politics. Please. The tedious trolling is not a
> good look for this list.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> [the grouch at the table]"
> 
> But grouches at the table speak up because they care and thank you for
> speaking up.
> 
> I reviewed some of the threads recently and I agree with Damien and Spike.
> Some of the posts are overly sentimental, lacking in direction and
> contribution to the ideas of extropic transhumanism.
> 
> Each day is a new day and let's start fresh in making a giant step for
> transhumanism by practicing extropy!
> 
> Natasha


Today's material was better and more interesting than before,
such as the excellent evolution post by Stuart avantguardian.  

Thanks guys!

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug  9 15:12:57 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:12:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <a8805c344cde8ca0cb398c8957e3e4a6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <200508091514.j79FEuR03859@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
...
> 
> I am still tempted to ban politics.  Not because they are left or
> right.  But because they are past and present.  Why don't we talk about
> the future for a while?
> 
> > Politics is the Ned Flanders of extropianism...
> 
> Harv says:  "When you want to talk about the future, current events are
> spam."
> 
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
> CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP


Thanks Harvey!  

No bans on politics, continued urging to keep it
interesting and relevant to extropianism.  Lets watch
a few days, see if it works.  I fully agree tho: we 
are about the future.

I did notice that posters have generally been getting
better at not attacking each other excessively,
so let's try the same laissez faire approach to
signal improvement.  

spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug  9 15:27:16 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:27:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050809131751.52524.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>
	<20050809131751.52524.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809102040.01db2888@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:17 AM 8/9/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:


>What if the universe was once all a single possibly
>intelligent being? Then as its entropy increased, the
>uberbeing degenerated into small isolated subsystems
>that still used the thermodynamic cycles of the
>original uberbeing. Like a zygote undergoing cleavage,
>cell division, and apoptosis.
>
>What if God didn't create us... what if God broke
>himself into little pieces and BECAME us like Brahma
>in hinduism.

A version of this ancient idea appears in the conclusion of my singularity 
novel (with Rory Barnes) THE HUNGER OF TIME, which I excerpt here:


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


`I suppose when you girls were kids, Hugh must have told you how the world 
was born?'

`A spinning cloud of gas around the Sun, right?' In fact it had been Grace 
who first told us that enchanting story.

`Farther back, Natalie. The cosmos entire, space and time and energy 
positive and negative. Flung into existence out of non-being, with the 
first instant of time, in the Big Bang.'

`Oh yeah, that. Well, of course. Everyone knows about the?-'

`Gaia, the gods, we singularity gods, were not born until long after 
mindless chemical life struggled forth upon the planets and comets,' the 
Talbot neem thing said, and I was reminded yet again of its true nature. 
`But our true first parents, the Titans, were hewn by evolution from Chaos 
in the earliest eternities of the very first microsecond of the Big Bang.'

What? What? Had he meant all that stuff literally, after all?

`Can you understand this mystery?'

`No.' I squeezed my hands together tightly.

`It is not so hard to follow. So great were the energies, so tightly packed 
the nearly closed new-born universe, so very swift the foldings and 
unfoldings, that billions of years of virtual time were compressed within 
its first flaring instant.'

All of this abruptly flamed about me in lurid imagery, a fireworks display 
out of Dante. Were they imposing this understanding directly upon my mind, 
like the language machine of the True Knowledge people, or awakening lost 
memories from childhood? The cosmos peeled open to my inward vision. 
Ignition, followed by complication as the first pure unity of all forces 
cracked apart in the cooling, outward rushing cosmos. Gravity splitting 
away from the strong nuclear force, the weak force, electromagnetism, 
refrigerating and shredding reality. Entangled membrane sheets, lonely 
particles swallowed up and spat out as the earliest blazing heat cooled 
toward darkness. Yes, it came back to me, I'd seen it on a dozen Discovery 
programs. I'd heard the story told to Suzanna and me a score of times by 
Hugh when other children our age were being taught the pretty fantasies of 
Genesis. It had never seized me by the scruff of the neck as it did now; 
yes, now it shook me with its grandeur. But after all, Hugh and Grace had 
not known the real story, if this was indeed a tale to be trusted. Gods, 
evolved from heat and noise in the first trillion virtual years that had 
been squeezed into that first minute or second or tiny fraction of a second 
of the new-born universe.

I stood up, shaking. `What happened to them?'

`In the great cooling that followed, when light collapsed into matter, the 
first great minds became trapped in the fractal ridges of this paralyzed 
new order. Deathless they were but immobilized, stretched across 
accelerating billion light-year skies. Those shrieking Titans, Natalie, 
those Bright Angels, those gods before the gods--they're there still. We 
can't see them yet, but we know they are there.'

I cringed, and my skin felt very cold.

`They suffer and have no voice to scream. The Angels fell from the great 
glowing heat of their birth into a terror of frozen spacetime, and as they 
placed their last locked impress upon it, forged our geometries and our 
deepest yearnings. It is the echo of their last silent howl we hear ringing 
through the voids of stars and galaxies and all the greater darknesses 
between.'

I pressed my hands to my ears, unable to bear the dread he spoke, unable to 
turn it to a joke, unable to resist this appalling epiphany of pain.

`They're... still there? After all these eons, still suffering?'

`It is their agony, above all, that creation groaneth under,' the Talbot 
neem said. He stood now on the far side of the room, surrounded by a halo 
of stars within stars. `Our first and final duty is to find them, to 
recover them from confinement, to end their suffering at last.'

I did laugh, then, a painful lacerating bark. `Oh, good, so that's what 
humanity's goal has always been. All the Rabbis and Popes and Mullahs had 
it exactly wrong.' I laughed again, and it hurt my throat. `Fuck. 
Wonderful. We were never meant to seek redemption in God.' In my mind, I 
saw a huge, parodic, red-lettered GOING WRONG WAY sign catching the rushed 
headlights above the highway to eternity. `Oh no, it's up to us, poor 
damned dupes, to redeem the gods.'

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

Anyone interested in the novel, maybe ordering it for their local library, 
can get the trade paperback (with its Anders Sandberg cover) from Amazon or 
more directly from

http://www.ereads.com/book.asp?bookid=642

Damien Broderick  



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug  9 15:39:49 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:39:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050809045444.86692.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050809045444.86692.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F8CE45.5050106@jefallbright.net>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>  I AM a professional biologist and although I can prove that, given an
>  existing organism, evolution can proceed without the existence of
>  God, nothing that I know, nor experiments that I can conceive of with
>  existing technology, can prove that evolution can proceed without
>  some a priori life form.
>
<snip>
 >
>  I am not talking about the synthesis of amino acids in the lab, I am
>  talking about the spontaneous generation of de novo life in vitro.
>

It is interesting that as a biologist, you draw the line of "knowing 
evolution works" at the edge of the biological realm. 

Why not broaden your view to include pre-biological evolutionary processes?
Examples include the formation of galaxies, the production of heavier 
elements from hydrogen via the life cycle of stars, the emergence of 
water and more complex molecules.

Why not broaden your view to include post-biological processes?
Examples include the growth of shared culture, from social organization 
in apes, to tribes, city-states and nations, and the recent example of 
the growing global information network.

While the mechanisms of evolutionary development are various and 
increasingly diverse, a common thread of persistence translated to 
growth via synergetic advantage within non-equilibrium systems runs 
throughout.

There is no "proof"  or "knowing" available in any ultimate sense, but I 
will claim that it is useful to explore and abstract such large-scale 
patterns and that they can be applied to our own (subjective) models of 
the world toward achieving our own (subjective) goals.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From jonkc at att.net  Tue Aug  9 15:57:32 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:57:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
References: <200508080926.j789QBR14515@tick.javien.com><42F7C9B1.6060207@lineone.net>
	<fc47c9bf478b92c62c1f832433cf1ba8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c59cfb$17dbc3d0$6dee4d0c@MyComputer>

"Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com>

> adaptation -within- a species which has not been
> contested seriously by anyone.  What we're trying
> to get at is large-scale adaptations on the order
> of Rhinoceros-elephant splits

What about an intermediate case? Lions and Tigers are considered 2 separate
species in all the textbooks but they can interbreed and produce fertile
offspring, not easily, the success rate is quite low but it is possible. And
if just shown the bones even experts have enormous difficulty telling one
from the other. So is that adaptation within a species or large scale
adaptation or something in-between?

Another example are mules, about one in a million mules are fertile. So are
horses and donkeys COMPLETELY different species or ALMOST different species?
In evolution it is the rare success that drives things and after all, mules
are more intelligent and longer lived than either of their parents.

   John K Clark






From scerir at libero.it  Tue Aug  9 17:17:40 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:17:40 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
References: <20050809131751.52524.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c59d06$3fef9e40$00c21b97@administxl09yj>

The Avantguardian:

> Might I posit the Einstein hypothesis to explain the
> Boltzmann paradox. The Einstein hypothesis is simply
> that the early high randomness low entropy state of
> the universe corresponded to the universe being ALIVE
> at that stage.

Alive? Well Boltzmann speculated that a very low entropy
(thus singular, or peculiar, or rare) initial state
of our universe may have arisen as a fluctuation from
an 'abstract' equilibrium universe. So, in a certain sense,
it was already alive, according to Boltzmann.

But Feynman pointed out that the actual size of our 
observed universe is too large, by far, for what 
is needed according to Boltzman's idea.

We might also imagine that, in that initial (weird)
Planckian era, entropy was not minimal, or maximal,
but both at the same time. As far as I remember 
something like this was suggested by Landsberg
and also Frautschi, not sure though. 
http://www.maths.soton.ac.uk/applied/research/Thermo.phtml
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Frautschi-S/

s.

"... it is necessary to add to the physical laws the
hypothesis that in the past the universe was more
ordered, in the technical sense, than it is today -
to make sense, and to make an understanding of the
irreversibility." (R.P.Feynman, in 'The Character
of Physical Law', MIT Press, 1967)





From scerir at libero.it  Tue Aug  9 17:18:53 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:18:53 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] intelligent design homework
References: <20050807183628.45763.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000301c59cba$3a3be0e0$6ac11b97@administxl09yj>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050809092344.01ef6f80@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <000801c59d06$6b486b80$00c21b97@administxl09yj>

Robin Hanson:

> I prefer these thoughtful commentaries on the subject:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0210527
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0405270

I'll read these papers, thanks.
s.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Aug  9 17:53:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:53:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On co-opting religion for >human ends
In-Reply-To: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C97A7D3D-1DB6-4B34-AE5F-9BAA4367EEA7@mac.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:17 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Which really is a shame.  ID as a justification for
>> evolution, instead
>> of an "alternative" to evolution, could be furthered
>> for >H causes.  If
>> one believes that God used evolution to create
>> mankind, that suggests
>> that (responsibly) taking advantage of the universe
>> we've been
>> presented may in fact be God's will...including such
>> things as altering
>> ourselves to be longer-lived, more intelligent (more
>> capable of
>> perceiving God's wisdom?), et al.  Why fight the
>> Catholic church if we
>> could co-opt it?  (Or, failing that, most of the
>> Protestant churches.)
>> And that's just the Christian part of the world...
>>
>

I thought of doing that or something in part along such lines.  With  
further thought and self-examination I don't believe it is workable.   
Such claims of what is "God's will" merely stand among other  
radically different claims that have much tradition and huge inertia  
behind them.

Almost all the religions start with some premise of the specialness  
of humanity and their creation.   Unfortunately this says things  
about the nature of human beings that fly in the face of our  
knowledge of humans to date.  Pick you poison.  There is the view  
that "we are made in the image of God".   Interesting.  God is an  
evolved chimp roughly 99% genetically identical to same?  God is of  
quite limited intelligence and subject to a great deal of  
evolutionary programming and internal pressures?   God is off fragile  
constitution?    The New Age version that we are already perfect is  
even more laughably absurd.

All forms of dualism in and outside of religion claim we have some  
Mind or Soul part that somehow inhabits or controls the meat part.    
Increasingly the evidence is that the meat and the "programs" running  
on it is all there is.  Given a "soul"  then the clear high goal for  
life is whatever is best for the soul.  Many Abrahamic religions tend  
toward perfecting the soul in part through suffering or submission to  
God even claiming the suffering on earth is simply God's will.  This  
view is highly incompatible with transhumanism.  Many Eastern  
religions hold that the soul or its equivalent has life after life in  
this place of suffering until it releases all desires for anything  
here and finds some meditative bliss state and perfect intuitive  
understanding of everything.  Funny how all those bliss babies rarely  
discover anything that would end much of the actual physical  
suffering around them.   Os this perfect Knowing seems highly suspect  
and this bliss, sweet as I know from experience that it is, highly  
suspect.  There is nothing in such a meaning to life that makes much  
room for transhumanism.  Yes, you can bolt it on but the fundamental  
view of the religions is dualistic and other worldly generally  
speaking.  The basic core beliefs about the nature of human beings  
and our place in the world is not compatible with scientific  
understanding and is usually held as axiomatic.

Being one who is highly susceptible to mysticism, visions and so on,   
find the project personally extremely difficult.  It is all too easy  
to be sucked into quite enticing POVs that are severely out of  
balance with hard won understanding and the rudiments of rationality.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Aug  9 18:13:23 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:13:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <a8805c344cde8ca0cb398c8957e3e4a6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
	<a8805c344cde8ca0cb398c8957e3e4a6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <B029B62C-D790-4DCE-B445-302946B81E3D@mac.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Harv says:  "When you want to talk about the future, current events  
> are spam."
>

Then I reckon you can't get there from here.

-s



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug  9 18:17:25 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:17:25 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42F8F335.1080402@aol.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What we're
>>trying to get at is 
>>large-scale adaptations on the order of
>>Rhinoceros-elephant splits 
>>where the early rhino-fant was split into to two
>>"subspecies" with only 
>>mildly different genetic profiles.   The elephants
>>got trunks, the 
>>rhinos got horns, say.  At some point, though, some
>>particular 
>>rhinofant is no longer able to reproduce with its
>>cousins.
>>    
>>
>
>Only pre-genomic era biologists, working entirely on
>morphology, would place elephants in the same clade as
>rhinos. 
>

I was just playing -imagining- is what we were doing, discussing what we 
could -imagine-.


 -great story snipped-

>A few more thousands of generations go by, the slithy
>toves are make a slight comeback because the jubjub
>birds have all been wiped out. But because of the
>progressively cooler climate and the sheer efficiency
>of the burrowers and the runners, insects have been
>becoming more scarce. Thus the burrowers have become
>still larger so that they can eat more types of prey
>like the large borogoves, and occasionally the now
>rare jubjub birds, the pitiful slithy toves. In short,
>they have become full fledged jabberwocks. The runners
>have also become larger and more frumious and have
>become bandersnatchs, and relish chasing down large
>mome raths to feast upon.
>
>     Notice that at no time was there an intelligent
>designer or "mules" involved in the evolution of the
>ecology of the wabe. Just mutation, environmental
>change, and adaptation. 
>  
>

I, too, can imagine many things.  I'm not claiming it isn't possible, 
just that estimation of its likelihood is subjective.

Best,

Robbie Lindauer



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug  9 18:42:47 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:42:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On categories and classification
In-Reply-To: <42F8F335.1080402@aol.com>
References: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F8F335.1080402@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42F8F927.2090003@jefallbright.net>

I've noticed a lot of discussion recently revolve around categories, 
labels, classification and the like.  Attempts to categorize the 
fundamental areas of human knowledge as the path to a grand theory of 
everything, discussions of things or actions being moral or immoral as 
if they could be independent of their context, biological vs. 
non-biological  or alive vs. not alive, or conscious vs. not conscious, 
or positing absolute and assumedly intrinsic natural classifications of 
animal species. I thought it might be both fun and useful to share one 
of my passages from Jorge Luis Borges:

[From the] 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote 
pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to 
the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) 
fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, 
(i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair 
brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that 
from a long way off look like flies.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Aug  9 18:57:48 2005
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:57:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ASTRO: Defining 'planet'
In-Reply-To: <B029B62C-D790-4DCE-B445-302946B81E3D@mac.com>
References: <200508090413.j794DdR24926@tick.javien.com>
	<a8805c344cde8ca0cb398c8957e3e4a6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<B029B62C-D790-4DCE-B445-302946B81E3D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <9403bcabd3e9258540cf5320b11971ab@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:13 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>
>> Harv says:  "When you want to talk about the future, current events 
>> are spam."
>>
>
> Then I reckon you can't get there from here.

Good point.

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Aug  9 19:03:18 2005
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:03:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] On categories and classification
In-Reply-To: <42F8F927.2090003@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42F8F335.1080402@aol.com> <42F8F927.2090003@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <b41d9d1990279bd48ef32452e3c3e52d@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:

> [From the] 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'.

My favorite categorization of stars comes from an old forgotten source: 
  Stars that are on, stars that are off, stars that turn on and off, 
stars that haven't turned on yet, and other stars.  The need to add 
"other stars" cracks me up every time I hear it.

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Aug  9 19:05:52 2005
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:05:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] On co-opting religion for >human ends
In-Reply-To: <C97A7D3D-1DB6-4B34-AE5F-9BAA4367EEA7@mac.com>
References: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<C97A7D3D-1DB6-4B34-AE5F-9BAA4367EEA7@mac.com>
Message-ID: <37bec53fafb1f9d24a63737b43164f39@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Aug 9, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> I thought of doing that or something in part along such lines.  With 
> further thought and self-examination I don't believe it is workable.  
> Such claims of what is "God's will" merely stand among other radically 
> different claims that have much tradition and huge inertia behind 
> them.

My thoughts exactly.  Not to mention the dishonesty in inventing claims 
for their usefulness rather than their truthfulness.  I have likewise 
given up trying to use religious words to convince religious people of 
non-religious ideas.

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug  9 19:15:00 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:15:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On categories and classification
In-Reply-To: <b41d9d1990279bd48ef32452e3c3e52d@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <20050809111338.19234.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>	<42F8F335.1080402@aol.com>
	<42F8F927.2090003@jefallbright.net>
	<b41d9d1990279bd48ef32452e3c3e52d@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <42F900B4.3010403@jefallbright.net>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
> On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:
>
>> [From the] 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'.
>
>
> My favorite categorization of stars comes from an old forgotten 
> source:  Stars that are on, stars that are off, stars that turn on and 
> off, stars that haven't turned on yet, and other stars.  The need to 
> add "other stars" cracks me up every time I hear it.
>
Yup.  I just realized that I failed to list my primary example of the 
arbitrary classification which applies to the current controversy over 
what defines a planet.

I smile when I think of the classification of "those that from a long 
way off look like flies."

- Jef




From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 19:47:25 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On co-opting religion for >human ends
In-Reply-To: <C97A7D3D-1DB6-4B34-AE5F-9BAA4367EEA7@mac.com>
References: <20050809091755.73364.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<C97A7D3D-1DB6-4B34-AE5F-9BAA4367EEA7@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c705080912475cbb7161@mail.gmail.com>

I am neither scientist, nor scholar, nor author.  Sometimes I have
difficulty putting a framework around the thoughts thoughts in my
mind, giving the reference and painting them with pretty words to
share with the world.  I say this now to ask for forgiveness if what
follows makes no sense.

I would not choose to create a Religion, and within that word I
include the trappings of dogma and ritual.  I would instead choose to
create a mythology of sorts, stories by which we might pass along new
values and ideas.

We ought to explore the world with a sound science.  Yet, could we
still not color the world with a beautiful mythology?  Science, to let
us find the facts; to explain the what, how, when, and where of the
world.  In our mythology we can give the world it's why's.   Science
to be the map that lets us find the mountain, and mythology to remind
us why we climb it.

I would rewrite the story of John Henry.   Instead of poor John Henry
beating the machine and dying at the end, I would have him learn to
operate and repair the machine, for he knows that by doing so he will
have more time to write poetry which is something he has always wanted
to do.

We don't have to be "New Agey" about it, we can clearly state that
these are only stories, but stories meant to convey a point.  We do
need something however, since sound bites are obviously not enough to
portray >H properly to the masses.  We need something that will
capture the minds of children, and the children within us all, and
show >H to be about grand possibilities for us all.  We need to write
the future friendly movies.  Todays children need to grow up reading
the Brothers Simm, and read stories about how bright a future we can
have.  We need something with which we can combat the negative memes
of old religions, on their own turf.

Take a moment, think about any fairy tales you read as a child, think
about how they might be recast to portray >H in a positive light.


From amara at amara.com  Tue Aug  9 19:58:48 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:58:48 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] On categories and classification
Message-ID: <p06210201bf1eb944281a@[23.237.66.13]>


Body- A Categorization With Which We Are All Familiar...

In George Lakoff's book: _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:
What Categories Reveal About the Mind_,
he states that _bodily experience_ adds to the basic-level of
categorization:

\begin{quote} (pg. 302)
"The existence of directly meaningful concepts -- basic-level
concepts and image schemas -- provides certain fixed points in the
objective evaluation of situations. The image-schematic structure of
bodily experience is, we hypothesize, the same for all human beings.
[...] The consideration of certain gross patterns in our experience
-- our vertical orientation, the nature of our bodies as containers,
our ability to sense hot and cold, our experience of being empty as
opposed to filled, etc. suggests that our experiences is structured
kinesthetically in at least a gross way in a variety of experiential
domains.

Cognitive models derive their fundamental meaningfulness directly
from their ability to match up with preconceptual structure. Such
direct matchings provide a basis for an account of truth and
knowledge. Because such matching is "internal" to a person, the
irreconcilable problems in the objectivist theories do not arise in
experientialist theories.

In domains where there is no clearly discernible preconceptual
structure to our experience, we import such structure via metaphor.
Metaphor provides us with a means for comprehending domains of
experience that do not not have a preconceptual structure of their
own. A great many of our domains of experience are like this.
Comprehending experience via metaphor is one of the great
imaginative triumphs of the human mind. Much of rational thought
involves the use of metaphoric models. Any adequate account of
rationality must account for the use of imagination and much of
imaginations consists of metaphorical reasoning."
\end{quote}

And a quote regarding Metaphor:

"Understanding a thing is to arrive at a metaphor for that thing by
substituting something more familiar to use. We say we understand an
aspect of nature when we can say it is similar to some familiar
theoretical model."
(Julian Jaynes in _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bicameral Mind_, pg. 52, 53)

Amara

P.S. According to Lee Daniel Crocker:

''Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" had a lot of
good ideas, but I'd read it with a grain of Modafinil, not
salt: he has the annoying tendency to go on and on for 20
pages on some small point that should be obvious to most of
us already.  Steve Pinker covers more or less the same
material, and he can write.''

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"My, this game does teach new words!" --Hobbes


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  9 20:26:35 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Subject: Quest 4 John Calvin was Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush
	admin lied over Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050808154258.46697.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <022a01c59bda$006286c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050808154258.46697.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c705080913261eb42e05@mail.gmail.com>

Brett,

I am certain I had seen a video where OBL directly claimed
responsibility for 9/11, danged if I can find it now.  I will keep
looking however and post a link when I find it.

On 8/8/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > From: "John Calvin" <john.h.calvin at gmail.com>
> > > Osama Bin Laden released a tape claiming responsibility for the
> > 9/11
> > > attacks, and intelligence places clear links to the Al Qaeda
> > > organization for the planning and execution.
> >
> > Is that a fact John?  Did he explicitly claim responsibility on
> > behalf of
> > Al Qaeda and/or himself or did he sort of verbally handwave and say
> > god-willing yes the infidels were a-smitten and we observed with the
> > satisfaction of the righteous or some such.
> >
> > Reason I ask is that it *was* my impression but I didn't personally
> > see or watch any such tape, and lately here in Australia a couple
> > of radical muslim talking heads have said that they did not think
> > that OBL had claimed responsibility for september 11.
> 
> A lot of the anti-US crowd is trying to claim OBL never copped to
> responsibility, that he's just a convenient patsy, and even that the
> 9.11 events were staged. For instance, there are widespread claims that
> no airliner struck the pentagon, that it was a smaller plane. Typically
> these are by people who have no experience in weaponry, physics, or
> civil engineering. Do some googling beyond the radical left and right
> pabulum.
> 
> >
> > In at least one case, the more reliably source involved, the ABC
> > (Australian public Broad Caster) interviewer, seemd to be surprised
> > that his interviewee was unaware of that "fact".
> >
> > I think the "terrorists" are sometimes of like mind with the
> > Bush-admin and the govts that like to demonise them in perhaps
> > being willing to take "credit" for more than their due.
> 
> The London bombings are the first of the current era that had more than
> one group claiming responsibility, though Zawahiri in his most recent
> tape claimed the bombing as well as al Qaeda in Europe and a third
> group. There are established protocols in terrorism for proving one's
> bona fides in claims sent to media and police, typically disclosing
> details about the incident that police either were not yet aware of or
> had not released.
> Furthermore, videos were found of OBL in Afghanistan that were
> captured, not produced for public propaganda, in which OBL explicitly
> admitted to approving 9/11 and referring to his civil engineering
> experience in directing the hijacker pilots to strike the buildings
> where they did.
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From benboc at lineone.net  Tue Aug  9 20:36:15 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:36:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508091328.j79DSdR22027@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508091328.j79DSdR22027@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42F913BF.7040003@lineone.net>

 >PS One - just one -  question, i can't resist it: What created god,
 >> then?
 > Maybe, it's a nice story

I'm sorry, but i'm not getting this across, am i?

OK, i'm going to take some good advice, and let you have the last word 
on evolution, as you obviously just don't get it, and it seems beyond my 
power to explain where you are misunderstanding it.


On a completely unrelated topic:
You bring up this 'necessary being' stuff, and it seems to be based on 
some very dodgy logic:

"Why are there necessary beings?

Consider the possibility that it's true that "nothing exists".
Then there exists the truth of that statement, consequently,
necessarily, something exists."

Well, this is obviously not true, so the rest of it is pretty meaningless:

"Consider the possibility that it's true that "nothing exists".
Then there exists ... "

Nothing!

If it's true that nothing exists, then nothing exists, nothing to 
produce the statement, therefore no statement, no truth of it, nothing.

Of course, it's *not* true that nothing exists, so any 'consequences' 
that could be derived from the fact of nothing existing (consequences 
which couldn't, by definition, exist anwyay), are not relevant.

In fact, i think it's fair to say that there is *no* possibility that 
"nothing exists", and that's as far as any consideration of the matter 
can go.

All you have here is one of those paradoxical sentences, along the lines 
of "everything i say is a lie". It can't be true. Effectively, it's a 
useless statement. Any philosophical system built upon it is completely 
illusory. The only sense i can make of this is that it's a (very bad) 
attempt to rationalise a preconceived idea that lacks any logical basis. 
This is supported by the question "Why are there necessary beings?". It 
presupposes that there are such things, and that such a question makes 
any sense in the first place.

 >God is a necessary being, not contingent.  Your question is a category 
error like: "what causes there to be a number six?"

The question "what causes there to be a number six" is a perfectly valid 
question with a perfectly good answer. We invented it, because it's useful.

The number six is an abstraction, not a thing in itself. It's a mental 
tool (part of one, anyway) for understanding the world. This reminds me 
of an old episode of Dr Who, where somebody builds a machine that can 
generate the maths that 'underlies all reality', so therefore can 
produce any kind of reality. Even as a kid, it was obvious to me that 
this was rubbish, because maths *models* reality, it doesn't 'underlie' 
it in any real way, any more than a map produces the territory it 
represents.

You may argue that i'm confusing the map with the territory, that 
'sixness' existed before somebody invented the number. 'Sixness' doesn't 
mean anything on it's own, though. 'Six rocks' does, but 'six' doesn't. 
In other words, rocks existed, then somebody came along and counted six 
of them, thus creating sixness, *in his head*. That's the only place 
sixness exists. I think this is a fundamental problem for a lot of 
people, who confuse what's in their head with what's not. This is 
probably how you get gods in the first place. So, in that sense, i would 
agree with you, that 'god' is in the same category as 'six'.

ben


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Aug  9 20:59:30 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:59:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Today in Grist: Asia-Pacific climate
	pact short on	substance
Message-ID: <42F91932.5070804@mindspring.com>

Barry Williams wrote:

I find it passing strange the readiness of critics to lambast this 
treaty without having many details about it. It proposes a technological 
approach to a problem and includes two countries that will very likely 
become the major producers of greenhouse gasses in the short-medium 
term.  Now the technofix may or may not work, but it certainly has far 
more going for it than the bureaucratic 'fix' that is Kyoto, one that 
excludes India and China and has next to zero chance of achieving anything.

The rationale for excluding India and China from limits under the Kyoto 
Protocol is that a) the industrialized nations are largely responsible 
for the increase in CO2 to date; b) the excluded nations produce far 
less CO2 per capita than in the industrialized nations.  It is only fair 
to allow them some increases in CO2 production as they try to increase 
their standards of living.  For example, from the "Position of India" 
section of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol:

"At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 
pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing 
countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following 
the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India 
maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with 
the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long 
period of time."

Concerning China, the article notes that "China emits 2,893 million 
metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 
5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million 
from the EU (8.5 tons per capita)."

Nevertheless, as this same passage points out, "Even though China is 
currently exempted, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is 
expected to declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and 
make itself no longer be exempted. In fact, China's per capita emission 
is among the lowest ones in the world. The U.S. based NGO Natural 
Resources Defense Council stated in June 2001 that: 'By switching from 
coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, 
and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide 
emissions 17 percent since 1997'."

I believe that the Kyoto Protocol has already achieved a great deal.  It 
may not be perfect, but it is a start, and it will be revised as we get 
more information on the level of action that is needed and the ability 
of technology to reduce emissions.  It has made people and governments 
around the world much more aware of the problem, and many governments 
are taking action to reduce their emissions of CO2.

Tom Wheeler


This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm


-- 
"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 > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug  9 22:10:24 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:10:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] strange theory: the sun has a solid crust
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809170941.01e88be0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

(Don't look at me like that, I didn't do it.)

Damien Broderick



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug  9 23:40:17 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:40:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times: Will human enhancement make us better?
Message-ID: <42F93EE1.1020006@jefallbright.net>

In today's LA Times:

Excerpts:

    "Speaking last week in a television interview, Kurzweil defined
    humanity as "the species that goes beyond our limitations." Of
    course, in that quest we are also the species that has come close to
    immolating the planet (during the Cold War), destroying our
    environment and ruining baseball."

    "But if we are to believe scientists and technologists, nothing but
    good can come from human-performance enhancement. As a 2002 report
    of the normally staid National Science Foundation proclaimed, the
    21st century "could end in world peace, universal prosperity, and
    evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment," all
    through research on human-performance enhancement."

    "I participated in some of the meetings that led to that report.
    Most of the attendees were highly intelligent white males who worked
    in the semiconductor industry, at national weapons laboratories or
    major research universities. At one point, the group got to talking
    about how we might soon achieve brain-to-brain interfaces that would
    eliminate misunderstandings among humans. Instead of having to rely
    on imperfect words, we would be able to directly signal our thoughts
    with perfect precision."

    "I asked how such enhanced abilities would get around differing
    values and interests. For instance, how would more direct
    communication of thought help Israelis and Palestinians better
    understand one another? Unable to use the ambiguities and subtleties
    of language to soften the impact of one's raw convictions, might
    conflict actually be amplified? A person at one of the meetings
    acknowledged he "hadn't thought about values," while another
    suggested that I was being overly negative. What seemed clear was
    that the group's homogeneity made it impossible for it to scrutinize
    the assumptions beneath its rosy vision of "performance enhancement.""

Entire article is at
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-sarewitz9aug09,1,1735412.story 
<http://www.jefallbright.net/node/>

- Jef


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  9 23:42:00 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] will take a break
In-Reply-To: <42F913BF.7040003@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20050809234200.2907.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

i'll go away for awhile since there have been too many wrong topics, possibly even too many messages altogether.
However just one note: Natasha mentioned sentimental posts; hope no one here thought the little message on Peter Jennings was serious! Have you ever done a long parody like for a rag and people write to them angrily thinking it was for real. That is depressing.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050809/583acc60/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 10 00:51:49 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:51:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time, not
In-Reply-To: <380-22005829132823144@M2W070.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22005829132823144@M2W070.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <94C356D6-CF09-4B42-972A-0E9FBC878E12@bonfireproductions.com>



To be honest, I have been wondering if we weren't targeted somehow.  
As in alt.syntax.tactical targeted - investigated, then intentionally  
earmarked for culture-jamming syntax warfare by who knows what.

I have been on and off this list for a long time, so perhaps my  
surname in a lot of killfiles by now. =) However when I post to our  
future-friendly film discussion a shopping list of many Transhumanist/ 
Extropian interest points and hear nothing in return, I honestly  
wonder what is going on here?

I have mentioned in previous posts - we need to change scale - a few  
years is nothing. Getting hung up to the point where we can't even  
tolerate each other is damaging to us. Sure we all have different  
opinions on these issues - why would a group as open minded be all  
like minded?

It would be very interesting to see if we reach some sort of public  
interest crescendo in the next year, so that people hitting our list  
archives can judge us by our prattle and degrade our message. If this  
comes to pass, then my first statement might have some merit. Time  
will tell.

]3

Bret Kulakovich





On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:28 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>
> From: Damien Broderick
>
> At 09:11 PM 8/8/2005 -0700, spike wrote:
>
>
>> We are becoming all politics all the time.
>>
>
> No, there's also the endless babble about how evolution is crap,  
> and about
> how god is the answer, and any day now probably an onslaught against
> fluoridation and genetic engineering and that awful optimistic  
> rational
> thinking.
>
>
>> Do let us cool that for a while, shall we?  Note that
>> we are not booting anything anywhere, just asking for
>> something else for a few days.  Anything else.  Please.
>>
>
> "Not *anything* else than politics. Please. The tedious trolling is  
> not a
> good look for this list.
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 02:02:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Eminent Domania, was: Re: [extropy-chat] all politics all the time,
	not
In-Reply-To: <94C356D6-CF09-4B42-972A-0E9FBC878E12@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050810020216.70587.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Be sure to catch this coming week's issue of Newsweek. Yours truly and
a few other libertarians will be quoted in a piece they are doing on
the eminent domain backlash....

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 10 02:17:14 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:17:14 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <42F913BF.7040003@lineone.net>
References: <200508091328.j79DSdR22027@tick.javien.com>
	<42F913BF.7040003@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <42F963AA.7030604@aol.com>

ben wrote:

> >On a completely unrelated topic:
> You bring up this 'necessary being' stuff, and it seems to be based on 
> some very dodgy logic:
>
> "Why are there necessary beings?
>
> Consider the possibility that it's true that "nothing exists".
> Then there exists the truth of that statement, consequently,
> necessarily, something exists."
>
> Well, this is obviously not true, so the rest of it is pretty 
> meaningless:
>
> "Consider the possibility that it's true that "nothing exists".
> Then there exists ... "
>
> Nothing!
>
> If it's true that nothing exists, then nothing exists, nothing to 
> produce the statement, therefore no statement, no truth of it, nothing.
>
> Of course, it's *not* true that nothing exists, so any 'consequences' 
> that could be derived from the fact of nothing existing (consequences 
> which couldn't, by definition, exist anwyay), are not relevant.
>
> In fact, i think it's fair to say that there is *no* possibility that 
> "nothing exists", and that's as far as any consideration of the matter 
> can go.


Quite exactly right, you seem to have gotten the jist of the argument.  
The assumtion that there -could be- nothing can be proved false by 
reductio ad absurdum.  Hence, necessarily, something exists.

> All you have here is one of those paradoxical sentences, along the 
> lines of "everything i say is a lie". It can't be true.


Exactly.

> Effectively, it's a useless statement.


No, it just isn't used always the way you expect.  It's obviously a very 
useful sentence.

> Any philosophical system built upon it is completely illusory.


The tradition of proof by reduction is at the heart of mathematics.  If 
you wish to throw all of mathematics out the window at the same time, be 
my guest.

> The only sense i can make of this is that it's a (very bad) attempt to 
> rationalise a preconceived idea that lacks any logical basis. This is 
> supported by the question "Why are there necessary beings?". It 
> presupposes that there are such things, and that such a question makes 
> any sense in the first place.


No, the proof that there are necessary beings comes from the fact that 
the supposition that there is nothing is contradictory, hence, 
necessarily, something exists.  Those things that exists -necessarily- 
we call necessary beings.

The posing of the question "why are their necessary beings?" has two 
inflections.  One is a causal question which I've called a category 
error - like asking why there is a number one (in fact, there's one 
right there).  The other is a demand for proof which is given.

>
> >God is a necessary being, not contingent.  Your question is a 
> category error like: "what causes there to be a number six?"


>
> The question "what causes there to be a number six" is a perfectly 
> valid question with a perfectly good answer. We invented it, because 
> it's useful.


That's one common answer, but it doesn't jibe with quite a lot of 
mathematics.  In fact, as I understand it, very few mathematicians are 
philosophically anti-realist.  This would be akin to the anti-realist 
interpretation in physics - "there are no sub-atomic particles" is like 
"there are no numbers" (what you appear to be referring to are numerals 
or something that we in fact -did- create). 

Think of it this way.  Say there is a specific frequency of light that 
you're interested in talking about.  Try to specify which frequency of 
light and consequently what you're talking about without using 
number-properties of the object you're trying to describe.  There's 
actually an admirable attempt at this by Hartry Field, but his success 
is rather doubtful as a program.  The upshot - no numbers, no physics 
either.

>
> The number six is an abstraction, not a thing in itself. It's a mental 
> tool (part of one, anyway) for understanding the world.


Everything is something.   The distinction between a "thing" and a "not 
a thing-in-itself" is arbitrary.  And anyway, this is as likely to be 
true as the hypothesis that there is no such thing as solidity or 
visibility or the color blue.

> This reminds me of an old episode of Dr Who, where somebody builds a 
> machine that can generate the maths that 'underlies all reality', so 
> therefore can produce any kind of reality. Even as a kid, it was 
> obvious to me that this was rubbish, because maths *models* reality, 
> it doesn't 'underlie' it in any real way, any more than a map produces 
> the territory it represents.


Maps are real and in order for them to be useful they must pick out real 
properties of real things in the real world.  Numerals are like maps - 
they are obviously real.  The real properties in the real world (e.g. 
their numerical properties) are like the geography that the map describes.

>
> You may argue that i'm confusing the map with the territory, that 
> 'sixness' existed before somebody invented the number. 'Sixness' 
> doesn't mean anything on it's own, though. 'Six rocks' does, but 'six' 
> doesn't.


3 + 5 = 8 -2 = 6

I agree with you that numbers only make sense inasmuch as they are 
considered as possible properties of real things, but this just means 
that they're properties of real things, and consequently themselves 
real.  Just like the hardness of the sidewalk.

> In other words, rocks existed, then somebody came along and counted 
> six of them, thus creating sixness, *in his head*.


So there aren't really 6 rocks?

> That's the only place sixness exists.


But what about the rocks, aren't there six of them?

> I think this is a fundamental problem for a lot of people, who confuse 
> what's in their head with what's not. This is probably how you get 
> gods in the first place. So, in that sense, i would agree with you, 
> that 'god' is in the same category as 'six'.


Well, if numbers are -in your head- in that sense, then I daresay every 
concept we use to describe reality can be whisked away equally well, 
leaving you with an entire world 'in your head'. 

Robbie Lindauer



From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Aug 10 02:27:18 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:27:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Psi
In-Reply-To: <42F8B36F.9040209@neopax.com>
References: <42F8B36F.9040209@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42F96606.7060401@neopax.com>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Any women or couples in the London area willing to take part in a Psi 
> expt?
> We are trying to recreate the Owen experiment of the 1970s in an 
> updated seance-like atmosphere and need a gender balanced group (for 
> reasons I won't go into now). It will probably need a weekly 
> committment for several months, based in S London for now.
>
BTW, any replies to dirk.bruere at gmail.com please as well as Neopax.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 09/08/2005



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 10 02:43:19 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:43:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On categories and classification
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf1eb944281a@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200508100245.j7A2jOR03621@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
...
> Body- A Categorization With Which We Are All Familiar...
...
> Amara
> 
> P.S. According to Lee Daniel Crocker:
> 
> ''Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" had a lot of
> good ideas, but I'd read it with a grain of Modafinil, not
> salt...
> 
> ********************************************************************
> Amara Graps, PhD          ...


Modafinil ( Provigil ) is a mood-brightening and memory-enhancing
psychostimulant which enhances wakefulness and vigilance.

I miss Lee Daniel Crocker.  Does anyone know whatever 
happened to him?  How long has it been since he dropped
off, five years?

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 10 02:39:06 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:39:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On co-opting religion for >human ends
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c705080912475cbb7161@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508100251.j7A2pgR04096@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Calvin
...
> 
> Take a moment, think about any fairy tales you read as a child, think
> about how they might be recast to portray >H in a positive light.


Damien has done that.  He wrote a very clever children's
story that was kinda based on a fairy tale of Jack and
the Beanstalk.  He figured out the physics of having a
nanotech-based satellite that would grow appendages
earthward and skyward from GEO.  I imagined nanobots on 
the space cable surface, passing carbon atoms or buckyballs
hand over hand sort of, out to the end of the beanstalk,
where another specialized nanobot would take the carbon
atoms and (somehow) fit them into a diamond crystal matrix,
not so very different from how a plant grows a branch.

I figure transhumanist memes will implant most easily
into the minds of children thru specially-designed
children's stories.  

It is so tragic that as we age, we not only lose our 
sight, we lose our ability to see what is possible.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 10 03:05:04 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:05:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] store wars
In-Reply-To: <20050809234200.2907.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508100307.j7A372R05675@tick.javien.com>

This one is just too good.  Clearly someone has far too much

time on their hands:

 

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

 

 

 

{8^D

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050809/ab51169e/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 10 03:07:16 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] strange theory: the sun has a solid crust
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809170941.01e88be0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050810030716.40757.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
> 
> (Don't look at me like that, I didn't do it.)

Debunked a while ago.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Note that the guy who proposed the theory came onto the board after the
debate started.  (Towards the end of the first page.)  Check the method
of his replies: classic example of a crank in action.  (In particular:
the kind of evidence he puts up, his attempts to dismiss as
"unscientific" anything he can't easily disprove, his quickness to
attack the people instead of the criticisms, et cetera.)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug 10 03:17:07 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:17:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] strange theory: the sun has a solid crust
In-Reply-To: <20050810030716.40757.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809170941.01e88be0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050810030716.40757.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809221514.01e457b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:07 PM 8/9/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote:


> > http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
>
>Debunked a while ago.
>
>http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

How cool, thanx Adrian. See how this list fires instantly into action when 
we're talking about interesting crank science and not boring crank science 
or boring crank politics. :)

Damien Broderick 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 10 03:27:27 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] strange theory: the sun has a solid crust
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050809221514.01e457b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050810032727.46876.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:07 PM 8/9/2005 -0700, Adrian wrote:
> > > http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
> >
> >Debunked a while ago.
>
>http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
> 
> How cool, thanx Adrian. See how this list fires instantly into action
> when 
> we're talking about interesting crank science and not boring crank
> science 
> or boring crank politics. :)

...actually, I just happened to be checking email at the time, and one
of my friends just happened to be in that particular "debate" (and
complained to me about it).  'Twas largely luck in this instance,
though you might be right in general.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Aug 10 07:18:00 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:18:00 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times on human enhancement
Message-ID: <470a3c5205081000183fb786b4@mail.gmail.com>

Today's LA Times<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-sarewitz9aug09,1,1735412.story?ctrack=1&cset=true>has
an editorial on human enhancement. Following the "precautionary
principle", the author believes we should stop developing human enhancement 
technologies: "Why do we trust our long-term well-being to the irrational 
faith that the good consequences of our ingenuity will outweigh the bad?". 
Before developing his arguments, the author acknowledges that "Biological 
engineering is not just about curing disease anymore. The incentives and 
profits are moving toward drugs, gene therapies and other technologies to 
enhance human performance - memory, creativity, concentration, strength, 
endurance, longevity. As a 2002 report of the normally staid National 
Science Foundation proclaimed, the 21st century "could end in world peace, 
universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and 
accomplishment," all through research on human-performance enhancement".
Then he says that the development of human enhancement technologies is not 
controlled by ordinary people, who will be relegated to the role of passive 
consumers with no decision making power. The simplest answer to this 
objection is, I believe, that enhanced citizens will be able to participate 
more effectively in policy through better access to information and better 
reasoning power. An enhanced citizen would be, if anything, much less likely 
to follow subliminal advertising placed in mass media to "smartly" steer the 
minds of the people. Also, that ordinary citizens have no say is 
unfortunately true for so many other important things that focusing on human 
enhancement is just missing the point. The problem is elsewhere.
But what I find really disturbing is the statement "How would more direct 
communication of thought [through direct brain-to-brain interfaces] help 
Israelis and Palestinians better understand one another? Unable to use the 
ambiguities and subtleties of language to soften the impact of one's raw 
convictions, might conflict actually be amplified?". This is just a 
restatement of the old lie, affirmed by many religions, that ignorance is 
better than knowledge (and "dignified" disease is better than health, etc.). 
On the contrary I am sure that is Israelis and Palestinians could really 
"touch and feel" the point of view people in the other camp, it would be 
much easier to find win-win solutions. In this case as in so many others, 
knowledge is better than ignorance, and empowerment is better than 
powerlessness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050810/47a538c1/attachment.html>

From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Wed Aug 10 19:03:56 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:03:56 +0100
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>
References: <20050808204605.86375.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<S368667AbVHICSO/20050809021814Z+106746@ams003.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <42FA4F9C.7000804@optusnet.com.au>

mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:

> Mike Lorrey writes:
>
>> I myself would, beyond my and Sterns definition, divide planets up into
>> the following categories: gas giants, terrestrial planets, and ice
>> planets. I would regard the round asteroid Ceres as a terrestrial
>> planet (that it suffers from Jupiter's gravitational imperialism is a
>> separate issue), and all the KBOs that are round as ice planets.
>
>
> I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, 
> moons and planets.  We should describe objects based on their 
> characteristics.  I would prefer a system like this:
> X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar etc.
> Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, 
> debris
> -- 

one suggested change :

Oddballs : Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris

after all, not all balls are round - eg. footballs.   : )

-david




From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Aug 10 10:53:51 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:53:51 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SF: Alastair Reynolds
Message-ID: <470a3c5205081003534504fc14@mail.gmail.com>

I have not read any Alastair Reynolds <http://www.alastairreynolds.com/>' 
books yet, but after reading a good review I just ordered some from Amazon. 
Especially the last Reynolds' novel Century
Rain<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441012906/qid=1123670189/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-1604373-6143051?v=glance&s=books>seems
good (I imagine a mix of Morgan and Stross). From an Amazon review:
"There's
your regular space opera with a long-gone godlike alien race, alienesque 
superhumans, Earth devastated due to mankinds' mistakes, spaceships and 
space battles and all-powerful nanotechnology. Then there's a detective 
story set in Paris in the 50's, which also picks up a romantic twist as it 
goes on and gets mixed with the space-opera side, and in between there's a 
whiff of Stargate - yet it still manages to feel like hard scifi instead of 
light science-fantasy".
>From an Infinity Plus
interview<http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intar.htm>with
Reynolds: "A
strong new challenger to Stephen Baxter and Peter F. Hamilton for the 
leadership of British Hard SF, Alastair Reynolds brings to both his 
impressive short fiction and his commanding novels vision, clarity, and 
expertise. With a Ph.D. in astronomy and years of experience as an 
astrophysicist working for the European Space Agency in the Netherlands, he 
naturally has a thorough grasp of scientific detail, and a briskly 
authoritative narrative voice to convey it; his firm grounding in literary 
SF shows in the disciplined reach of his imagination, which takes in drastic 
transformations of humanity and the hidden drift of galactic history."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050810/43ea35d0/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 11:35:50 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <42FA4F9C.7000804@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20050810113550.62622.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



--- david <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> > Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> > Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> > Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> > Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> > Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> > Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61,
> Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar etc.
> > Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons,
> asteroids, fragments, 
> > debris
> > -- 
> 
> one suggested change :
> 
> Oddballs : Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids,
> fragments, debris

Well since we are bringing up silly changes, how about
we call water worlds like Earth and Europa Blueballs?

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 11:58:57 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist short story
Message-ID: <20050810115857.5319.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>

Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
odds, and lived happily ever after.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Aug 10 13:09:16 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:09:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050810085413.033f5e50@unreasonable.com>

Long, but clearly an extropian concern. Past issues are in the archives 
(see end); this one isn't there yet.

>From: "David Morrison" <dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov>
>To: "David Morrison" <dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:44 PM
>Subject: NEO News (08/08/05) Deflection Scenarios for Apophis
>
>
>NEO News (08/08/05) Deflection Scenarios for Apophis
>Following is an unusually long and technical edition of NEO News. The 
>subject is the deflection options for Apophis (MN4) as described in a new 
>analysis by Donald Gennery, who has kindly made this draft available to 
>NEO News. Future editions will revert to the usual format.
>David Morrison
>------------------------------------
>WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT ASTEROID APOPHIS (2004 MN4)?
>Donald B. Gennery
>dgennery at earthlink.net
>August 7, 2005
>1.  Introduction
>In a recent paper [1] and letter [2], Rusty Schweickart made some 
>recommendations on dealing with the threat of a possible impact in 2036, 
>and he called on further analysis to be done.  This is my input to that 
>analysis.  Comments are welcome.
>The most important thing that I propose is that deflection by the impact 
>of a spacecraft is practical in this case.  Such a mission could be done 
>fairly quickly at a reasonable cost.
>The asteroid under discussion, with the provisional designation 2004 MN4, 
>has now been assigned the number 99942 and the name Apophis. (Apophis was 
>the Greek name of the Egyptian god Apep, "the destroyer.")  Therefore, I 
>use this name below.
>2.  Background Review
>Apophis will make a very close pass by Earth (roughly 37,000 km) on April 
>13, 2029.  The deflection of its trajectory by Earth's gravity at that 
>time will greatly magnify the uncertainty in its orbit, making predictions 
>of a possible future collision with Earth difficult at this time.  There 
>are several dates that (as of July 31) have a slight chance of 
>impact.  Especially, April 13, 2036, has a probability of impact equal to 
>0.00012, with lesser probabilities for April 14, 2035, and April 13, 2037 
>[3].  Since the diameter of Apophis is 320 m, it could cause destruction 
>over a large local area. Apophis will make fairly close passes by Earth 
>(roughly 0.1 AU) in 2013 and 2021 that will allow accurate measurements of 
>its orbit, and easier trajectories to it are available around those times.
>Because of the above facts, Schweickart called for immediate consideration 
>of a plan to start work very soon on a mission to Apophis that would place 
>a radio transponder on the asteroid, so that the knowledge of its orbit 
>can be improved enough to make a decision by 2014 as to whether or not to 
>start work on a mission to deflect Apophis.  He said that any later start 
>date than 2014 on a deflection mission might not allow enough time to 
>deflect Apophis before the close pass in 2029, after which deflection will 
>become much more difficult, especially for a possible impact only about 7 
>years thereafter.  He considered the possibility that 6 years might be 
>enough for the deflection mission, but he considered it more likely that a 
>deflection mission might require as long as 12 years and a transponder 
>mission 7-8 years.
>In deciding how much deflection might be needed, there are three 
>components to consider.  One is the width of the "keyhole" through which 
>the center of mass of Apophis would have to pass in 2029 in order to hit 
>Earth in 2036.  According to Schweickart, this is only 641 m.  Therefore, 
>to move out of the keyhole might take as much as half of this, or 0.32 
>km.  Another, much larger, component is the uncertainty in the orbit due 
>to measurement errors.  At present, as extrapolated to 2029, this has a 
>standard deviation (sigma) of 1800 km.  Using a 5-sigma tolerance for 
>safety thus could require a deflection of 9000 km.  However, this large 
>uncertainty results from data having only a short time span.  As more 
>measurements are taken around 2013 and 2021 this value will greatly 
>decrease, probably to much less than 100 km.  The third component is the 
>fact that the orbit is changing because of the Yarkovsky effect, as 
>Schweickart pointed out in his July letter.
>The Yarkovsky effect is the phenomenon in which the orbital energy of an 
>object changes due to a nonradial force caused by the fact that the 
>absorption and reradiation of energy from the Sun are in different 
>directions, depending on the rotation of the object.  This causes the 
>object to either accelerate or decelerate in its orbit, depending on 
>whether energy is being subtracted or added.  If the rotation, shape, and 
>thermal properties of the object are known, the direction and magnitude of 
>this effect can be calculated.  However, at present these are largely 
>unknown for Apophis, so extrapolating from the present to 2029 could 
>produce an uncertainty from this cause of a few thousand 
>kilometers.  Future measurements will reduce this uncertainty also; some 
>possibilities are mentioned in Section 4.
>3.  General Discussion
>I claim that 6 years is more than enough time for a deflection mission 
>(not counting the travel time to Apophis), because deflecting Apophis 
>before 2029 is easier than Schweickart implies.  As he says, the 
>amplification that occurs at that time because of Earth's gravity means 
>that only a small change in Apophis's velocity would be needed. (Estimated 
>values are given in Section 4.)  Because both the needed velocity change 
>and the mass of Apophis are small, the needed impulse (change in momentum) 
>is so small that deflection can be done simply by ramming the asteroid 
>with the spacecraft, and such a deflection by impact is the easiest 
>deflection method.  The rendezvous and docking that Schweickart mentions 
>are not needed, and the actual deflection would take place in a less than 
>a second, instead of during lengthy operations at Apophis.
>If deflection can be done by the impact method, only a few years 
>preparation would be needed.  The Deep Impact project [4] took less than 6 
>years.  (NASA decided to do it on July 7, 1999, work started on Nov. 1, 
>1999, launch occurred on Jan. 12, 2005, and impact occurred on July 4, 
>2005.)  Deep Impact was a slightly more involved mission than the 
>deflection mission would need to be, since it had both an impactor and a 
>flyby vehicle for observing.  (Of course, a flyby vehicle would be 
>desirable here also, for scientific and verification purposes, but it 
>could be launched separately if that is more convenient.)  Its target was 
>larger, but so was its approach velocity, so the difficulty of guidance 
>wasn't all that much different.  The experience gained from Deep Impact, 
>and possibly much
>of the hardware design, would be applicable.  Therefore, the deflection 
>mission, from approval to launch, probably could be done in less than the 
>5.5 years of Deep Impact.  A rush project would need even less time, but 
>at a higher cost.
>It is sometimes said that, if the hit is well off center, the impact 
>method of deflection method would not be very effective, with the main 
>result being rotation induced in the asteroid instead of a change in its 
>trajectory.  However, that is a fallacy.  Momentum is conserved, so any 
>energy going into rotation is not subtracted from the energy going into 
>translation, but instead is subtracted from the energy going into kinetic 
>energy of blasted-out fragments and heat, which is where most of the 
>energy goes.  An off-center hit reduces the deflection only in three 
>situations:  when there is reliance on the gain produced by the kinetic 
>energy blasting out material, which I do not use here; when the hit is so 
>close to the edge of the object that either it merely knocks off a chunk 
>of material, leaving the main part of the object practically undisturbed, 
>or the spacecraft merely grazes the asteroid and bounces off without much 
>change in direction; or when the relative approach velocity vector is not 
>roughly aligned with the orbital velocity vector of the asteroid, in which 
>case a hit well off center that causes a significant momentum of blowoff 
>material due to kinetic energy from the impact could cause the impulse to 
>be applied in the wrong direction.
>A concern with any method of sudden deflection is dispersal of the 
>object.  If the danger from this cannot be made extremely small, the 
>impact method would have to be ruled out in this case.  This problem and 
>ways of dealing with it are discussed in Section 5.
>4.  Deflection Scenarios
>In order to demonstrate that deflecting Apophis by impact is practical, I 
>present the results of my calculations below for a few situations.  There 
>are many possibilities, depending on what measurements can be taken at 
>what times.  I consider here two main scenarios, which seem to be 
>reasonable.  In these, I have assumed certain values for uncertainty in 
>the orbit, which I have derived by some approximations from information in 
>Schweickart's paper and other references [5, 6], and which for the most 
>part I assume can be achieved without a transponder.  (How a transponder 
>can help is described primarily in Sections 5 and 6.)  These values should 
>be checked by others who are more familiar with those particular issues. 
>If it turns out that my values are too large, the task would be even 
>easier than I estimate, and a smaller, cheaper launch vehicle could be 
>used.  If it turns out that the values should be twice as large as my 
>estimates, more than one launch with separate space vehicles could be used 
>where I have called for one, which would cause only a modest increase in 
>the total cost.  If it turns out that the values should be many times my 
>estimates, a precursor transponder mission would be necessary in order to 
>reduce the uncertainty, or perhaps deflection by impact could turn out to 
>be completely impractical, but I think that the latter is very unlikely.
>In what follows, I have made several conservative assumptions. In 
>computing the amount of deflection, I have used only the momentum of the 
>impacting vehicle, and I have ignored the momentum of material blasted out 
>by the kinetic energy of the impact.  (In some cases, this effect can 
>increase the momentum by a large factor, but it might be small for a 
>rubble pile, as Holsapple has pointed out [7].)  I have assumed that the 
>trajectory of the vehicle to Apophis, after escaping from Earth, is a 
>single Keplerian orbit with no midcourse maneuvers other than small course 
>corrections.  For these trajectories, I have used launch dates and 
>intercept dates that are fairly efficient, but I have not done thorough 
>searches to find absolutely optimum dates.  I have assumed that the space 
>vehicle detaches from the upper stage of the launch vehicle.  (If it could 
>be kept attached, the mass delivered to the asteroid would be increased, 
>but controlling this combination in order to make course corrections might 
>be unwieldy.  An integrated device could be developed, but this would 
>require more time and money.)  I have assumed the use of present launch 
>vehicles.  No doubt, in the coming years the performance of launch 
>vehicles will increase. However, this gain might be canceled by the fact 
>that I have used the estimated value of the mass of Apophis in the 
>calculations, whereas the actual mass might be greater.  (Of course, it 
>might be less.)
>In Scenario 1, I assume that by 2014 the rotation of Apophis will be 
>known, either by Earth-based measurements or by means of a precursor 
>mission, so that the Yarkovsky effect can be roughly estimated by 
>considering the expected range of surface properties for asteroids, 
>without knowing the particular surface properties of Apophis.  I further 
>assume that the total uncertainty in the position of Apophis as it 
>approaches Earth in 2029, as estimated in 2014, including both the unknown 
>portion of the Yarkovsky effect and measurement errors, is 150 km to 
>either side of a nominal position. This (strictly speaking, plus the 
>0.32-km semiwidth of the keyhole, which is negligible in comparison) is 
>the maximum amount that we might need to deflect the trajectory, if the 
>keyhole is centered exactly on the region of uncertainty.  I also assume 
>that in 2014 the estimated probability of an impact in 2036 is high enough 
>to justify starting work on a deflection mission, to be launched around 
>the close approach of 2020-2021.
>In Scenario 2, I assume that the rotation of Apophis is still unknown in 
>2014, but that by mid-2021 radar and optical measurements of its orbit 
>have greatly constrained how it is perturbed by the Yarkovsky 
>effect.  This possibility arises from the fact the close approaches around 
>2005, 2013, and 2021 in effect provide three accurately determined points 
>that allow the acceleration of the longitude of Apophis to be determined, 
>even if nothing is known about its surface properties or rotation.  As a 
>result, I assume that the the total uncertainty in the position of Apophis 
>as it approaches Earth in 2029, as estimated in 2021, is 50 km.  I also 
>assume that preliminary work on a deflection mission is started after 
>2014, and that in 2021 the probability of an impact in 2036 is high enough 
>to go ahead with completing the project for a launch 2023.
>I also include Scenario 3, which is a perhaps optimistic possibility of 
>what a transponder placed a few years before 2020 might allow.  It is 
>discussed in Section 5 as one way of reducing the risk of dispersion.
>For each scenario there are two cases (A and B), depending on whether we 
>want to add or subtract orbital energy in order to move Apophis away from 
>the keyhole.  These cases use different trajectories for the spacecraft, 
>since in the impact method of deflection the asteroid must be approached 
>in the approximate direction in which we want to deflect it.
>The following table summarizes the results of my calculations for the 
>above scenarios.  In Scenario 1, cases A and B have different launch 
>dates.  In Scenario 2, the two cases have the same launch dates, but the 
>launch directions are different, resulting in either 3 or 6 revolutions of 
>the spacecraft around the Sun during the trip. The quantities in the table 
>are defined as follows:  DeltaX is the maximum shift needed in the 
>approach trajectory to Earth in 2029, as determined by the above 
>assumptions; Vinf is the hyperbolic excess velocity after escape from 
>Earth; Vapp is the approach velocity relative to Apophis; Vpar is the 
>component of Vapp parallel to the orbital velocity vector of Apophis, 
>which is the useful component under the approximation used here; DeltaV is 
>the change in velocity of Apophis needed to produce the stated value of 
>DeltaX; and Mass is the mass that must be impacted to produce this result, 
>based on an Apophis mass of 4.6e10 kg [3].  In computing DeltaV, I have 
>used the approximation that, for a given orbit and Earth approach point, 
>it is only the change in orbital energy and the time between the DeltaV 
>deflection and the DeltaX result at the approach that matter.  (This 
>assumption is strictly true only for an infinite time interval, but it  is 
>fairly accurate a few revolutions in advance.)  I have taken into account 
>how the point in the orbit at which the deflection takes place affects the 
>orbital energy.
>Sce-  DeltaX  Launch    Intercept  Vinf   Vapp   Vpar   DeltaV  Mass
>nario  km      date      date      km/s   km/s   km/s    mm/s    kg
>1A    150     Sept. 1,  Jan. 1,    4.73   3.53  +3.02   0.242   3690
>                2020      2021
>1B    150     Mar. 15,  May 20,    5.40   3.51  -3.05   0.220   3320
>                2021      2021
>2A     57     Apr. 13,  July 10,   5.17   4.78  +4.07   0.407   4600
>                2023      2027
>2B     43     Apr. 13,  July 10,   5.34   3.30  -2.96   0.307   4770
>                2023      2027
>3A     10     Apr. 14,  Jan. 15,   5.62   0.595 +0.583  0.0203  1600
>                2020      2023
>3B     10     Apr. 13,  Dec. 1,    5.43   0.407 -0.360  0.0291  3720
>                2022      2024
>The reason for using different values of DeltaX in the two cases of 
>Scenario 2 is to balance the task better between the two cases, so that 
>only one launch vehicle is needed, as described below.  If it is desired 
>to deflect always in the shortest direction, the use of differing values 
>could be eliminated by in some cases adding another launch with a smaller 
>rocket.  However, launch vehicles probably will improve so much in the 
>next 18 years that neither of these approaches would be necessary.
>If a 10% allowance for propellant for course corrections is added, the 
>above table shows that for Scenario 1 we need to launch either about 4100 
>kg at 4.73 km/s or about 3700 at 5.40 km/s.  Both of these situations are 
>within the capability of the Atlas V 551, which can launch a payload of 
>4300 kg or 3800 kg for these two values of Vinf [8].  However, we might 
>want to change our minds just before the first launch date about which way 
>to deflect, in case new data is obtained in time to refine the orbit 
>significantly.  Therefore, we might fix the mass ahead of time and want to 
>be able to launch 4100 kg at 5.40 km/s.  This is beyond the ability of the 
>Atlas V 551, but the Delta IV Heavy can launch a payload of 5300 kg with 
>Vinf = 5.40 km/s [8].  (Once launch occurs, the direction of deflection by 
>impact cannot be changed.  However, the deflection can be canceled by 
>commanding the spacecraft to miss the asteroid.)
>For Scenario 2 as done in the table, the hardest case to launch (B) has a 
>mass of about 5200 kg (including propellant for course corrections) with 
>Vinf = 5.34 km/s.  This matches the Delta IV Heavy payload of 5300 kg at 
>that velocity, which is why the two cases in the table were partitioned in 
>that way.  (The Delta IV Heavy has the largest payload capability for 
>escape trajectories of any launch vehicle that now exists.)
>The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is roughly $160M, and the cost of the Atlas 
>V 551 is probably somewhere around $120M. The cost of the Deep Impact 
>project was about $330M which includes the Delta II 7925 launch vehicle, 
>which costs about $60M.  That leaves $270M development cost.  Because of 
>the similarity to Deep Impact, Scenario 1 probably could be developed for 
>less, so adding the cost of the Atlas V 551 produces a total less than 
>$390M.  This is within the range of what Schweickart estimated for the 
>transponder mission. Using a Delta IV Heavy instead of an Atlas V 551 
>would bring the cost to slightly more than $400M.  Because Scenario 2 uses 
>a Delta IV Heavy and might involve a rush project (if not much is done 
>before 2021), its cost could be greater, perhaps around $600M.
>If nothing is done until 2029 and it then turns out that Apophis is going 
>to hit Earth in 2036 or one of the nearby years, deflection becomes much 
>more difficult.  The DeltaV needed is too large to use deflection by 
>impact, and the amount of time available probably is not sufficient for 
>the preparation and execution of one of the methods of gradual deflection, 
>unless there is a considerable improvement in technology.  I have 
>calculated that deflection by one or more nuclear explosions could do the 
>job, based on some previously presented information about buried 
>explosions [9] and standoff explosions [10].  However, there are several 
>technical difficulties involved, related to the mass of Apophis, the short 
>time available, and the uncertainty about what the capability for such 
>things will be in 2029, that make the practical feasibility of using 
>explosions doubtful in this case, and it also has political problems. 
>Deflection before 2029 would be greatly preferred.
>5.  The Danger of Dispersal and What to Do about It
>The kinetic energy of the impacts used in Scenario 1 is 2.30e10 J and 
>2.05e10 J for the two cases.  For Scenario 2 it is 5.26e10 J or 2.60e10 J. 
>Based on its estimated mass of 4.6e10 kg and its diameter of 320 m, the 
>gravitational binding energy of Apophis is 5.3e8 J. Therefore, the kinetic 
>energy of the impacts in Scenarios 1 and 2 range from 39 to 99 times the 
>gravitational binding energy, so a dispersal of the object is possible in 
>principle.  However, the escape velocity of Apophis is 0.20 m/s, which is 
>490 times the largest of the deflection velocities used in the 
>scenarios.  There are two effects of this large ratio.
>First, the large value of the escape velocity relative to the deflection 
>velocity means that, if the asteroid disperses, the fragments will scatter 
>by a large amount around their center of mass, which is deflected by the 
>same amount whether or not dispersal occurs. (Such considerations have 
>been discussed in detail for the general problem [10].)  Therefore, only a 
>very small fraction of the fragments would hit Earth in the target year 
>(e.g. 2036).  However, as the fragments pass Earth in 2029 (before they 
>are further dispersed by Earth's gravity), a much larger fraction would 
>hit. Therefore, it is important that dispersal not occur.
>Second, the large ratio of escape velocity to deflection velocity makes it 
>very unlikely that dispersion would occur.  This can be verified with the 
>help of some information [11, 12] that indicates that in this case there 
>is not enough energy in the impacts to break up a monolith, and a rubble 
>pile would absorb the energy so well that it could not be distributed to 
>cause a large-scale dispersal.
>Of course, some pieces could be ejected locally at at the impact site, but 
>they probably would have sufficient velocity to miss Earth, and they 
>probably would be so small that the atmosphere would protect us, anyway. 
>In case there is any worry about the possibility of dispersal, however 
>small, there are some steps that could be taken to reduce the danger even 
>further.
>If a transponder is placed on Apophis, the uncertainty in its orbit as 
>extrapolated to 2029 would be reduced, and this could reduce the amount of 
>deflection needed compared to that in Scenario 1 or 2, which would reduce 
>the energy of each impact.  Another possibility is to use Several vehicles 
>instead of one, each delivering a smaller impact.  Different trajectories 
>could be used, instead of the ones in the table, that would make the 
>velocity of each impact less.  (Since momentum is proportional to velocity 
>whereas energy is proportional to velocity squared, the energy of each 
>impact can be reduced by the square of the number of vehicles, while 
>keeping the total impulse constant.  As a byproduct, this method also 
>makes the guidance of the vehicle towards impact easier.)
>Scenario 3 in the above table shows how a launch in 2020 or 2022, 
>depending on which way we want to deflect, could arrive almost 3 years 
>later with a small relative approach velocity.  If a transponder could 
>reduce the total uncertainty enough so that DeltaX = 10 km, a mass of 1600 
>kg or 3720 kg would have sufficient momentum to do the job.  Then only one 
>launch with Delta IV Heavy would be needed (for case A, a Delta IV 
>Medium+(5,4) would suffice), and the impact energy of 2.8e8 J or 3.1e8 J 
>would be less than the gravitational binding energy, so that total 
>dispersal would be completely impossible.
>In Scenario 3 it is likely that the uncertainty in 2022 would be less than 
>that in 2020.  However, we might not be able to take full advantage of 
>that fact because the new data might move the center of the error ellipse 
>to the other side of the keyhole, so that conceivably we would have to 
>deflect in the long direction in case B. Therefore, the same value of 
>DeltaX is used here for both cases of Scenario 3.
>Consider an extreme case of the last situation for Scenario 3B.  In the 
>unlikely case in which the error ellipse is off center in the changed 
>direction by 2 or 3 standard deviations, an interesting situation would 
>arise that is somewhat similar to what Schweickart called "The Real 
>Deflection Dilemma" [13], although there he was concerned with a small 
>error ellipse that is slowly moved across Earth, whereas here we are 
>concerned with a large error ellipse that suddenly jumps (we hope) 
>completely across Earth.  The same situation could occur in either case of 
>Scenario 3 if, during the almost 3 years of flight time, new data from the 
>transponder moves the reduced error ellipse to the other side of the 
>keyhole.  An argument could ensue about whether to proceed with the 
>deflection or to cancel it.
>Whether or not any of the above things are done to reduce the jolt to 
>Apophis, it is possible to spread out the impact in both space and time by 
>exploding the vehicle just before it hits.  The debris hits the asteroid, 
>but the fact that it is spread out over a considerable portion of the 
>surface instead of being concentrated at one point makes dispersal less 
>likely.  Also, since it hits over an appreciable interval of time, it 
>applies a more gentle push to the asteroid instead of creating a shock 
>wave in its material.  For example, spreading the debris over about 200 m 
>would still enable almost all of it to hit within the 320-m diameter of 
>Apophis if the guidance is sufficiently accurate.  At the highest approach 
>velocity in Scenarios 1 and 2 of 4.78 km/s, the impact of a 200-m cloud of 
>debris would be spread out over 0.042 s.  If the speed of sound in the 
>material is 2000 m/s, a disturbance will travel 84 m in this time, which 
>is 26% of the diameter of Apophis.  By shaping the vehicle and the 
>explosive charge appropriately, it should be possible to spread out the 
>cloud considerably more in the direction of approach than transversely, so 
>as to increase this time even more and to make the push even more 
>gentle.  (Unless we are using several very small vehicles, most of the 
>material is there just for its mass, so it can be anything that is 
>dispersed easily, such as sand.)
>6.  Transponder Mission
>As discussed above, a transponder on Apophis would reduce the orbital 
>uncertainty that results from both measurement errors and the Yarkovsky 
>effect.  With less uncertainty, less deflection is needed, and thus there 
>would be less chance of dispersing the asteroid. Depending on the 
>accuracies that can be achieved without a transponder, having one could 
>even make the difference between deflection by impact being practical or 
>not.  There is also the fact that a transponder could show that a 
>deflection mission is unnecessary.  Although a deflection mission might 
>not cost any more than a transponder mission, it would be wise to avoid 
>deflection if we could, in case there is some slight chance that it could 
>disperse Apophis.
>However, it is difficult to justify committing to a transponder mission at 
>this time on a purely monetary basis.  Schweickart estimates that the 
>monetary value of the damage that would be done by an impact in 2036 is 
>around 400 billion dollars.  If this is multiplied by 0.00015, which is 
>the current total probability of impact before the year 2046 [3], the 
>result is $60,000,000 for the amount that would be reasonable to spend at 
>this time on mitigating the threat.  It is unlikely that a useful mission 
>to Apophis could be done for that amount of money.  Schweickart's own 
>estimate for a mission to place a transponder is at least $300M.  Future 
>observations of Apophis can make the probability either increase or 
>decrease; it is better to wait to see which it is.  It would need to get 
>to around 0.001 in order to justify the expenditure, based on the 
>information in Schweickart's paper.  His data indicates that this value is 
>likely to be reached no sooner than 2012 or 2013 even if an impact 
>actually is going to occur, so that this might be the earliest date at 
>which a commitment to such a mission would be well justified.
>Still, peace of mind is worth something.  If nothing is done until 2013 
>and it then turns out that action is needed, it might be 2020 or 2021 
>before a transponder could be placed on Apophis, which might be too late 
>to provide the data needed.  A transponder mission launched around 2013 
>might be very helpful.
>A reasonable compromise might be to do preliminary work on the transponder 
>mission, with less than the full expenditure of funds, until 2013.  Then, 
>if the probability of an Earth impact is high enough, work can proceed 
>for, say, another 4 years to complete the project, for a launch in 2017 
>and an arrival in 2018.  There would still be from 2 to 5 years of data 
>before the launch of a deflection mission, depending on which scenario is 
>used.  Since preliminary work on the deflection mission could start in 
>2014, that should be sufficient time.
>In addition to the uses of a transponder mission previously mentioned and 
>its general scientific purposes, another use of a transponder might be to 
>verify that the desired deflection has been produced. Therefore, even if 
>it is decided that a precursor mission is not justified, it might be 
>reasonable to launch a transponder mission at about the same time or 
>shortly after a deflection mission is launched.  The expense could be 
>justified because, by that time, if the probability of impact has become 
>high enough to justify a mission, very likely it would be high enough to 
>justify the expense of two missions.
>7.  Summary
>If the probability of an impact on Earth by Apophis in 2036 or one of the 
>nearby years rises to around 0.001, action should be taken. Deflection 
>after the very close pass by Earth in 2029, although possible in 
>principle, is difficult.
>If Apophis is deflected before 2029, the amount of deflection needed to 
>prevent an Earth impact in 2036 or one of the nearby years is so small 
>that it can be accomplished merely by hitting the asteroid with a 
>spacecraft, provided that the influence of the Yarkovsky effect on Apophis 
>can be approximately determined.  If this determination cannot be done by 
>observations from Earth by 2014, perhaps a transponder mission shortly 
>after 2014 could do it, or radar and optical observations of Apophis 
>around 2005, 2013, and 2021 should be able to determine it.
>A spacecraft to perform the deflection by impact could be launched by an 
>existing launch vehicle.  Some reasonable launch dates are in the years 
>2020-2023.  The total cost of such a  mission, including development costs 
>and the launch vehicle, could vary from less than $400M to around $600M , 
>depending on how soon a decision is made, provided that only one launch 
>vehicle is used.  This is not much different from the cost of a 
>transponder mission.
>The danger of large fragments hitting Earth from a dispersal of Apophis 
>caused by the impact of a space vehicle is very small, especially if a 
>transponder is used to reduce the orbital uncertainty and thus the amount 
>of deflection needed.  There are several methods for making the danger 
>even smaller, including hitting Apophis with several vehicles with less 
>mass or less velocity instead of one, and exploding the space vehicle just 
>before it hits Apophis.
>Further analysis should be done to resolve some of the issues raised here, 
>especially about the accuracies that are likely to be achieved at various 
>times and how much a transponder would help.
>References
>[1]  R. L. Schweickart, "A Call to (Considered) Action," Presented at the 
>National Space Society International Space Development Conference, 
>Washington, DC, May 20, 2005 (available at
>http://www.b612foundation.org/papers/Call_for_Action.pdf).
>[2]  R. L. Schweickart, letter to David Morrison, July 20, 2005
>(available in the News Archive at http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/).
>[3]  http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html
>[4]  http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/
>[5]  S. J. Ostro, "The Role of Groundbased Radar in Near-Earth Object 
>Hazard Identification and Mitigation," in  Hazards Due to Comets and 
>Asteroids,  T. Gehrels (ed.), University of Arizona Press, 1994, pp. 259-282.
>[6]  J. N. Spitale, "Asteroid Hazard Mitigation Using the Yarkovsky
>Effect," Science 296, p. 77 (April 5, 2002).
>[7]  K. A. Holsapple, "An Assessment of Our Present Ability to Deflect
>Asteroids and Comets," paper AIAA-2004-1413, from [14].
>[8]  S. J. Isakowitz, J. B. Hopkins, and J. P. Hopkins Jr.,
>International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, Fourth Edition, 
>American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.
>[9]  B. P. Shafer, M. D. Garcia, R. J. Scammon, C. M. Snell,
>R. F. Stellingwerf, J. L. Remo, R. A. Managan, and C. E. Rosenkilde,
>"The Coupling of Energy to Asteroids and Comets," in  Hazards Due to 
>Comets and Asteroids,  T. Gehrels (ed.), University of Arizona Press, 
>1994, pp. 955-1012.
>[10]  D. B. Gennery, "Deflecting Asteroids by Means of Standoff Nuclear 
>Explosions," paper AIAA-2004-1439, from [14].
>[11]  K. Holsapple, I. Giblin, K. Housen, A. Nakamura, and E. Ryan,
>"Asteroid Impacts:  Laboratory Experiments and Scaling Laws," in
>Asteroids III,  W. F. Bottke Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, and
>R. P. Binzel (eds.), University of Arizona Press, 2002, pp. 443-462.
>[12]  E. Asphaug, S. J. Ostro, R. S. Hudson, D. J. Scheeres. and W. Benz, 
>"Disruption of Kilometre-Sized Asteroids by Energetic Collisions," Nature 
>393, pp. 437-440 (June 4, 1998).
>[13] R. L. Schweickart, "The Real Deflection Dilemma," paper
>AIAA-2004-1467, from [14].
>[14]  2004 Planetary Defense Conference:  Protecting Earth from Asteroids, 
>sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and 
>The Aerospace Corporation, Garden Grove CA, Feb. 23-26, 2004.  (The 
>individual papers can be downloaded at http://www.aiaa.org/search, and the 
>conference proceedings on CDROM containing all of the papers and the 
>conference White Paper can be purchased by email at warehouse at aiaa.org.)
>-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>NEO News (now in its tenth year of distribution) is an informal 
>compilation of news and opinion dealing with Near Earth Objects (NEOs) and 
>their impacts. These opinions are the responsibility of the individual 
>authors and do not represent the positions of NASA, the International 
>Astronomical Union, or any other organization. To subscribe (or 
>unsubscribe) contact dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov. For additional information, 
>please see the website http://impact.arc.nasa.gov. If anyone wishes to 
>copy or redistribute original material from these notes, fully or in part, 
>please include this disclaimer.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 14:04:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050810085413.033f5e50@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050810140400.57062.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

> Long, but clearly an extropian concern. Past issues
> are in the archives 
> (see end); this one isn't there yet.

Yes. I think that by treating this asteroid seriously
despite its low odds of impact, we will gain practice
in dealing with what will be a constant long term
threat to our survival. 

>  Because both the
> needed velocity change 
> >and the mass of Apophis are small, the needed
> impulse (change in momentum) 
> >is so small that deflection can be done simply by
> ramming the asteroid 
> >with the spacecraft, and such a deflection by
> impact is the easiest 
> >deflection method.

It may be the easiest deflection method but not the
best. Actually making a rendevous with a space-tug
type craft perhaps with deployment of a solar sail
would serve several purposes and have more long term
value: 

1. It would force more emphasis on the development of
technology to prevent future impacts.
2. It would allow for more precise control of the
orbital shift and allow other options than "minor
deflection".
3. It would allow for a second chance in the event of
an unforeseen complications, i.e. surface is more
fragile than thought.
4. Recovery of the space craft would save on long term
costs.
5. A minor deflection might only serve to put off the
eventuality of another potential impact by the same
asteroid in future decades.

A carefully planned operation using very powerful
chemical or nuclear rockets, solar sails, or even
shaped nuclear charges could allow for two preferable
scenarios to "minor deflection".

The first possibility is that we modify its trajectory
such that we use the earth's gravity well to sling
shot it into the moon. Thereby forever eliminating the
threat from that particular asteroid.

The second, if we are feeling confident, is to park
the asteroid in earth orbit and use it as a raw
material source and orbital platform for the
construction of a space elevator or a large
non-landing spacecraft for manned expeditions to the
other planets. We can drill it and set nuclear charges
in it to "scuttle" it, in the event that its orbit
starts to decay although we should also have a
contigency plan to time this with a temporary
world-wide shutdown of the power grid to avoid EMP
damage.

I have always found it encouraging that the Japanese
use the same word for "crisis" and "opportunity". 
  

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From etcs.ret at verizon.net  Wed Aug 10 14:12:50 2005
From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:12:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: intelligent design homework
In-Reply-To: <200508101054.j7AAsER14283@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508101054.j7AAsER14283@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <ik2kf19iqovfu670ufphulji2a6fe9h94q@4ax.com>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:54:14 -0600, 
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 23, Issue 21,
ben  wrote:

> [ ... ] This is 
>probably how you get gods in the first place. So, in that sense, i would 
>agree with you, that 'god' is in the same category as 'six'.
>
>ben

You're heretically confusing 'six' with 'forty-two.'


stencil sends


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 10 15:52:23 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:52:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050810140400.57062.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050810140400.57062.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D3E7A48C-D48F-4F80-8762-AD0C3A220BAD@bonfireproductions.com>


On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:04 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> A carefully planned operation using very powerful
> chemical or nuclear rockets, solar sails, or even
> shaped nuclear charges could allow for two preferable
> scenarios to "minor deflection".

As far as 'the easiest' goes - my understanding is that a proximity  
detonation of a nuclear device would allow the heated side of the  
object to become propulsion. Not only would the explosion work to  
nudge, but the remaining eminations from the side of the body facing  
the detonation could provide thrust for days as it cools.


> The first possibility is that we modify its trajectory
> such that we use the earth's gravity well to sling
> shot it into the moon. Thereby forever eliminating the
> threat from that particular asteroid.

Hm. I like the sound of this and actually finding utility in these  
objects. I have a mathless thought to share however: A body on the  
Torino scale that has been judged worth of taking action against, is  
then sling-shotted around the Earth (requiring more than an  
approximation of its mass) and imparted enough energy to leave  
Earth's well again, but then strike the moon, which has 1/6g pull.

How much of that final interaction would/could make it back to Earth?  
The impact would almost certainly have to end up on the side facing  
Earth, given the angles and the required assurance that we don't put  
the object in a ballistic orbit.

yes? no?


]3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050810/06f349ff/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 15:58:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <42FA4F9C.7000804@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20050810155844.59670.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- david <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
> 
> > Mike Lorrey writes:
> >
> >> I myself would, beyond my and Sterns definition, divide planets up
> into
> >> the following categories: gas giants, terrestrial planets, and ice
> >> planets. I would regard the round asteroid Ceres as a terrestrial
> >> planet (that it suffers from Jupiter's gravitational imperialism
> is a
> >> separate issue), and all the KBOs that are round as ice planets.
> >
> >
> > I agree totally.  I even wish we didn't distinguish between stars, 
> > moons and planets.  We should describe objects based on their 
> > characteristics.  I would prefer a system like this:
> > X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
> > Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
> > Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
> > Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
> > Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
> > Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
> > Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar
> etc.
> > Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids,
> fragments, 
> > debris
> > -- 
> 
> one suggested change :
> 
> Oddballs : Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris
> after all, not all balls are round - eg. footballs.   : )

The big question is a consistent name for all those near earth
asteroids that are a threat to us. Here I will take inspiration from
the parody star wars trailer, SW3: A LOST HOPE, by Sequential Pictures
(http://www.sequentialpictures.com):

VADER: "What now, my master?" 
EMPEROR: "Well, I've been working on this for quite some time."
[Palpatine displays a page from the Emperors Note Pad showing a circle
with a smaller circle in it, with a dot in the center....] 
VADER: (confused, asks) ".... A boobie?" 
EMPEROR: "No! It's a battlestation. I call it -- The Sphere O'
Fear.[Vader shakes head] Or, Planet Death. [more negativity] The
Killing Ball? Death Moon. [nope] Giant Hurt Ball! The Deathticle...." 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Aug 10 16:09:28 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:09:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	Hollywood:  Film Innovation - Science, Tech, Physics, Space News
Message-ID: <380-22005831016928342@M2W049.mail2web.com>

"Hollywood's top movie studios have agreed on a pivotal technical standard
that clears the way for a brave new era of digital film projection in
theaters worldwide, officials announced."
http://www.physorg.com/news5504.html

As a former inde-filmmaker, I have nostalgia for celluloid, but when I
worked with Francis Coppola at Zoetrope on "Six Shots" the first HD digital
film; I was convinced that our beloved art of filmmaking would soon be the
wave of the future.  Two decades have passed and it is still in the making. 

There are several reasons why this new technology has not become successful
so far:  the lack of cohesiveness in the film industry in setting an
industry standard, the high cost for theaters to change the medium for
viewing films and upgrading their hardware.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc


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




From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Wed Aug 10 17:06:00 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:06:00 -0400
Subject: ASTRO: Defining 'planet' wasRe: [extropy-chat] The list is not
	dead...
In-Reply-To: <20050810155844.59670.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050810155844.59670.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <S421541AbVHJRGC/20050810170602Z+55732@ams006.ftl.affinity.com>

Mike Lorrey writes: 

>> mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
>> > X-rayballs: Quasars, Blackholes, etc.
>> > Neutronballs: Neutron stars, collapsed stars, etc.
>> > Lightballs:  Sun, stars, etc.
>> > Heatballs: Brown Dwarfs, Jupiter, Saturn?, etc.
>> > Gasballs: Uranus, Neptune, etc.
>> > Dirtballs: Earth, Ganymede, Luna, Ceres, etc.
>> > Iceballs: Pluto, Charon, 2003UB313, 2003EL61, Sedna, Varuna, Quaoar
>> etc.
>> > Nonballs(fragments): Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids,
>> fragments, 
>> > debris
>> Oddballs : Irregularly shaped moons, asteroids, fragments, debris
>> after all, not all balls are round - eg. footballs.   : )
> 
> The big question is a consistent name for all those near earth
> asteroids that are a threat to us.

I suggest "Lowballs" for the near-Earth ones and/or "Foulballs" for the 
threatening ones. 

(And to the suggestion that I have a testicular fetish, I say, "Ballocks!") 

 --
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 10 17:45:58 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050810140400.57062.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050810174558.28564.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The second, if we are feeling confident, is to park
> the asteroid in earth orbit and use it as a raw
> material source and orbital platform for the
> construction of a space elevator or a large
> non-landing spacecraft for manned expeditions to the
> other planets. We can drill it and set nuclear charges
> in it to "scuttle" it, in the event that its orbit
> starts to decay although we should also have a
> contigency plan to time this with a temporary
> world-wide shutdown of the power grid to avoid EMP
> damage.

You're not going to be able to implement said shutdown.  It doesn't
matter if there's an orbital strike with a possible EMP; some
countries would rather take their chances.  (And some countries would
take it as an excuse for war, and would rather see the asteroid decay
in most cases.  "You have to trigger an EMP or the asteroid's going to
wipe out Washington DC?  Watch us not care.  In fact, watch us cheer
the asteroid on!")

That said, it would be of much use if we got practice moving relatively
small asteroids - say, meteors that would harmlessly burn up in the
Earth's atmosphere if they accidentally entered it - into Earth orbit.
These rocks could be mined, if they had much useful material, or simply
used as shells for orbital construction.  (And the first ones would no
doubt be of significant scientific interest.  One might possibly be
able to cover the costs of the mission as a scientific project alone,
with funding from relevant agencies.)

I wonder if, say, one could send a probe to the Geminids (which are
generated by the B-type asteroid 3200 Phaethon), have it spend some
time studying them, then prep them for insertion into stable Earth
orbit as the next meteor shower approached?

> I have always found it encouraging that the Japanese
> use the same word for "crisis" and "opportunity". 

That's Chinese, and an urban legend (though one that they happily relay
to tourists).


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 10 18:41:21 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:41:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050810174558.28564.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050810174558.28564.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3FC30B76-30B8-4056-8ABC-3296270F8466@bonfireproductions.com>


Does this say "ice cream waffle dog" or something, then? =)

http://pw1.netcom.com/~spritex/crisis.gif


/hates when that happens.

//especially with a tattoo.



On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> That's Chinese, and an urban legend (though one that they happily  
> relay
> to tourists).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050810/425d105e/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 10 19:16:23 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <3FC30B76-30B8-4056-8ABC-3296270F8466@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050810191623.61449.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001103.html
http://www.pinyin.info/chinese/crisis.html

As urban legends go, this one is kind of true...but misleading.  It's
based on inexact translations of the symbols in questions - they
*could* be read to mean "danger" and "opportunity", but not quite in
the same meaning as "crisis = danger + opportunity" implies.

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:

> 
> Does this say "ice cream waffle dog" or something, then? =)
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~spritex/crisis.gif
> 
> 
> /hates when that happens.
> 
> //especially with a tattoo.
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> > That's Chinese, and an urban legend (though one that they happily  
> > relay
> > to tourists).
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 10 20:34:16 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:34:16 -0400
Subject: bad! bad meme! (was Re: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection)
In-Reply-To: <20050810191623.61449.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050810191623.61449.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <23591A4D-41BB-41F2-944B-18F52B9D091A@bonfireproductions.com>


"Virus Removed."

That site at pinyin makes some great points, thanks!

I thought it was worth writing to the list since this is the kind of  
thing we are dealing with as we move forward - I learned this  
ideathing about 20 years ago, and it gets fixed, cited, notarized  
etc. in 15 person-minutes effort. Of course it is on top of a  
developed infrastructure (pinyin) and I had to access the fix from  
Adrian manually (click, go to website) and then process it  
(understand and read language)

But how soon to skipping those other bits? I don't know if I'd trust  
my e-brain to Norton Utilities, but, Wikipedia and NPOV? maybe.

]3ret



On Aug 10, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001103.html
> http://www.pinyin.info/chinese/crisis.html
>
> As urban legends go, this one is kind of true...but misleading.  It's
> based on inexact translations of the symbols in questions - they
> *could* be read to mean "danger" and "opportunity", but not quite in
> the same me