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



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 10 21:07:35 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:07:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <20050808230107.92080.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <043501c59def$88f465f0$0100a8c0@kevin>

I think so, but only if the people of that caliber decide to run for the office and do a good job at it. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050810/bd868b0e/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 10 21:34:13 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:34:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl><001301c59c2e$70e59550$0100a8c0@kevin>
	<42F885A6.3060409@aol.com>
Message-ID: <043e01c59df3$4136eea0$0100a8c0@kevin>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?


> 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.
Nope. I haven;t been fooled. Everythign has been turning out just about how
I expected.
>
> > 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?
That would be hard to do since there isn't an official definition of the
word. It is simply a word used by people to describe anyone who disagrees
with their more liberal point of view. In your eyes, I may be a neo-con, but
to more conservative people, I would be a liberal....And who is "their"
anyways? The black helicopter people?
>
> > and I certainly
> >don't support his religious views.
> >
>
> They're unrelated.
Not necessarily since many people choose to use the "neo-con" word to imply
a person has dreams of religious rule.
>
> > 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?
Just curious. Do you honestly believe that Bush is killing arabs for grins
and giggles? Do you think that any US president has enjoyed the idea of
killing anyone for fun? Whther you like it or not, Bush is a human being who
was born and raised in the US. The odds are overwhelming that he has a great
deal of respect for life in general. Even id his decision was wrong, it
doesn;t mean he liked the idea. Many people do things they don't like
because they think it is the right thing to do. Are you so different that
you can;t comprehend this concept?
>
> >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.

OMG. You have to be joking. You need to see a qualified psychologist because
you are having difficulty with reality. "left", middle,  and "right" are
simply labels applied broadly to people in groups of similar opinions. They
are applied to separate groups because they are dissimilar enough to justify
a second grouping. You are implying that everyone has the same basic
beliefs. Get help.
>
> >So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an administration
> >with a religious ideology?
> >
>
> And a penchant for war profiteering?
War profiteering? Give me a break. Who's stocks went up as a result of the
war?
>
> >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.
>
Exactly. He "SAID" he was going to do that. He also said a good number of
other things and they just happened to contradict each other. You have
simply chosen to bellive this particular statement. That doesn;t mean he
would have done it.
> >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.
>
Exactly.
> Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as unbearable
> and anything was worth the switch.
Would you have felt the same if the replacement were a grenade disguised as
a suppository?
>
> >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.

Will you acknowledge then that everyone who disagrees with you is not an
idiot? That there may be at least one single person out there who voted for
Bush for a reason that was valuable to them and their agenda and that every
single person who voted for Bush is not a "dumbf**k"?
>
> > 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
>



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 10 21:47:24 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <043501c59def$88f465f0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050810214724.28690.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

This is encouraging. Perhaps we can get a president of the stature of Lincoln elected in 2008, rather than the stature of the son of the Gipper's veep. Bush is tough, Americans admire toughness as much as anything; Bush is savvy, Americans admire savviness more than intellectual angst. However could it be possible to elect a president who is tough, savvy, with a first class mind but not an effete intellectual born-agin like Jimmuh Carter?

"kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:I think so, but only if the people of that caliber decide to run for the office and do a good job at it. 


		
---------------------------------
 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/20050810/3dc7c139/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug 10 22:05:36 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:05:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Rice genome mapped
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810170354.01dd3aa0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>



Scientists Crack DNA Code of Rice

By MALCOLM RITTER
AP Science Writer

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-rice-genes,0,5029530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

August 10, 2005, 1:03 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- An international team of scientists has deciphered the genetic 
code of rice, an advance that should speed improvements in a crop that 
feeds more than half the world's population. [until the hyper-anxious shut 
it down]

It's the first crop plant to have its genome sequenced, which means 
scientists identified virtually all the 389 million chemical building 
blocks of its DNA. [etc]



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 10 22:06:06 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: bad! bad meme! (was Re: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection)
In-Reply-To: <23591A4D-41BB-41F2-944B-18F52B9D091A@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050810220606.50182.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

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

Part of the problem is that it's largely self-service - and might have
to be.  How do you know that an idea you've held for 20 years is wrong?
For example, I believe in gravity roughly consistent with Newton's
laws (as occasionally modified by unusual or extreme particulars, such
as in quantum situations)...and so far, I do not have any evidence to
contradict that belief.  On the other hand, I hold the apparently
significantly minority opinion that much of our scientific theories on
the behavior of the universe, especially beyond our solar system, is
suspect at best since it's based on data from one location; is there
some facet, some important data about the data, that I'm missing that
would show that astrophysics is just as well established as, say, the
physics of steam engines?  I literally can't spend all my time
questioning all my beliefs: to do a proper job of that would take more
than 24 hours per day, and the results would just be more beliefs that
themselves would be open to question (even if hopefully more solidly
backed up by evidence).

And even once I do identify an idea to question, how best to do it?  I
like to think I've made Web-enabled research into one of my
professional skills...but I have to admit, there's almost always a
significant degree of luck involved.  Will I happen to think of a set
of keywords that will lead me to the answers?  Will I happen to
understand the answers when I read them?  For that matter, will I
happen to think of the right questions to ask?

There are, of course, systems and strategies to help solve those.  But
they are not perfect; they just weight the odds.  (Moreover, I tend to
grok and internalize them, feeling through their lessons until they
become unworded instict.  It's sometimes ultra-convenient for being
able to come up with the right answers, assuming I've seen something
like what I'm running into before, but it makes explaining the answers
problematic.  Running science programs on the animalistic part of my
brain, I suppose.)

There's also a present-day disadvantage to e-brains: they work best
given real-time access to the Web.  In settings where that connection
is not present, such as most of the face-to-face meetings that almost
all of the world continues to rely heavily on, the only data you've got
is the data you've cached locally.  Wireless connections and wearable
computers would only help with this if they could aid without
interfering with the meeting - a high bar (which unfortunately can't
realistically be lowered much without destroying most of the utility)
which no actual (as opposed to sci-fi or design only) wearable computer
I've yet seen comes anywhere near satisfying even when they're doing
nothing, and then there's the AI programs to grep for potential
misunderstandings and obtain the corrections, and then there's the
problem of presenting it back to the user without interrupting the
conversation.

...but perhaps just listing the problems like that is itself a start.
So, we have:
* Unobtrusive hardware (either socially accepted, or perhaps more
  feasably, something that a luddite looking at your face couldn't
  distinguish from an accepted object and thus couldn't take exception
  to)
* AI able to understand the ideas being spoken about in a conversation
  (at least well enough to identify and search for the ideas)
  ** Voice-to-text and other subcomponents of this idea have been done;
     part of this challenge may simply be identifying and assembling
     them
* Automated understanding/translation of search results into
  human-digestible chunks
* Presenting the chunks to the human without interrupting the human
  (which will probably take some skill on the human's part, but is
  there a way to make this easier for the human?)
Anything else?


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Aug 10 23:33:55 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:33:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050810214724.28690.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <043501c59def$88f465f0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050810191825.05e8a9f0@unreasonable.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

>This is encouraging. Perhaps we can get a president of the stature of 
>Lincoln elected in 2008, rather than the stature of the son of the 
>Gipper's veep. Bush is tough, Americans admire toughness as much as 
>anything; Bush is savvy, Americans admire savviness more than intellectual 
>angst. However could it be possible to elect a president who is tough, 
>savvy, with a first class mind but not an effete intellectual born-agin 
>like Jimmuh Carter?

We came close; we at least had one on the ballot in 1964. Beginning last 
November, I've taken to wearing a "Goldwater in 1964" button on my lapel.

It's funny -- I'm on another list that obsessively discusses politics, and 
is fairly evenly split between liberal, conservative, and libertarian. When 
I brought up Goldwater, amazingly everyone agreed that they thought highly 
of him. All those who were old enough to have voted in 1964, and did vote 
for LBJ, wished they'd voted for Goldwater.

Goldwater was tough, savvy, smart, knowledgeable, compassionate, and at 
least 80/80 libertarian. But he was too honorable to adequately counter 
Bill Moyers' campaign smears of him, the latter being all that most people 
remember of him.


-- David Lubkin.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 02:09:34 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldwater was really something
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050810191825.05e8a9f0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050811020934.64277.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

I know this getting into hero worshipping chit -chat, too much of politics is based on childish awe for a hero,  but everytime Goldwater is mentioned, he is mentioned with respect. Hillary Clinton worked for Goldwater's presidential campaign, apparently she doesn't regret it.
What is most pleasing is how Goldwater was consistently opposed to the draft, that is the acid test of a libertarian, not wanting to turn an impressionable inexperienced young man into a thing to be shot or blown up or even burnt alive.
Being opposed to military conscription is a sign of respect if not compassion.

 
David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

We came close; we at least had one on the ballot in 1964. Beginning last 
November, I've taken to wearing a "Goldwater in 1964" button on my lapel.

It's funny -- I'm on another list that obsessively discusses politics, and 
is fairly evenly split between liberal, conservative, and libertarian. When 
I brought up Goldwater, amazingly everyone agreed that they thought highly 
of him. All those who were old enough to have voted in 1964, and did vote 
for LBJ, wished they'd voted for Goldwater.

Goldwater was tough, savvy, smart, knowledgeable, compassionate, and at 
least 80/80 libertarian. But he was too honorable to adequately counter 
Bill Moyers' campaign smears of him, the latter being all that most people 
remember of him.


-- David Lubkin.

_______________________________________________
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/20050810/7e3cabf0/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Aug 11 03:02:16 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:02:16 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <043e01c59df3$4136eea0$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <BAY103-F21E8BD52034BD2BF4D38B0B4B80@phx.gbl><001301c59c2e$70e59550$0100a8c0@kevin>	<42F885A6.3060409@aol.com>
	<043e01c59df3$4136eea0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <42FABFB8.2060004@aol.com>

kevinfreels.com wrote:

>>>      
>>>
>>Fooled twice, huh?  Sad.
>>    
>>
>Nope. I haven;t been fooled. Everythign has been turning out just about how
>I expected.
>  
>

Happy?


>>>I am not a neo-con
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Maybe you are, have you checked their official views?
>>    
>>
>That would be hard to do since there isn't an official definition of the
>word. It is simply a word used by people to describe anyone who disagrees
>with their more liberal point of view. In your eyes, I may be a neo-con, but
>to more conservative people, I would be a liberal....And who is "their"
>anyways? The black helicopter people?
>  
>

Check out the Project for the New American Century, it's -relatively 
official- and includes all the -real neocons-.  If you -pretty much 
agree with them- then you're a neo-conservative.  Remember that the 
neo-conservatives have adopted the term so it's gaining widespread 
recognition.

>>>and I certainly
>>>don't support his religious views.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>They're unrelated.
>>    
>>
>Not necessarily since many people choose to use the "neo-con" word to imply
>a person has dreams of religious rule.
>  
>

Only the ones who aren't aware that the neo-con agenda was formed by 
athiests, Jews and Christians alike with no particular religious focus.

>>>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?
>>    
>>
>Just curious. Do you honestly believe that Bush is killing arabs for grins
>and giggles?
>

Pretty much.  It makes him happy when they die.

> Do you think that any US president has enjoyed the idea of
>killing anyone for fun?
>
There have been several generals who were presidents of the united 
states.  I have found that warriors who are successful have to find a 
way to enjoy what they do and in personal research I know plenty of army 
personnel who "like the action", so yes, I do think that.  I believe, 
for instance, that Andrew Jackson actually enjoyed killing indians.

> Whther you like it or not, Bush is a human being who
>was born and raised in the US. The odds are overwhelming that he has a great
>deal of respect for life in general.
>

As everywhere, evidence is what counts.  What I see are bombs, dying 
people, etc.

> Even id his decision was wrong, it
>doesn;t mean he liked the idea. 
>

He certainly did profit from it and it made some really nice cameos and 
boosted his presidential ratings enough to make the second election look 
reasonable.

>Many people do things they don't like
>because they think it is the right thing to do. Are you so different that
>you can;t comprehend this concept?
>  
>

I don't believe that Mr.  Bush has the same concept of "right thing to 
do" that I have.  I genuinely believe that he's interested in gaining as 
much power as possible using whatever means necessary and if people have 
to die in the process, so be it.  Yes, that makes him VERY different 
from me.

>>Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a shill for the so-called
>>"right".  I think I've said that here before.
>>    
>>
>
>OMG. You have to be joking. You need to see a qualified psychologist because
>you are having difficulty with reality. "left", middle,  and "right" are
>simply labels applied broadly to people in groups of similar opinions. They
>are applied to separate groups because they are dissimilar enough to justify
>a second grouping. You are implying that everyone has the same basic
>beliefs. Get help.
>  
>

No, I'm implying that the ideological difference between the American 
Left and the  American Right is so slight as to be negligible since they 
both have the primary function of maintaining the status quo.  This 
includes now the libertarians who -apparently- are supporting the 
state's imperialist ambitions.

>>>So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in support of an administration
>>>with a religious ideology?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>And a penchant for war profiteering?
>>    
>>
>War profiteering? Give me a break. Who's stocks went up as a result of the
>war?
>  
>

UDI - look it up.  Biggest post-dot-com IPO.  Look who the angels were, 
Carlyle Group.  Are you seriously unaware of this?  Haliburton, billions 
of dollars lost mysteriously.  Cheney, stilling getting his 
million-dollar-a-year pension.  They're not the only ones.

>>>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.
>>
>>    
>>
>Exactly. He "SAID" he was going to do that. He also said a good number of
>other things and they just happened to contradict each other. You have
>simply chosen to bellive this particular statement. That doesn;t mean he
>  
>
>would have done it.
>  
>

Which other things do you think he said he was going to do?  What 
context were they brought up. That's the position he took on his website 
publicly and officially. 

>>>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.
>>
>>    
>>
>Exactly.
>  
>

Do you suddenly get hungry when McDonalds commercials come on too?

>>Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up my @ss as unbearable
>>and anything was worth the switch.
>>    
>>
>Would you have felt the same if the replacement were a grenade disguised as
>a suppository?
>  
>

Well, if the pineapple up my ass is really hurting me and someone says 
they could replace it with whatever is in the black box and it's 
relatively the same size as the pineapple, I might take the chance just 
because they'd have to take the pineaplle out for a second to get the 
other thing in, I might be able to run or something.

>>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Will you acknowledge then that everyone who disagrees with you is not an
>idiot? That there may be at least one single person out there who voted for
>Bush for a reason that was valuable to them and their agenda and that every
>single person who voted for Bush is not a "dumbf**k"?
>  
>
Okay, I'll grant that there are simultaneously evil people and stupid 
people who voted for Bush, and a little bit of both sometimes in the 
same individual. 

Robbie Lindauer




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 04:08:43 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050810085413.033f5e50@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050811040843.13661.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

> >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.
  
What moron thought that dark eyptian gods were a good
naming convention for this sort of thing. I mean if
you are trying to scare funding out the public I can
see why someone would do it. But asteroids are pretty
scary on their own to anyone with half a brain.

After all they did not call hurricanes like Andrew -
Shiva the Destroyer - and such they kill thousands of
people. Why add fuel to the fires of superstition?
Most especially because April 13, 2029 is a Friday. 

If you were Bruce Willis on some suicide mission to
save the planet on Friday the 13th, wouldn't you
rather go up against Fred the asteroid than Apophis
the god of destruction that eats the sun? Especially
when you are reliant on an army of twitchy
astrophysicists and telemetry technicians on Earth?

Just some common sense kicking in here.

 




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  Thu Aug 11 04:44:57 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <D3E7A48C-D48F-4F80-8762-AD0C3A220BAD@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050811044457.94776.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 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.

Well nukes certainly have the energy to do the trick.
Since the initial estimate of mass of MN2004 is 46
million metric tons, a 50 megaton nuke would impart
slightly more than the equivalent of a ton of
conventional explosive per ton of asteroid. 

The problem however is briefly addressed in the
article. Unless we know that the asteroid has
sufficent structural intergrity, we might literally
blow it apart. Then we have a swarm of "dirty" meteors
to deal with instead of an asteroid. It might be a
gravel type ateroid to begin with. Firing nukes at it
sounds like a last ditch sort of thing. Actually
taking careful measurements of how brittle the
asteroid is and then deciding how suddenly or slowly
we accelerate it would be the best bet. Save the nukes
for a hail mary.

> 
> 
> > 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?

Well there is certainly the possibility of a meteor
shower from the ejecta of the moon but I doubt any of
the pieces would be torino scale objects themeselves,
barring a NEO on the scale of Ceres. Also keep in mind
that the moon and the asteroid are roughly spherical
so we could use billiard ball type dynamics such that
most of the ejecta was at an angle relative to the
earth, like a bank shot.  



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  Thu Aug 11 05:04:33 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050810174558.28564.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050811050433.2889.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- 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.  

Yeah. Well the dinosuars didn't have a chance to work
together to avoid their common fate. I was just being
courteous is all.

> 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?

Yeah this and a deep impact type mission to MN2004 to
determine its true mass, composition, and structual
integrity. We could even use the expected range of
possible masses based on our current estimate of 46
million metric tons to use this nudge to make orbital
insertion or "shooting the moon" next time around
easier or even just stall for time.



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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 06:00:59 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <043e01c59df3$4136eea0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050811060059.59726.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>

In reference to the term neoconservative/neocon,
"kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> It is simply a word used by people to describe
> anyone who disagrees with their more liberal point
of view. 

This is totally bogus.  If you can't make a minimal
effort at writing from a factual basis, then you
should not participate in the discussion.  Google up
"neocons", "neoconservative", "Leo Strauss", "Project
for the New American Century", Likudniks, "A Clean
Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", and do some
reading.  

> Not necessarily since many people choose to use the
> "neo-con" word to imply
> a person has dreams of religious rule.

You have already demonstrated that you have not sought
the facts behind neoconservatism.  Now you're making
broad assertions about the implied meanings--private
and thus obscure intended meanings-- of "many people"
regarding a term the meaning of which you are
demonstrably clueless about. 

> ... Do you honestly believe that Bush is
> killing arabs for grins
> and giggles? ...

> ... Whther you like it or not,
> Bush is a human being who
> was born and raised in the US. The odds are
> overwhelming that he has a great
> deal of respect for life in general. Even id his
> decision was wrong, it
> doesn;t mean he liked the idea. ...

I do not believe Bush to be an overt sadist or
homicidal psychopath.  I do believe him to be a small
man of small character whose need "to BE sombody"-- to
prove himself--to strut about as "a war president" in 
twisted vistas of self-absorbtion--to, in place of
judgement, trust his faith and his gut despite his
unbroken record of failure doing so--have made him the
mass killer that he has become, the worst president
the US has ever had, and the single most dangerous
human on the planet today.

> > And a penchant for war profiteering?

> War profiteering? Give me a break. Who's stocks went
> up as a result of the
> war?

No, you give US a break!  What flippin' reality are
you inhabiting?  It's springtime for Haliburton,
Bechtel, all the oil companies, all the defense
industries, and a raft of private "security" firms.
And those are only the ones I know about. 

What's really going on here?  No one is willing to
choose loyalty to the truth and with it a chance at a
rational outcome.  All are captivated by the
baboon-like hooting of tribal loyalty.  Someday
perhaps,  psychologists and historians will clarify
the interwoven threads of human nature and temporal
circumstance that lead to this place.  Till then, lots
ofm screaming, lots of dying, very little listening,
very little thinking.  Congratulations on your
contribution, Kevin.  

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, 
    but most pick themselves up and hurry off 
    as if nothing had happened."
                    Winston Churchill



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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 06:16:58 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <D3E7A48C-D48F-4F80-8762-AD0C3A220BAD@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050811061658.32484.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 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.

Another reason this is a bad idea is that if the rock
is spinning, then the "emmissions" you speak of would
cause the orbit to become chaotic and less
predictable. If we land on the thing, we will be able
to use timed pulses of thrust to get controllable
vectoring of the rock. The easiest way is seldomly the
most useful.  

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 kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Aug 11 07:11:10 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:11:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
References: <20050811060059.59726.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008501c59e43$da88c100$0100a8c0@kevin>



>
> > It is simply a word used by people to describe
> > anyone who disagrees with their more liberal point
> of view.
>
> This is totally bogus.  If you can't make a minimal
> effort at writing from a factual basis, then you
> should not participate in the discussion.  Google up
> "neocons", "neoconservative", "Leo Strauss", "Project
> for the New American Century", Likudniks, "A Clean
> Break:
> A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", and do some
> reading.
I have.


>
> > Not necessarily since many people choose to use the
> > "neo-con" word to imply
> > a person has dreams of religious rule.
>
> You have already demonstrated that you have not sought
> the facts behind neoconservatism.  Now you're making
> broad assertions about the implied meanings--private
> and thus obscure intended meanings-- of "many people"
> regarding a term the meaning of which you are
> demonstrably clueless about.
>

Amazing how your rant on how stupid everyone was has been reduced the an
argument of the definition of neo-con. I see you had trouble arguing the
other points.
I understand neoconservatism. However, you must understand that the word
gets thrown around in the media in a variety of ways. Ask a laymen what they
think a neo-conservative is and I bet they will tell you something about the
religious right. I may be wrong and it may just be a local bubble I am in
that thinks that way, but as you can see below, the word neo-conservatism is
often tied to religion in a variety of ways.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH13Aa01.html
http://www.iratecitizens.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0209-22.htm
http://www.opednews.com/lower031504_bush_religion.htm
http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20050209165416747&mode=print0
http://www.gayguidetoronto.com/1_shaun/mar_2005.html
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/christianperspectives.html
http://www.rabble.ca/in_his_own_words.shtml?x=37922

However, if you are still in denial that the term is often misused, and
thrown about and that there is no real consensus on the definition of the
word, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Pay particular attention to "...in the most extreme form of this view,
neoconservatism has been regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance
Jewish interests. Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when
elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through
the intellectual domination of national leaders. ..."

Oh, and "Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote in
2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use
'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that
forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western
conservative' ....."

As you can see, I did not make it up or come by this through my ignorance.
Both quotes refer to the same implied meanings made by "some" people. I
admit, I used the word "many" when "some" would have worked just fine. But
as you can see, religion is tied to the word "neo-conservative" quite often.





From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Thu Aug 11 06:58:03 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:58:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <20050811060059.59726.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BF20450B.12C3%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

On 8/10/05 11:00 PM, "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, you give US a break!  What flippin' reality are
> you inhabiting?  It's springtime for Haliburton,
> Bechtel, all the oil companies, all the defense
> industries, and a raft of private "security" firms.
> And those are only the ones I know about.


Then I assume that you know that companies like Halliburton and Bechtel got
very fat cozy contracts from the Clinton administration?  Is this because
Bill Clinton is best buds with Dick Cheney?  Or maybe it is because they've
always been the recipients of huge no-bid contracts...  Don't delude
yourself; the fact that these companies are making money from the government
has nothing to do with who is in office.  Just because political party
operatives are slobbering over it does not mean any sane person should be.

For the clueless, Halliburton and Bechtel often serve as proxy government
agencies among other things -- that is their business, and has been for
many, many decades.  Not just for the US government, but for most of the
governments around the world, including countries that the US is not
particularly friendly with.  There are only a handful of companies in the
world that do what they do, and they are the 800-lb gorillas, so not a lot
of competition in the market.

Kool-Aid is not healthy for you, no matter what the color.  I suggest you
lay off it and get a grip on the real situation.  Finding some conspiracy in
Halliburton is willful ignorance of the facts and that company's history.
Bloody hell, and people wonder why the signal-to-noise ratio is in the
toilet around here...


J. Andrew Rogers




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Thu Aug 11 08:39:30 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:39:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
Message-ID: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

Don't forget to take your Dramamine:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8BTF8QO0.html

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - Page updated at 1:27 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo must be obtained from 
The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale at seattletimes.com with 
your request.




Company to sell trips around the moon

By LINDA A. JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - The company that pioneered commercial space travel by sending 
"tourists" up to the International Space Station is planning a new mission: 
rocketing people around the far side of the moon.

The price of a round-trip ticket: $100 million.

The first mission by Space Adventures could happen in 2008 or 2009 and is 
planned as a stepping stone to an eventual lunar landing by private 
citizens.

"For the first time in history, a private company is organizing a mission to 
the moon," Space Adventures CEO Eric Anderson said at a Manhattan news 
conference Wednesday, a day after space shuttle Discovery safely returned to 
Earth. "This mission will inspire countries of the world, citizens ... our 
youth."

Anderson said he already has prospective "private explorers" who are 
interested in the trip and could afford the ticket.

The initial travelers would be the first to orbit the moon in more than 33 
years, according to the Arlington, Va., company. Only 27 people have ever 
made such a journey.

The trip, aboard a modified Russian spacecraft, will offer the chance to see 
the Earth rise from lunar orbit and a view of the far side of the moon from 
an altitude of 62 miles.

The far side of the moon has a special appeal, Anderson told The Associated 
Press in an interview, because it takes most of the hits from asteroids, 
meteorites and other objects from deep space. That results in many more 
craters than on the side seen from Earth.

"It's much more interesting to look at than the near side," he said, adding 
that the lunar orbits will be done when the far side is illuminated by the 
sun.

Space Adventures plans to offer multiple trip itineraries aboard Russia's 
Soyuz TMA spacecraft. One possibility is a 5 1/2-day lunar flight and up to 
21 days at the International Space Station; another is a nine-day mission 
with three days of free flight in low-Earth orbit and the rest flying around 
the moon. In both cases, the spacecraft would dock with a booster, carried 
up by a separate launch vehicle, to propel it to the moon.

The Soyuz was originally designed for lunar missions, although none ever 
occurred. Anderson called it the most reliable craft in the history of space 
travel.

It has 10 cubic meters of crew space, about the size of a large SUV. The 
cosmonaut and two passengers will sleep in reclining chairs, said Nikolai 
Sevastyanov, president of rocket maker Rocket and Space Corporation Energia.

Space Adventures has a partnership with the rocket maker and the Federal 
Space Agency of the Russian Federation, through which they have sent 
American businessman Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth on a 
Soyuz for stays on the space station.

The next mission is slated to send a team up to the space station for 10 
days starting Oct. 1. One of the crew members is Gregory Olsen, a New Jersey 
scientist who has been training for the mission in Russia on and off since 
2004.

"Who wouldn't want to go to the moon?" said Olsen, 60, a surprise guest at 
the news conference. "I'm really interested, but one flight at a time."

Modifications to the Soyuz will include altering its docking system and 
installing an 18-inch window so passengers can take high-resolution photos 
of the lunar surface.

___

On the Net:

http://www.spaceadventures.com



Copyright ? 2005 The Seattle Times Company






From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 11 10:04:28 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:04:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <FDEAEFB6-D95A-467A-AA2F-39B0634F238A@mac.com>

For that kind of money I expect to at least walk (bound, hop,  
whatever) on the moon.

-s

>
> Copyright ? 2005 The Seattle Times Company
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Aug 11 10:16:18 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:16:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] =?windows-1252?q?Humanity=92s_entry_into_the_post?=
	=?windows-1252?q?-Darwinian_era?=
Message-ID: <470a3c520508110316192a18ee@mail.gmail.com>

The Transhumanity <http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/> blog has an 
interesting essay by the Los Alamos scientist Alex Alaniz, also author of 
the SF novel Beyond Future
Shock<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1419609440/qid=1123599258/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4797061-6659156?v=glance&s=books>.

Humanity's entry into the post-Darwinian
era<http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/844/>- An essay
concerning law, social identity, inequality, conflict, crime,
warfare and economic reality at the cusp of humanity's entry into 
post-corporeal, post-Darwinian evolution - This essay will address some of 
the legal, social, and economic issues of a post-Darwinian future, pose many 
questions, and try to make the case that now is the time for active 
discussion regarding the development of legal and economic means to greatly 
reduce?if not altogether prevent?the dangers and pitfalls of the real future 
shock about to befall all of us, namely, our entry into a post-Darwinian 
evolutionary era. It will also touch on the possible natures and physical 
restrictions constraining a post-Darwinian evolution, and discuss our likely 
motivations for entry into a post-corporeal era, along with the possible 
attendant social and economic consequences, such as the possibility of the 
richest rich, as post corporeal beings, so rapidly consuming the world's 
resources, the poorest poor are starved out of existence. It will conclude 
with a call for simulations of the world in the not-too-distant future along 
the lines of the popular internet game SimCity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050811/a8a546d8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug 11 14:33:40 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:33:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <FDEAEFB6-D95A-467A-AA2F-39B0634F238A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508111435.j7BEZfR02334@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
> 
> For that kind of money I expect to at least walk (bound, hop,
> whatever) on the moon.
> 
> -s


Landing on the moon and getting back is about
an order of magnitude more difficult than a
fly-by.  Getting out and hopping around is
about another factor of e in difficulty.  

spike





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 15:37:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050811040843.13661.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050811153742.36314.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> 
> > >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.
>   
> What moron thought that dark eyptian gods were a good
> naming convention for this sort of thing. I mean if
> you are trying to scare funding out the public I can
> see why someone would do it. But asteroids are pretty
> scary on their own to anyone with half a brain.

Ah, but the namer must be a Stargate SG-1 fan. Remember there was an
episode of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth that turned out
to have a core of naquita, which had been set on course by the Gouauld
as a trick to get around the Protected Planets Treaty with the Asgard.
As Apophis was the worst of them in the early seasons of the show, its
a fitting moniker.


> 
> If you were Bruce Willis on some suicide mission to
> save the planet on Friday the 13th, wouldn't you
> rather go up against Fred the asteroid than Apophis
> the god of destruction that eats the sun? Especially
> when you are reliant on an army of twitchy
> astrophysicists and telemetry technicians on Earth?

Nope, if the Senate subcommittee funding my anti-asteroid project
called the asteroid Fred, I can count on getting half the money I
really need for the project. Especially if the asteroid has no spin and
its shape resembles an innocuous object, like a Mr. Potatohead or Mr.
Peanut. 

Nope, gimme an asteroid named Shiva, that spins menacingly in multiple
axes, and makes multiple close passes at Earth. I want the critics
quaking in their boots if I'm gonna get the job done.

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  Thu Aug 11 15:41:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050811061658.32484.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050811154156.2331.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Another reason this is a bad idea is that if the rock
> is spinning, then the "emmissions" you speak of would
> cause the orbit to become chaotic and less
> predictable. If we land on the thing, we will be able
> to use timed pulses of thrust to get controllable
> vectoring of the rock. The easiest way is seldomly the
> most useful.  

You are right here, but in a previous post, you didn't like turning it
to gravel. Gravel is fine, it can't reach Earths surface. The problem
is really larger rocks in the mix not being pulverized. However, I'd
much rather 1,000 people getting their SUVs whacked in the driveway by
a ten pound rock than the alternative.

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  Thu Aug 11 15:50:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050811155024.63384.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

And nose-plugs. This is literally a two week cruise of three men in a
bathtub. It would be enjoyable for one person. Three people in a Soyuz
for that long? Maybe for midgets or Spike's legless women.

I had seen the specs on this a few weeks ago. Personally, I'd say dump
the upper stage booster. Refit the Soyuz with larger solar panels (as
well as the logistics module) and a number of plasma thrusters. Instead
of the upper stage, send up a refitted Russian lunar lander (the one
sitting in the museum would be fine), and make it a real lunar mission
for one. The final kicker would be a tether, to attach to a Progress
tanker at the ISS, and use the Progress to tether the Soyuz into an
escape trajectory.

--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> Don't forget to take your Dramamine:
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8BTF8QO0.html
> 
> Thursday, August 11, 2005 - Page updated at 1:27 AM
> Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo must be obtained
> from 
> The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail
> resale at seattletimes.com with 
> your request.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Company to sell trips around the moon
> 
> By LINDA A. JOHNSON
> Associated Press Writer
> 
> NEW YORK - The company that pioneered commercial space travel by
> sending 
> "tourists" up to the International Space Station is planning a new
> mission: 
> rocketing people around the far side of the moon.
> 
> The price of a round-trip ticket: $100 million.
> 
> The first mission by Space Adventures could happen in 2008 or 2009
> and is 
> planned as a stepping stone to an eventual lunar landing by private 
> citizens.
> 
> "For the first time in history, a private company is organizing a
> mission to 
> the moon," Space Adventures CEO Eric Anderson said at a Manhattan
> news 
> conference Wednesday, a day after space shuttle Discovery safely
> returned to 
> Earth. "This mission will inspire countries of the world, citizens
> ... our 
> youth."
> 
> Anderson said he already has prospective "private explorers" who are 
> interested in the trip and could afford the ticket.
> 
> The initial travelers would be the first to orbit the moon in more
> than 33 
> years, according to the Arlington, Va., company. Only 27 people have
> ever 
> made such a journey.
> 
> The trip, aboard a modified Russian spacecraft, will offer the chance
> to see 
> the Earth rise from lunar orbit and a view of the far side of the
> moon from 
> an altitude of 62 miles.
> 
> The far side of the moon has a special appeal, Anderson told The
> Associated 
> Press in an interview, because it takes most of the hits from
> asteroids, 
> meteorites and other objects from deep space. That results in many
> more 
> craters than on the side seen from Earth.
> 
> "It's much more interesting to look at than the near side," he said,
> adding 
> that the lunar orbits will be done when the far side is illuminated
> by the 
> sun.
> 
> Space Adventures plans to offer multiple trip itineraries aboard
> Russia's 
> Soyuz TMA spacecraft. One possibility is a 5 1/2-day lunar flight and
> up to 
> 21 days at the International Space Station; another is a nine-day
> mission 
> with three days of free flight in low-Earth orbit and the rest flying
> around 
> the moon. In both cases, the spacecraft would dock with a booster,
> carried 
> up by a separate launch vehicle, to propel it to the moon.
> 
> The Soyuz was originally designed for lunar missions, although none
> ever 
> occurred. Anderson called it the most reliable craft in the history
> of space 
> travel.
> 
> It has 10 cubic meters of crew space, about the size of a large SUV.
> The 
> cosmonaut and two passengers will sleep in reclining chairs, said
> Nikolai 
> Sevastyanov, president of rocket maker Rocket and Space Corporation
> Energia.
> 
> Space Adventures has a partnership with the rocket maker and the
> Federal 
> Space Agency of the Russian Federation, through which they have sent 
> American businessman Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth
> on a 
> Soyuz for stays on the space station.
> 
> The next mission is slated to send a team up to the space station for
> 10 
> days starting Oct. 1. One of the crew members is Gregory Olsen, a New
> Jersey 
> scientist who has been training for the mission in Russia on and off
> since 
> 2004.
> 
> "Who wouldn't want to go to the moon?" said Olsen, 60, a surprise
> guest at 
> the news conference. "I'm really interested, but one flight at a
> time."
> 
> Modifications to the Soyuz will include altering its docking system
> and 
> installing an 18-inch window so passengers can take high-resolution
> photos 
> of the lunar surface.
> 
> ___
> 
> On the Net:
> 
> http://www.spaceadventures.com
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright ? 2005 The Seattle Times Company
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 15:51:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <200508111435.j7BEZfR02334@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050811155151.39813.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
> > 
> > For that kind of money I expect to at least walk (bound, hop,
> > whatever) on the moon.
> > 
> > -s
> 
> 
> Landing on the moon and getting back is about
> an order of magnitude more difficult than a
> fly-by.  Getting out and hopping around is
> about another factor of e in difficulty. 

If three guys with the equivalent of an 8088 processor can do it, one
guy with a G4 should be able to do it.

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 russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Aug 11 17:51:20 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:51:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <20050811155024.63384.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<20050811155024.63384.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050811105152794ab7@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/11/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> And nose-plugs. This is literally a two week cruise of three men in a
> bathtub. It would be enjoyable for one person. Three people in a Soyuz
> for that long? Maybe for midgets or Spike's legless women.

Yeah, I've a feeling anyone with a spare $100 million is going to be
used to more pleasant surroundings.

> I had seen the specs on this a few weeks ago. Personally, I'd say dump
> the upper stage booster. Refit the Soyuz with larger solar panels (as
> well as the logistics module) and a number of plasma thrusters. Instead
> of the upper stage, send up a refitted Russian lunar lander (the one
> sitting in the museum would be fine), and make it a real lunar mission
> for one.

That last bit is a contradiction, I'm afraid. A flyby shot where
you're just obeying Newton's laws might work solo, but if you're going
to do something more complicated like landing, you'll have to have a
professional pilot at the controls; there are too many things that can
go wrong otherwise.

- Russell


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 18:14:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e050811105152794ab7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050811181451.43610.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/11/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I had seen the specs on this a few weeks ago. Personally, I'd say
> dump
> > the upper stage booster. Refit the Soyuz with larger solar panels
> (as
> > well as the logistics module) and a number of plasma thrusters.
> Instead
> > of the upper stage, send up a refitted Russian lunar lander (the
> one
> > sitting in the museum would be fine), and make it a real lunar
> mission
> > for one.
> 
> That last bit is a contradiction, I'm afraid. A flyby shot where
> you're just obeying Newton's laws might work solo, but if you're
> going
> to do something more complicated like landing, you'll have to have a
> professional pilot at the controls; there are too many things that
> can go wrong otherwise.

eh, there's plenty of rich pilots out there, many who are either vets
or who have gone to one of those rich boys dogfighter or test pilot
schools. Hell, I've played lunar lander tons of times, starting when I
was ten years old. Besides, most all spaceflight these days is done by
the computers. A human having to DIY means something has gotten
seriously fubared. The one guy should be along for the ride and let the
computer calculate everything, with a 'bitching betty' voice module to
instruct the passenger: "now, put your space suit on", "now, transfer
to the lunar lander", etc etc.

We needed pilots in the apollo program cause our surface topo
resolution sucked and the computers per pipsqueaks. A lunar tourist
trip today could easily land right next to any of the Apollo landers,
since we already know the terrain, etc.

If you are going to have two people on board, the only way it could be
fun is if it were a pair of newleyweds on their honeymoon.... hey,
thats a great idea for a reality show!!!! :)

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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Thu Aug 11 18:51:45 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:51:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05081111512074716d@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/11/05, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> Don't forget to take your Dramamine:
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8BTF8QO0.html
> 
> Company to sell trips around the moon

It's probably worth mentioning that the Russians ripped the mission
design off Constellation Services:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8700874/#050726a

<<
NBC News space analyst James Oberg wrote about the Lunar Express
concept eight months ago: As laid out by Constellation Services
International's Charles Miller, the passenger would first be brought
up to the international space station aboard a modified Russian Soyuz
craft. Then the Soyuz would make a rendezvous with a booster-equipped
logistics module that has been sent into orbit separately. The
beefed-up craft would make an elongated figure-8 course around the
moon ? not landing there, but slingshotting around to return to Earth.

Oberg was amazingly prescient when he wrote, "The obvious question is
what would prevent the Russians, or some other international space
business, from simply stealing the idea and blowing off Miller and his
associates."

Unfortunately, Miller and CSI are not involved in the Russian
round-the-moon project, reported by Moscow-based Channel 1 (in
Russian) as well as the RIA Novosti news service.

Instead, the news reports say that Russia's Federal Space Agency and
Energia, the prime contractor for much of the country's space
hardware, are working on the project. Channel 1 says proceeds from the
two-week, $100 million tour package would go toward building Russia's
next-generation spaceship, the Kliper.
>>

Oberg's article from last year has more details and diagrams:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6558855/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 11 19:27:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05081111512074716d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050811192710.25713.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "Neil H." <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/11/05, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> > Don't forget to take your Dramamine:
> > 
> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8BTF8QO0.html
> > 
> > Company to sell trips around the moon
> 
> It's probably worth mentioning that the Russians ripped the mission
> design off Constellation Services:

Its hardly a mission "design" any more than a travel itinerary with
Orbitz is. You can't patent tour packages...

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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 11 20:42:02 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:42:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05081111512074716d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000a01c59e50$34bef7f0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<e88b73ce05081111512074716d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0CA2607-8E4E-4B85-8689-B200A0B7DD25@bonfireproductions.com>


On Aug 11, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Neil H. wrote:

> Instead, the news reports say that Russia's Federal Space Agency and
> Energia, the prime contractor for much of the country's space
> hardware, are working on the project. Channel 1 says proceeds from the
> two-week, $100 million tour package would go toward building Russia's
> next-generation spaceship, the Kliper.


Which would be awesome, since Kliper-1's airframe is already finished  
and just needs some cash.


Kliper full scale mock-up
http://cph.ing.dk/tema/iss/nyhed/04nyt/pic/klipper-iss-400.JPG

Kliper cross-section - note the Soyuz service module in the rear.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/kliperc4.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050811/7002ad44/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 12 01:42:12 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEO deflection
In-Reply-To: <20050811040843.13661.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050812014212.12680.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>


> --- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

> > >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.

Another rather humorous reason why the government
needs to get off its ass and do something about this
early: April 13 is two days before the income tax
filing deadline. I wonder how many people are going to
wait and see if the asteroid hits before they pay
their taxes that year. Provided of course that the
antiquated IRS is still around in 2029.



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 spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Aug 12 03:14:16 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:14:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <20050811155151.39813.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508120317.j7C3H0R10614@tick.javien.com>

> > Landing on the moon and getting back is about
> > an order of magnitude more difficult than a
> > fly-by.  Getting out and hopping around is
> > about another factor of e in difficulty.
> 
> If three guys with the equivalent of an 8088 processor can do it, one
> guy with a G4 should be able to do it.
> 
> Mike Lorrey


The challenge isn't in computing.  The 8088 was sufficient
for the purpose.  The challenge is in carrying enough
propellant.  If we need not land and launch from the
lunar surface, the saving is very great.  If we need not 
insert into lunar orbit and blast back out of it, the 
savings are even greater.  Either way a palm pilot carries 
enough computing power.

The one guy part sounds good however.

spike







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 12 14:53:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <200508120317.j7C3H0R10614@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050812145305.73194.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > > Landing on the moon and getting back is about
> > > an order of magnitude more difficult than a
> > > fly-by.  Getting out and hopping around is
> > > about another factor of e in difficulty.
> > 
> > If three guys with the equivalent of an 8088 processor can do it,
> one
> > guy with a G4 should be able to do it.
> > 
> > Mike Lorrey
> 
> 
> The challenge isn't in computing.  The 8088 was sufficient
> for the purpose.  The challenge is in carrying enough
> propellant.  If we need not land and launch from the
> lunar surface, the saving is very great.  If we need not 
> insert into lunar orbit and blast back out of it, the 
> savings are even greater.  Either way a palm pilot carries 
> enough computing power.

Sure, but my plan involves plasma thrusters and a tether, not chemical
engines. Ergo, no fuel problem. The mission will be a little longer,
but one guy has plenty of space for supplies. 

The tether can be used to help get out of Lunar orbit, as well, when
the used lunar module needs to be dumped (the tether itself can be
dumped in that maneuver too). The only downside of the tether system is
that it may require a spacewalk to hook up in lunar orbit, though I
have some ideas for an automated system.

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  Fri Aug 12 15:08:58 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:08:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Annual Celestial Event - Perseid meteor shower 
Message-ID: <380-22005851215858753@M2W038.mail2web.com>


One of my favorite reoccurring events is the celestial Perseid meteor
shower.  Each year I promise myself I will stay up late or get up early to
enjoy a warm cup of cafe', un bon croissant, a sleeping bag or soft surface
to lay on and gaze endlessly upward at the sky.

I have enjoyed the showers on 14,000 foot mountain tops, sailing in the
middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in the deserts of Arizona, in the rock
formations of California ... but no matter the earth-based location, each
year it is a special viewing.

______________________________

"In 2005, the Perseids are expected to reach their maximum on August 12.
Peak activity is unfortunately predicted for the daylight hours across
North America. 

Sky watchers are thus encouraged to watch during the predawn hours of
Friday, August 12 and again during the early morning hours of Saturday."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/08/11/perseid.shower/index.html

_____________________________

To "hear" the ping -
http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3713886

_____________________________

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_081105_life_meteor_shower.62eae358
.html

_____________________________

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMDN12A6BD_sensations_0.html



Natasha Vita-More

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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 12 18:36:25 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me 'Round the Moon
In-Reply-To: <20050812145305.73194.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050812183625.36217.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Now, there were complaints that Energia merely ripped off the idea for
this mission from some independent group, but the fact is that all the
equipment is Russian, nor are they the only group to propose using the
Soyus as a mission component. Bigelow's space habitat company has
designed the "Nautilus Moon Cruiser" using a Soyuz and the Russian
Lunar Lander in addition to a Bigelow inflatable habitat, a core
docking module, and what is apparently some sort of plasma propulsion
system. I expect, given NASAs problems, that the Soyuz will become a
workhorse unit in many independent space projects. It is a well proven
technology and inexpensive to purchase, excellent for lifeboat and
earth return. It will, in time, become something of the hot rod jalopy
of the space market, modified, boosted, improved and expanded upon.

Energia should ramp up production rates and drop prices.

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  Fri Aug 12 20:41:39 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
Message-ID: <20050812204139.10422.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Okay. Either these little guys were engineered by a crypto dirt
civilization, or there may be something to ID. What is the evolutionary
point of a bacteria that craps conductive nano-wires?

Bacteria grow conductive wires

 
Chappell Brown    
EE Times 
(08/08/2005 9:00 AM EDT)  

 
Peterborough, N.H. - Already being intensely studied as an agent for
cleaning up toxic waste, a strain of bacteria has now surprised
researchers with its ability to build conducting nanowires.

The long, very thin wires are unprecedented in biological systems, says
the microbiologist who discovered the bacteria and the wires'
conductivity. They completely change science's understanding of how
microbes handle electrons, he said.

Derek Lovley and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts
(Amherst, Mass.) reported observing and measuring the conductivity of
long wires, 3 to 5 nanometers in diameter, emanating from the Geobacter
bacteria.

Exactly what the wires are made of is still under investigation, but
the gene that codes for them has been identified, Lovley said. That
opens up the possibility of using genetic engineering and systems
biology to manufacture wires with predetermined properties.

"The desirable properties will most likely be specified by particular
engineering applications," he said. Methods for predicting the
structures that would yield the desired properties, he said, "may
include those that would be classified under systems biology."

Geobacter is common, appearing in soils and at the bottom of rivers.
Since it uses metals, rather than oxygen, for respiration, it has
become useful in cleaning up toxic waste, including uranium that has
seeped into groundwater.

Lovley discovered the bacteria in the mid-1980s, and the organisms have
been thoroughly studied, so finding the thin conducting nanowires
emanating from their outer coat was unexpected. But it explains
Geobacter's ability to remove metals from soil and water. A key step in
its metabolism is the transfer of electrons from its interior to metals
in its surroundings. Until now, it was unknown how Geobacter
accomplished the task.

The Department of Energy has been the main supporter of Lovley's work
over the past two decades. "The microbial world never stops surprising
us," said Aristides Patrinos, associate director of the DOE's Office of
Biological and Environmental Research. "This discovery illustrates the
continuing relevance of the physical sciences to today's biological
investigations."

Patrinos said the bacteria may organize to form minipower grids in the
soil by linking up via the nanowires. That type of organized behavior
might also lead to ultrasmall environmental sensors or novel ways to
bioengineer nanocircuits.

The ability of the bacteria to link their nanowires has been observed
in Lovley's lab. The hairlike wires emanating from the bacteria had
been seen previously, but their conducting function was discovered via
atomic-force microscope techniques.

Gemma Ruegera, a microbiologist, worked with physicists Mark Tuominen
and Kevin McCarthy to probe the electrical properties of the tiny
wires. Their role in electron transfer was confirmed by genetically
altering the bacteria so that they no longer produced the wires. The
modified bacteria were unable to transfer electrons, the researchers
reported.

 


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 12 20:50:27 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
In-Reply-To: <20050812204139.10422.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050812205027.48229.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Okay. Either these little guys were engineered by a crypto dirt
> civilization, or there may be something to ID. What is the
> evolutionary
> point of a bacteria that craps conductive nano-wires?

Just in case you were serious, or anyone thinks you were, the article
itself answers that question:

> it uses metals, rather than oxygen, for respiration

> it explains
> Geobacter's ability to remove metals from soil and water. A key step
> in
> its metabolism is the transfer of electrons from its interior to
> metals
> in its surroundings.

The wires help the bacteria gather that which they use for respiration.
If your blood supply was external, you'd want to make it really easy to
gather blood too.


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 12 21:36:03 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
In-Reply-To: <008501c59e43$da88c100$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050812213603.11364.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

paleocons, who are conservative, also use the designation 'neocon'.




>  It is simply a word used by people to describe
>  anyone who disagrees with their more liberal point
> of view.


		
---------------------------------
 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/20050812/63a1ccc9/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Aug 12 22:18:35 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:18:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
In-Reply-To: <20050812204139.10422.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050812204139.10422.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7C3B523B-642F-4D4E-92A9-D2A1153B2437@mac.com>


On Aug 12, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Okay. Either these little guys were engineered by a crypto dirt
> civilization, or there may be something to ID. What is the  
> evolutionary
> point of a bacteria that craps conductive nano-wires?
>

It is not terribly surprising that something that respires metal  
excretes wire.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 12 22:42:49 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] future is up for grabs
In-Reply-To: <7C3B523B-642F-4D4E-92A9-D2A1153B2437@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050812224249.59937.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Few paleocons & neocons proportional to the population are interested in extropianism and transhumanism; in retrospect the increased interest in 'progress' in the past was due to the Soviet threat, perhaps this current war will eventually spur such an interest. The future is up for grabs.
 
 We all like to think we learn from our mistakes. After learning of Workers World Party and other communist organizations being involved in protests I wouldn't even think of protesting even if convinced the war is unjustified and wrong-- which isn't the case.

 

__________________________________________________
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/20050812/b0769dc8/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 13 02:35:48 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
In-Reply-To: <20050812205027.48229.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050813023548.62797.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Okay. Either these little guys were engineered by a crypto dirt
> > civilization, or there may be something to ID. What is the
> > evolutionary
> > point of a bacteria that craps conductive nano-wires?
> 
> Just in case you were serious, or anyone thinks you were, the article
> itself answers that question:
> 
> > it uses metals, rather than oxygen, for respiration
> > it explains Geobacter's ability to remove metals from soil and
> > water. A key step in its metabolism is the transfer of electrons
> > from its interior to metals in its surroundings.
> 
> The wires help the bacteria gather that which they use for
> respiration. If your blood supply was external, you'd want to make
> it really easy to gather blood too.

"Make"? Using such words is ID talk. It's not as if human beings made
themselves the way they are, outside of our intelligence related
technological features. The bacteria are clearly not intelligent (so
far as we can tell), so the question remains as to how a bacteria could
evolve to this point from some other point? Another question is why
would it do so? If there is more energetic oxygen available, dissolved
in water, why would it need to respirate through metals? From an
economics point of view, an organism would only evolve such a
respiratory system if that system provided more energy than the
previous system it was using, or if the bacteria was attempting to
colonize a habitat that did not provide for the first respiratory
system.

It still seems just too perfect. 

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 spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Aug 13 02:44:20 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:44:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] starwars nerdfest
In-Reply-To: <20050812145305.73194.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508130244.j7D2iSR10179@tick.javien.com>




Since we were making fun of starwars fandom last week, 
this was too funny:

http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/Conan-Triumph-Star-Wars.html

{8^D

spike







From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 13 04:02:03 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
In-Reply-To: <20050812204139.10422.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050813040204.67349.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Okay. Either these little guys were engineered by a
> crypto dirt
> civilization, or there may be something to ID. What
> is the evolutionary
> point of a bacteria that craps conductive
> nano-wires?

There may very well be something to broadly
interpreted ID, but not the narrow kind that xian
creationism is masquerading as these days. The
evolutionary point of growing these nanowires,
however, is to transfer electrons accumulated by
respiration out of the cell. My guess is that it is
coupled with the intake of H+ and other cations. In
that regard it might be thought of as geobacter's
version of the electron transport chain that is
graciously supplied to us by our beloved mitochondria.

Convergence in evolution can explain why the wings of
birds are shaped a little like man-made airfoils and
geobacter can crap structures that look like wires.
The difference in these things is strictly that of
genetic evolution in the case of the natural items
versus memetic evolution in the man-made items. The
"purpose" of these constructs is the same as is the
mechanism of their "invention". All are empirical
constructs that exist because they have fine tuned
themselves to function in a given environment. Memetic
evolution can often proceed many times faster than
genetic evolution however for obvious reasons.

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  Sat Aug 13 04:33:20 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO/ID: Spooky nanowire crappying bacteria...
In-Reply-To: <20050813023548.62797.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050813043320.33822.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Make"? Using such words is ID talk. It's not as if
> human beings made
> themselves the way they are, outside of our
> intelligence related
> technological features. The bacteria are clearly not
> intelligent (so
> far as we can tell), so the question remains as to
> how a bacteria could
> evolve to this point from some other point?

But Mike, evolutionary biology and game theory have
proved that the most lowly organisms on the bottom of
your shoes behave/evolve rationally on large
time-scales. They all find the most rational strategy
to perpetuate their genes as possible in the face of
stiff competition. If I remember correctly some
species of geobacter also have small iron containing
granules in their cytoplasm that act as a compass
allowing them to directly sense and respond to the
earth's magentic field. Its wonderous and awe
inspiring I know, but it is perfectly natural and not
super-natural.  

> Another
> question is why
> would it do so? If there is more energetic oxygen
> available, dissolved
> in water, why would it need to respirate through
> metals?

Mike, gasoeus oxygen is a relatively new arrival in
the planet's biosphere that roughly correlates with
the emergence of multicellular life. The ability of
eukaryotes to utilize oxygen for respiration is
believed to be the advance that ALLOWED them to become
multicellular. 

There are tons of single-celled organisms that could
care less about oxygen. Many are even poisoned by it.
So if the organism is thriving without having to
utilize oxygen in its native environment, it has no
reason to change. In fact almost every possible
substrate for nutrition and respiration are utilized
by some organism found in some forsaken place on this
planet. Think about all the extremophiles and archaea.
There are organisms that respire sulfur, iron, and a
whole host of other minerals. Others form
relationships with other organisms that respire for
them. Breathing metal sounds bizarre until you
contemplate that plants eat sunlight.   

 From an
> economics point of view, an organism would only
> evolve such a
> respiratory system if that system provided more
> energy than the
> previous system it was using, or if the bacteria was
> attempting to
> colonize a habitat that did not provide for the
> first respiratory
> system.

Your logic here is right, you just got it backwards.
Respiring metal came first, oxygen by some came much
later. If the organism didn't "need" the additional
energy, it never switched.

 
> It still seems just too perfect. 

That's because it IS perfect so long as you realize
that perfect means optimal relative to an environment.

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 robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug 13 05:48:01 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:48:01 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] future is up for grabs
In-Reply-To: <20050812224249.59937.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050812224249.59937.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a89aa1d84f4078967037d63e93e62980@aol.com>


On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

>  After?learning of Workers World Party and other communist 
> organizations being involved in protests I wouldn't even think of 
> protesting even if convinced the war is unjustified and wrong-- which 
> isn't the case.

This is a fascinating attitude.

I think -the- thing that defines the right's rise to power in the last 
decades has been it's ability to make room for everyone - to make peace 
between staunch athiests and fundamentalist extremists, between 
anti-progressive racists and racial "minority" groups, gay-bashers and 
log-cabiners, libertarians and statist hard-liners, etc.  That is to 
say, it's ability to warp its fundamentally capitalist/imperialist 
vision to suit the desires of many groups while not making any 
-fundamental- changes that would tarnish its single-minded vision of 
domination of the "other" groups whoever they may be.  The leadership 
of the Republican party manages this balancing act by taking a very 
Machiavellian pragmatism as a fundamental approach to political 
ideology.  Up with rich America and everyone who works for them or 
wants to -be- them, f- everyone who doesn't like it, the unspoken cry 
of the PNAC.

The left, on the other hand, being filled with -philosophically 
committed- people - people who resist change in their ideology 
self-consciously, are therefore unable to organize a resistance to the 
rise of the right because of the endless splintering of resistance due, 
in my opinion, mostly to a kind of unspoken leftist fundamentalism more 
akin to the "political correctness" movement or the hard-line 
fascist/communist movements than the "peace and love and freedom" 
hippy-child attitude that still fundamentally shapes the culture of 
"the left" in the US.  That is, due to close-mindedness and the 
inability for progressives to put aside petty differences (like "those 
freeking commie hippies are against the war, so I couldn't possibly 
help their cause even though they're right about that one thing.")

What's funny but unsurprising is the result that the right wins their 
battles relatively consistently with negligible resistance from the 
so-called left which is unable to put together a convincing platform 
and that people respond to this inability to "just get along" on the 
part of the left as wishy-washiness whereas in the hands of the 
Republican party, the wishiest, washiest of all political machines, 
their wobbling is regarded as sturdy toughness, mostly because of good 
neocon-controlled press.

That is all,

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 13 17:47:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] future is up for grabs
In-Reply-To: <a89aa1d84f4078967037d63e93e62980@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050813174753.48892.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
> 
> >  After?learning of Workers World Party and other communist 
> > organizations being involved in protests I wouldn't even think of 
> > protesting even if convinced the war is unjustified and wrong--
> which 
> > isn't the case.
> 
> This is a fascinating attitude.
> 
> I think -the- thing that defines the right's rise to power in the
> last decades has been it's ability to make room for everyone - to
make
> peace between staunch athiests and fundamentalist extremists, between

> anti-progressive racists and racial "minority" groups, gay-bashers
> and log-cabiners, libertarians and statist hard-liners, etc.  That
> is to say, it's ability to warp its fundamentally
> capitalist/imperialist  vision to suit the desires of many groups
> while not making any -fundamental- changes that would tarnish its
> single-minded vision of  domination of the "other" groups whoever
> they may be.  The leadership of the Republican party manages this
> balancing act by taking a very Machiavellian pragmatism as a
> fundamental approach to political ideology. Up with rich America and
> everyone who works for them or wants to -be- them, f- everyone who
> doesn't like it, the unspoken cry of the PNAC.
> 
> The left, on the other hand, being filled with -philosophically 
> committed- people - people who resist change in their ideology 
> self-consciously, are therefore unable to organize a resistance to
> the rise of the right because of the endless splintering of
resistance
> due, in my opinion, mostly to a kind of unspoken leftist
> fundamentalism more akin to the "political correctness" movement
> or the hard-line fascist/communist movements than the "peace and
> love and freedom" hippy-child attitude that still fundamentally
> shapes the culture of "the left" in the US. 
> That is, due to close-mindedness and the inability for progressives
> to put aside petty differences (like "those 
> freeking commie hippies are against the war, so I couldn't possibly 
> help their cause even though they're right about that one thing.")
> 

This is so odd that you say this, because the common understanding is
that the Democratic party is highly factionalized with many special
interests (various minorities, unions, radical left groups, peaceniks,
greens, gays, immingrants, foreign countries, the UN, the bar
associations, anti-gunners, etc), while the GOP generally only deals
with three main factions: religious, business, and libertarians, with
the lesser groups of Cubans and log-cabiners having lesser though
significant, influence on single issues. The GOP has been so dominated
by the religous faction in the last two decades that the others are
only able to play ball if they buy the fundie garbage.

> What's funny but unsurprising is the result that the right wins their
> battles relatively consistently with negligible resistance from the 
> so-called left which is unable to put together a convincing platform 
> and that people respond to this inability to "just get along" on the 
> part of the left as wishy-washiness whereas in the hands of the 
> Republican party, the wishiest, washiest of all political machines, 
> their wobbling is regarded as sturdy toughness, mostly because of
> good neocon-controlled press.

The right wins primarily because the left just doesn't have a positive
message for proposals that the American people are willing to buy. The
only success the left has had in three decades has been when they
co-opt libertarian or GOP proposals, as Clinton did quite a bit of. The
DNC is currently lacking purpose, again, as evinced by Dean saying the
party "needs a message" (any message, apparently). The left has nothing
positive to say, it only complains, smears, tears down, whines and lies
over and over again. When it does propose anything, it is always tired
old obsolete socialist BS.

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 13 17:07:44 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:07:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
Message-ID: <42FE28E0.90602@sasktel.net>

Am I missing something here or is this a technology with application to 
more complex living
cell systems?

http://www.drugdiscoverynews.com/lib/sitefiles/pdf/Issues/January_2005.pdf

PAGE16

MENLO PARK, Calif.?Geron Corp. in January
announced a worldwide license agreement
with Cambrex Bio Science Walkersville Inc.
under which the Cambrex subsidiary will
develop and distribute cell lines that have
been immortalized using Geron?s proprietary
telomerase technology.
?We believe that telomerase-immortalized
cells could bring signi?cant advantages
to the drug screening process. We expect to
develop a range of telomerized cell types to
meet the needs of our customers,? says Dave
Eansor, president of Cambrex Bioproducts.
?We plan initially to market these cells to
our pharmaceutical and biotechnology customers
through our specialized sales team
that has expertise in high-throughput
screening. In addition, telomerized cell systems
will be complementary to our Clonetics
and Poietics normal human cell systems.?
Under the terms of the non-exclusive
agreement, Cambrex Bio Science will develop
telomerized cell lines and associated
products such as media. Cambrex Bio
Science will provide the telomerized cells
under license to customers for life science
research, including drug development activities
such as toxicity testing and highthroughput
screening. Cambrex may also
use telomerized cells for custom drug
screening services. Geron has retained all
rights for the use of telomerized cells in therapeutic
applications.
The agreement also provides Cambrex
with a research license to study the possible
use of telomerized cells for biomanufacturing,
along with an option to enter into a
license agreement for the use of telomerase
in commercial biomanufacturing. Geron
will receive an upfront license fee payment
and royalties on product sales.
?Numerous published research studies
have demonstrated the value of telomerized
cells as tools to study particular genes, pathways,
or cellular responses to drugs,? says
David J. Earp, J.D., Ph.D., Geron?s senior vice
president of business development and chief
patent counsel. ?We are now seeing a strong
interest in the use of these cells for drug discovery
within biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies. Cambrex has a well-deserved
reputation as the leader in producing and
marketing human cell systems to these sectors,
and we are very pleased to have entered
into this agreement with Cambrex.? ?
Geron in license
deal with Cambrex
for distribution
of telomeraseimmortalized
human cell lines
VISIT US AT LAB AUTOMATION 2005 ? BOOTH 915


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 13 18:31:49 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] future is up for grabs
In-Reply-To: <20050813174753.48892.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050813183149.84073.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

This will be my last post for the day, because four political posts per day is now considered the upper limit by the moderators, and two makes them less nervous about dozens of political posts piling up.
Don't forget how the American public at best has a Jetsons view of the future: two kids, the dog Astro and the angry boss at Spacely Sprockets or Cogswell Cogs-- that is to say today's life with tomorrow's tech. And that's a positive scenario. As you know, many believe in 'Armaggedon'. And in the middle are dystopians. So what can a forthright politician do with a public harboring extremely negative; dystopian; and Jetsons' "I have seen the past and it works" views towards the future?


>The right wins primarily because the left just doesn't have a positive
>message for proposals that the American people are willing to buy. The
>only success the left has had in three decades has been when they
>co-opt libertarian or GOP proposals, as Clinton did quite a bit of. The
>DNC is currently lacking purpose, again, as evinced by Dean saying the
>party "needs a message" (any message, apparently). The left has nothing
>positive to say, it only complains, smears, tears down, whines and lies
>over and over again. When it does propose anything, it is always tired
>old obsolete socialist BS.

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


		
---------------------------------
 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/20050813/e179b2ce/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Aug 13 19:05:38 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:05:38 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] future is up for grabs
In-Reply-To: <20050813174753.48892.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050813174753.48892.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9e69832676e5faac201a94a96018ae7d@aol.com>


On Aug 13, 2005, at 7:47 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>
>> That is, due to close-mindedness and the inability for progressives
>> to put aside petty differences (like "those
>> freeking commie hippies are against the war, so I couldn't possibly
>> help their cause even though they're right about that one thing.")
>>
>
> This is so odd that you say this, because the common understanding is
> that the Democratic party is highly factionalized with many special
> interests (various minorities, unions, radical left groups, peaceniks,
> greens, gays, immingrants, foreign countries, the UN, the bar
> associations, anti-gunners, etc), while the GOP generally only deals
> with three main factions: religious, business, and libertarians, with
> the lesser groups of Cubans and log-cabiners having lesser though
> significant, influence on single issues. The GOP has been so dominated
> by the religous faction in the last two decades that the others are
> only able to play ball if they buy the fundie garbage.

Now this is fascinating that you say such a thing since in fact, the 
demographic mix in the republican party is almost identical to that of 
the democratic party.  Hispanic, black, asians, gays, conservationists, 
young, old, etc.

Obviously the political mix is different, with the republican party 
attracting large corporate interests, hawks, oligarchists, fascists, 
and, of course, rich people (which don't make a significant voting 
population, interestingly...) instead of the democrat's appeal to 
peaceniks, unions and greens and communists.

What's funny, though, is that even though the "fundie garbage" is so 
offensive to so many people in the Republican party or who vote 
republican even though they don't self-describe as republican (I take 
it that's you and certainly Mr. Brooks), will put up with the most 
absurd political/religious/scientific ideology in order to retain the 
fundamentals of the republican party - e.g. American Dominance - 
sometimes even though they disagree with everything else that the party 
does.  Even anti-war activists will put up with republican-party-people 
just because they don't like unions or whatever.

This is the phenomena that I find interesting since the left's "looser 
coalition" is so easily broken by the republican party pandering to 
minorities of the minorities (say, by making a super-wealthy black 
woman with a Ph.D. a leader in the administration)

>
>> What's funny but unsurprising is the result that the right wins their
>> battles relatively consistently with negligible resistance from the
>> so-called left which is unable to put together a convincing platform
>> and that people respond to this inability to "just get along" on the
>> part of the left as wishy-washiness whereas in the hands of the
>> Republican party, the wishiest, washiest of all political machines,
>> their wobbling is regarded as sturdy toughness, mostly because of
>> good neocon-controlled press.
>
> The right wins primarily because the left just doesn't have a positive
> message for proposals that the American people are willing to buy.

No, the right wins because they cheat, everybody knows it, they're 
convicted once in the ACLU vs. State of Florida and no doubt will be 
found out again.  Most of Reagan's administration was involved in the 
drugs-for-guns illegal activities of Ollie North and those 
-hard-on-crime- Republicans

>  The
> only success the left has had in three decades has been when they
> co-opt libertarian or GOP proposals, as Clinton did quite a bit of. The
> DNC is currently lacking purpose, again, as evinced by Dean saying the
> party "needs a message" (any message, apparently).

Obviously, the democratic party today is wallowing the shit they've 
created.  The bent over backwards to help Mr. Bush with his war and 
when they were found wrong, they did nothing.  They've done nothing to 
help the unions in years, they haven't managed to deal with health care 
or poverty, or anything that would actually help their core 
constituency.  The only reason people vote for democrats anymore is 
because they are so put-off by the smug-wally-george pharisees that 
anything is better.

> The left has nothing
> positive to say, it only complains, smears, tears down, whines and lies
> over and over again.

First off, there has never been a more complaining, smearing, 
tearing-down, whiny lying group of political bastards than the 
Republican Party with their constant bullshit, their constant 
falsifications about every detail of human life, their constant 
personal attacks on their political rivals, their sniveling television 
commentators, etc.

For instance, the most interesting and substantive comment the 
President made about Kerry was:

"Sen. Kerry's been in Washington long enough to have taken both sides 
on just about every issue." - from a $2000/a seat fundraiser speech.  
Now the hypocrisy is incredible given that while he was an oil 
prospector he said to the nation on television "Of course it's 
convenient to have a president as daddy, I have unlimited access to the 
most powerful man in the world."  Given that Bush isn't the sharpest 
piece of glass on the floor, it remains notable that he was, for the 
duration of his election campaign, unable to eloquently define his 
platform except for a few fringe issues (albeit issues that should 
really upset extropians - like the stem-cell research stuff).  Whereas 
Kerry went to great lengths to take informed, written positions on the 
major issues facing our economy.


Secondly, it's true that the democrats are unable to put together a 
convincing platform because they've dug themselves a hole by all but 7 
of them voting for the Iraqi war and since Clinton's presidency not 
continuing to struggle with their core appeal - the lower and middle 
classes, e.g. the vast majority of Americans - with some of them 
joining in on the war-profiteering (like Diane Feinstein, for instance, 
who so consistently votes with republicans that the fact that she calls 
herself a democrat is a pandering sham).  That is, they're just the 
weaker arm of the same statist domination machine.  Nothing surprising. 
  In order to control a population, you have to pander to the poor 
enough to make them feel like -something- is being done. Otherwise, 
they become desperate and start actively organizing beyond the reach of 
the power of the state-run-economy and you end up with revolutionary 
movements.

>  When it does propose anything, it is always tired
> old obsolete socialist BS.

Unfortunately, no.  For instance, Kerry's proposal to create jobs by 
investing in America instead of involving ourselves in endless foreign 
wars, was far from a socialist proposal, but reflects more of a 
generalized angst that American's have about killing people spending 
billions of dollars while people here remain unemployed, homeless, 
undernourished and sometimes without access to medical care.  But you 
have to remember that Kerry's wealthy - born that way - so his rhetoric 
in this regard is unconvincing.  He can't be a class-consious socialist 
any more than Carnegie could have.  Simultaneously, his proposal to go 
to the UN and ask for their assistance in establishing peace and order 
in Iraq while pulling out our oil contractors and military as much as 
possible can't be regarded by anyone as having anything at all to do 
with socialism, just cleaning up after the mess made by our poorly 
potty-trained president and his team.

On the other hand, the truth of this is that the left comes up with -so 
many- progressive proposals from so many different camps that it's hard 
to think of it as a unified whole and so instead of single-good 
proposals rising from the din, they all get squashed by the democratic 
party machine of "centrism" -whatever that is-.

Remember, for instance, that it was lefties who came up with such good 
ideas as seat-belt laws, food inspections, low-income housing, 
cigarette taxes, emissions control, environmental impact studies.  
Notably, Nader of the Green party was personally responsible for 
pushing a lot of these through congress -as an outsider.  When Nader 
ran into the complete political baloney of the democratic party's 
"centrism" thing he went Green - and rightly so.  In fact, after 
thinking about it, I believe since the Libertarian party has nothing 
left to offer, it's time to start supporting the greens.  I'm sorry I 
was mistaken thinking that the libertarian dream of freedom was 
achievable that way since the libertarian party leadership are really 
just a bunch of statist apologists, in-the-closet tax-and-spend 
republicans.

But it takes a big person to admit when you were wrong and so I was 
wrong for being a libertarian in the first place and ever saying nice 
things about them.  Hopefully we'll be able to coopt the good things 
about the libertarian ideals for the sake of the green party.  
Otherwise, time to move on again.

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug 10 20:34:05 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:34:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 04:58 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:

>Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
>odds, and lived happily ever after.

Why so verbose? I have to admit that I find my own fairytale version more 
concise:

"Once upon a time, everybody lived happily ever after."

There is a great temptation to shorten these things. I'm reminded of the 
chilly modification made to a classic short short by my late friend Ron Smith:

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

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1439751 :

"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door..."

This two-sentence horror tale is presented as a story within a story, right 
at the start of Fredric Brown's 'Knock', published in the December 1948 
edition of Thrilling Wonder Stories.

... in July 1957, Ron Smith produced what he called 'A Horror Story Shorter 
by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever Written':

"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a lock on the door..."

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

Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter by Two Letters Than 'A 
Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever 
Written'":

"The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was a log on the door..."

Damien Broderick



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Aug 13 23:09:49 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:09:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) FATE Magazine BLOG
Message-ID: <42FE7DBD.20107@mindspring.com>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Everyone interested in 
"True Reports of the Strange & Unknown" 
will want to visit the new Fatemag.com Blog at 
http://www.fatemag.com/wordpress

Through this lively forum, we will keep you up-to-date 
on breaking news, upcoming events, The Hilly Rose Show, 
exclusive FATE content, and all things strange and unknown. 
The authors of this blog will include:

Phyllis Galde, Editor-in-Chief of FATE
 
David ?The Amazing? Godwin, FATE?s Managing Editor
 
Andrew Honigman, FATE?s Associate Editor

John Zupansic, FATE?s "utility infielder"

and, my humble self, Robert Goerman.

Published continuously since 1948 and the longest-running 
publication of its kind, FATE has evolved into a full-color, 
130 page monthly magazine that always delivers a one-of-a-kind
reading experience. FATE articles are factual, informative, 
and serves the growing audience of people seeking both answers 
and entertainment.

Yours in research,
Robert A. Goerman
Unconventional Investigator
of Unconventional Phenomena

http://profiles.yahoo.com/robert_a_goerman

"Weird happens. Maybe not as frequently as
some proponents of the paranormal would have
us believe. But certainly more often than
debunkers will ever concede."



-- 
"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 neptune at superlink.net  Sat Aug 13 23:38:12 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:38:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01c501c5a060$12922780$95893cd1@pavilion>

On Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:34 PM Damien Broderick
thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
> At 04:58 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>
> >Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
> >odds, and lived happily ever after.
>
> Why so verbose? I have to admit that I find my own fairytale version
more
> concise:
>
> "Once upon a time, everybody lived happily ever after."
>
> There is a great temptation to shorten these things. I'm reminded of
the
> chilly modification made to a classic short short by my late friend
Ron Smith:
>
> ==================
>
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1439751 :
>
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the
door..."
>
> This two-sentence horror tale is presented as a story within a story,
right
> at the start of Fredric Brown's 'Knock', published in the December
1948
> edition of Thrilling Wonder Stories.
>
> ... in July 1957, Ron Smith produced what he called 'A Horror Story
Shorter
> by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever Written':
>
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a lock on the
door..."
>
> ======================
>
> Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter by Two Letters Than
'A
> Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever
> Written'":
>
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was a log on the
door..."

And my update to that:

"The last human sat alone in a ROM. The power was off..."

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 00:04:03 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:04:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <01c501c5a060$12922780$95893cd1@pavilion>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813195853.0636e010@unreasonable.com>


>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door..."

And then there was the Star Trek version. Written perhaps, as I dimly 
recall, by Paula Smith:

>The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a Spock at the door.


-- David Lubkin.



From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Aug 13 23:15:17 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:15:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <01c501c5a060$12922780$95893cd1@pavilion>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<01c501c5a060$12922780$95893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <42FE7F05.6020300@sasktel.net>

Technotranscendence wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:34 PM Damien Broderick
>thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
>  
>
>>At 04:58 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
>>>odds, and lived happily ever after.
>>>      
>>>
>>Why so verbose? I have to admit that I find my own fairytale version
>>    
>>
>more
>  
>
>>concise:
>>
>>"Once upon a time, everybody lived happily ever after."
>>
>>There is a great temptation to shorten these things. I'm reminded of
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>chilly modification made to a classic short short by my late friend
>>    
>>
>Ron Smith:
>  
>
>>==================
>>
>>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1439751 :
>>
>>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the
>>    
>>
>door..."
>  
>
>>This two-sentence horror tale is presented as a story within a story,
>>    
>>
>right
>  
>
>>at the start of Fredric Brown's 'Knock', published in the December
>>    
>>
>1948
>  
>
>>edition of Thrilling Wonder Stories.
>>
>>... in July 1957, Ron Smith produced what he called 'A Horror Story
>>    
>>
>Shorter
>  
>
>>by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever Written':
>>
>>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a lock on the
>>    
>>
>door..."
>  
>
>>======================
>>
>>Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter by Two Letters Than
>>    
>>
>'A
>  
>
>>Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever
>>Written'":
>>
>>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was a log on the
>>    
>>
>door..."
>
>And my update to that:
>
>"The last human sat alone in a ROM. The power was off..."
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>
should be "then the power went out"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050813/101a1525/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Aug 13 23:47:06 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:47:06 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story]
Message-ID: <42FE867A.3000708@sasktel.net>

woops, spock was part  human..........

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
Date: 	Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:04:03 -0400
From: 	David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com>
Reply-To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
References: 	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650 at pop-server.satx.rr.com>



>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door..."

And then there was the Star Trek version. Written perhaps, as I dimly 
recall, by Paula Smith:

>The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a Spock at the door.


-- David Lubkin.

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


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050813/759b4f6d/attachment.html>

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sun Aug 14 01:20:54 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:20:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>

A three word transhumanist horrible story:

You are dead.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 01:16:59 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:16:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FE867A.3000708@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813210825.04930418@unreasonable.com>

I posted:

>And then there was the Star Trek version. Written perhaps, as I dimly
>recall, by Paula Smith:
>
> >The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a Spock at the door.

which Lifespan critiqued:

>woops, spock was part  human..........

I've found it sadly frequent that the resolution of stories is flawed, and 
does not live up to the promise of the premise.


-- David Lubkin.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 01:49:46 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
In-Reply-To: <42FE28E0.90602@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:

> Am I missing something here or is this a technology
> with application to 
> more complex living
> cell systems?
> 

Yes and no. Stem cell depletion caused by telomeric
attrition is a cause of cellular senescence and does
contribute to the overall phenotype of aging. But
unfortunately, it is but a single piece of the puzzle.
It is actually quite easy to make cells immortal. In
cancer this happens spontaneously. Helen Lang died of
ovarian cancer several decades ago but her cancer
cells now called Hela cells are in common use in labs
throughout the world where they thrive. The trick is
to get the whole system to be immortal and that means
being able to carefully monitor and control the growth
of immortal cells. Elsewise, a group of cells will
buck the system and defect, reproducing selfishly at
the expense of the rest of the organism.
  

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  Sun Aug 14 01:51:28 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:51:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:20 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>A three word transhumanist horrible story:
>
>You are dead.

A three word transhumanist success story:

You were dead.

Damien Broderick 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 02:04:31 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:04:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813215943.06899dd8@unreasonable.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

>A three word transhumanist success story:
>
>You were dead.

If so, then as usual Heinlein was there first, with his three-word 
transhumanist success story, within Stranger in a Strange Land:

 > Thou art God.

and the two-word version:

 > I grok.


-- David.



From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug 14 02:09:21 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:09:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 09:20 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
>> A three word transhumanist horrible story:
>>
>> You are dead.
> 
> A three word transhumanist success story:
> 
> You were dead.

A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the three word 
transhumanist success story:

You revive.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 02:11:42 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050814021142.70202.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



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


> >Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame
> >impossible
> >odds, and lived happily ever after.
> 
> Why so verbose? I have to admit that I find my own
> fairytale version more 
> concise:
> 
> "Once upon a time, everybody lived happily ever
> after."

Well the added verbiage defined the protagonists
(transhumans), the antagonists (the odds), conflict
and resolution (overcame), with a denoument. In
restrospect though, I think the story would have been
more inspirational with the following minor
modification:

Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
odds, and lived happily EVER after.

> 
> There is a great temptation to shorten these things.
> I'm reminded of the 
> chilly modification made to a classic short short by
> my late friend Ron Smith:
> 
> ==================
> 
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1439751
> :
> 
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There
> was a knock on the door..."
> 
> This two-sentence horror tale is presented as a
> story within a story, right 
> at the start of Fredric Brown's 'Knock', published
> in the December 1948 
> edition of Thrilling Wonder Stories.
> 
> ... in July 1957, Ron Smith produced what he called
> 'A Horror Story Shorter 
> by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever
> Written':
> 
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There
> was a lock on the door..."
> 
> ======================
> 
> Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter
> by Two Letters Than 'A 
> Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest
> Horror Story Ever 
> Written'":
> 
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was
> a log on the door..."

Yeah, your version is shroter and scarier. :)






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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 02:25:33 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:25:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>

A combined success and horror story:

It's Alive!!!!

Rafal

On 8/13/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> > At 09:20 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >
> >> A three word transhumanist horrible story:
> >>
> >> You are dead.
> >
> > A three word transhumanist success story:
> >
> > You were dead.
> 
> A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the three word
> transhumanist success story:
> 
> You revive.
> 
> --
> 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
> 



-- 
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Chief Clinical Officer,
Gencia Corporation
706 B Forest St.

Charlottesville, VA 22903

tel: (434) 295-4800

fax: (434) 295-4951



This electronic message transmission contains information from the 
biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or 
privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual 
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission 
in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail 
(fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050813/c7d06f53/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug 14 02:28:36 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:28:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:09 PM 8/13/2005 -0700, Eliezer wrote:

>>You were dead.
>
>A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the three word 
>transhumanist success story:
>
>You revive.

A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the two word 
transhumanist success story:

Reborn!

Damien Broderick 



From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug 14 02:41:54 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:41:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42FEAF72.5020408@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 07:09 PM 8/13/2005 -0700, Eliezer wrote:
> 
>>> You were dead.
>>
>> A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the three word 
>> transhumanist success story:
>>
>> You revive.
> 
> A transhumanist success story shorter by one word than the two word 
> transhumanist success story:
> 
> Reborn!

A transhumanist horror story shorter by two letters than the one word 
transhumanist success story:

Oops!

Here's my three-letter transhumanist story about brain-computer interfaces:

U R I

Here's a titillating tidbit of transhumanist erotica:

oh!

And finally, a transhumanist sermon:

B!

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 03:33:54 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FEAF72.5020408@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050814033354.11450.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
wrote:

> A transhumanist horror story shorter by two letters
> than the one word 
> transhumanist success story:
> 
> Oops!
> 
> Here's my three-letter transhumanist story about
> brain-computer interfaces:
> 
> U R I
> 
> Here's a titillating tidbit of transhumanist
> erotica:
> 
> oh!
> 
> And finally, a transhumanist sermon:
> 
> B!
> 

Eliezer, you DO have sense of humor! ;)

 

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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 03:51:38 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FEAF72.5020408@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>

Eliezer wrote:

>And finally, a transhumanist sermon:
>
>B!

Hmn. I guess one could similarly condense the writings of Ayn Rand onto 
xenon atoms as:

 > I.


-- David.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug 14 04:11:54 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:11:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813230944.01d176c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:51 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:
>Eliezer wrote:
>
>>And finally, a transhumanist sermon:
>>
>>B!
>
>Hmn. I guess one could similarly condense the writings of Ayn Rand onto 
>xenon atoms as:
>
> > I.

Trans-I? But Rand was already perfect!

Alas, one must now condense Rand herself into xenon (suitably) as:

x

Damien Broderick 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug 14 04:22:37 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:22:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200508140422.j7E4MhR16865@tick.javien.com>

Excellent Damien!  

Friends, this is a sparkling example of CONTENT!

{8-]

spike



> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
...
> ======================
> 
> Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter by Two Letters Than 'A
> Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever
> Written'":
> 
> "The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was a log on the door..."
> 
> Damien Broderick




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 04:33:56 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:33:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813230944.01d176c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

>>Hmn. I guess one could similarly condense the writings of Ayn Rand onto 
>>xenon atoms as:
>>
>> > I.
>
>Trans-I? But Rand was already perfect!

In l'esprit d'escalier, I realized after I posted that my quoting 
indicator > might be confused for our trans usage. The text was simply

I.

>Alas, one must now condense Rand herself into xenon (suitably) as:
>
>x

I guess this thread must end soon. We can't write stories composed of less 
than one letter, although the Big Bang could have begun with an i-dot. If 
we allow punctuation, I'll lapse into a comma. But before we stop, let me 
add the grey goo story:

8

Something of a silly pastime for two writers who get paid by the word....


-- David.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 04:37:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813230944.01d176c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050814043731.69469.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> At 11:51 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:
> >Hmn. I guess one could similarly condense the
> writings of Ayn Rand onto 
> >xenon atoms as:
> >
> > > I.
> 
> Trans-I? But Rand was already perfect!
> 
> Alas, one must now condense Rand herself into xenon
> (suitably) as:
> 
> x

Actually, if "Atlas Shrugged" was typical for Rand, I
would say that you would most appropriately condense
her into:

$



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 spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug 14 04:40:35 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:40:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <20050814033354.11450.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508140440.j7E4ebR18548@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: Saturday, August 13, 2005 8:34 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
> 
> 
> Damien Broderick wrote:
...

> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
...
> > And finally, a transhumanist sermon:
> >
> > B!
> >
> 
> Eliezer, you DO have sense of humor! ;)
> 
> The Avantguardian


Oh MAN these guys are on a roll tonight.  Its good
times again.  

Couple of post-singularity geezers, reminiscing:

Ah yes, I remember right before the singularity, those were the good old
minutes.

spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Aug 14 04:55:16 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:55:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050813235128.01d8c058@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:33 AM 8/14/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

>If we allow punctuation, I'll lapse into a comma

Better a comma than a full stop. Or even a period, I hear.

Damien
[who rejoiced in a colonoscopy just a few days ago--dashed uncomfortable 
afterwards] 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Aug 14 05:21:01 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:21:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <20050814043731.69469.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508140521.j7E5L2R22371@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...
> Actually, if "Atlas Shrugged" was typical for Rand, I
> would say that you would most appropriately condense
> her into:
> 
> $
> 
> The Avantguardian


When all is said and done, *everything* condenses to $.  
$ makes things happen, $ is the prime mover.  If $ is the
root of all evil, $ is also the root of all cool.  I'm 
pretty sure that somehow $ caused the big bang.  When
the scientists discover the Theory Of Everything, they
will realize it was all designed to maximize $.  No 
need to single out Rand.  

spike







From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sun Aug 14 06:28:46 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:28:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050814062846.GA67483@or.pair.com>

On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:33:56AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote:
> I guess this thread must end soon. We can't write stories composed of less 
> than one letter,

Wrong...

> although the Big Bang could have begun with an i-dot. If 
> we allow punctuation, I'll lapse into a comma. But before we stop, let me 
> add the grey goo story:
> 
> 8

1000

Less bits than it takes to encode one letter.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Aug 14 12:20:19 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:20:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com><42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>

I recently watched "It's Alive."  Overall, this is a bad film.  There's even a scene where the shadow of the camera appears in the film.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html
  From: Rafal Smigrodzki 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story


  A combined success and horror story:

  It's Alive!!!!

  Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050814/0cb2462b/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Aug 14 14:38:57 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:38:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com><42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>

I'm in a competitive mood today, so here's a transhumanist zen parable:


-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Aug 14 14:38:45 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:38:45 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com><42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
	<20050814062846.GA67483@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <001301c5a0dd$e03feeb0$b0bd1b97@administxl09yj>

> > > > > > B!
> > > > > I
> > > > x
> > > 8
> > $
> 1000

We quantify information 
in terms of how much stuff 
you need to tell/send me 
before I get to know something. 
But can I get to know something
without you telling/sending me 
anything [1], or almost anything [2],
or something random [3]?

[1]
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/negative-information.html
[2]
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/puzzles.pdf
[3]
http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/ladypi.htm







From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 15:18:36 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:18:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A rant about The Island
In-Reply-To: <20050814074137.74229.qmail@web33308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <000d01c59ed8$ff3c17a0$9a00a8c0@markcomputer>
	<20050814074137.74229.qmail@web33308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60508140818760a31be@mail.gmail.com>

"The Island" movie may have been already been mentioned on this list, so 
perhaps I am beating a dead horse but the story riled me up considerably.

Spoilers follow.











The movie is meant as a cautionary tale, where fully sentient clones of 
paying customers are made in an underground facility, kept alive in a fully 
controlled society, and then slaughtered for transplant parts. There are 
evil villains, great production values, car chases to put Matrix to shame, 
and a happy ending - all the makings of a great Hollywood movie, right?

Watching it one may at first be drawn into the tale the director is telling 
us, and even feel properly cautioned about the dangers of an uncontrolled 
future. But then, one starts to wonder: Apparently in the movie's physics it 
is within a few months possible to grow fully formed adult clones whose 
brains are empty. Obviously, at this stage you could harvest them, without 
any ethical quandaries. Yet, clones are imprinted with fake memories, and 
awakened in a facility where they form a society manipulated for stability, 
at enormous expense. We get the explanation that trying to keep them alive 
without a mind for long would result in the deterioration of their organs, 
as if the human soul was needed to nourish the body, and not the other way 
around. Does it mean that the fiendish doctors are going to all the expense 
of building an artificial society to merely increase the shelf life of their 
product, instead of going the easy way and selling it straight out of the 
cloning vat?

Did you say "fiendish doctors"?

Then it starts to unravel, when you notice that in this cautionary tale 
everything is switched around: Obstetricians murder the baby's mother as 
soon as it's out of the womb. Computer programmers, supervisors, 
businessmen, hundreds of professionals and support staff are working to 
perfect a system so evil it could make Mengele recoil in horror. Of all the 
thousands of working Americans involved, nobody spills the beans, everybody 
gets their check and hustles living people straight into the waste 
incinerator, not even bothering to gas them first. Two out of two rich 
people we get to meet are evil scum, one is willing to murder his twin 
brother of a clone, who shares his memories (apparently through some sort of 
telepathic resonance), to get a liver. The other is the archfiend himself, a 
doctor dreaming about about curing little childrens' leukemia and daily 
murdering innocent people, with his own hands (saying, of all things "I 
brought you into this world, and I will take you off it") .The only people 
willing to help the clones make their escape are a sleazy member of the 
economically challenged class (played by Steve Buscemi), and a noble hired 
assassin.

A noble assassin?! The archfiend physician?

By now you would need to be arch-stupid not to see there is something 
seriously wrong with this tale. Nothing fits real life. On our planet 
murderers usually don't dream about curing leukemia. Physicians are not 
murderers, we are in the business of making lives longer, not shorter. The 
rich are in fact more honest than the poor, and honest businessmen succeed 
over the long run more than thieves (see Sam Walton vs. the Enron gang). And 
of course, we scientists do not have a god complex - we don't believe it.

So, yes, the movie is indeed a cautionary tale. It tells us that if you give 
a hundred million dollars to a bunch of anti-progress, anti-science, greedy 
leftist Hollywood idiots, you get a load of glittering shite, as Ewan 
McGregor should have said instead of signing on to make it.

Don't waste your money.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050814/9161eeeb/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug 14 15:23:25 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:23:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com><42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <42FF61ED.4030507@cox.net>

Technotranscendence wrote:

> I recently watched "It's Alive."  Overall, this is a bad film.  
> There's even a scene where the shadow of the camera appears in the film.:)
>  
> Regards,
>
Now you understand the true horror...


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Aug 14 15:39:22 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:39:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Covert channels (was Re: Transhumanist short story)
In-Reply-To: <001301c5a0dd$e03feeb0$b0bd1b97@administxl09yj>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813212703.01d7d260@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050813234815.06751418@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050814002004.04e77210@unreasonable.com>
	<20050814062846.GA67483@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050814110838.02cacd10@unreasonable.com>

scerir wrote:

>We quantify information in terms of how much stuff you need to tell/send 
>me before I get to know something. But can I get to know something without 
>you telling/sending me anything [1], or almost anything [2], or something 
>random [3]?

This reminds me of the concept of communicating through a covert channel. I 
think I first heard about it in a mandatory security lecture at Livermore 
during the Cold War. It struck me that there are so many ways to signal 
that clever operatives can effectively guarantee that they avoid detection, 
as long as they keep the data rate low enough.

"If Natasha posts to exi-chat on the Monday of a three-day weekend, that's 
a 1 signal to Boris; if she doesn't, that's a 0."

"If Boris posts a picture to alt.binaries.pictures.smurf, the signal is bit 
117."

With rules that obscure but that precise, one could imagine software that 
automatically spread the message across 1000 channels, each of which used a 
different rule to transmit one bit. Letting you jack up the data rate 
without substantially increasing the risk of detection or decryption.

The next step would be to generate 10^6 or 10^9 algorithms, each of which 
is used once to transmit one bit. A one-time pad of covert channels.


-- David Lubkin.



From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Aug 14 15:48:21 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:48:21 -0400
Subject: It's Alive/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com><42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com><003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
	<42FF61ED.4030507@cox.net>
Message-ID: <007201c5a0e7$9a96f0c0$92893cd1@pavilion>

On Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:23 AM Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net wrote:
> Technotranscendence wrote:
>
>> I recently watched "It's Alive."  Overall, this is
>> a bad film.   There's even a scene where the
>> shadow of the camera appears in the film.:)
>
> Now you understand the true horror...

And it gets worse:  there's not just one sequel but _two_:  "It Lives
Again" and "Island of the Alive.":)

Regards,

Dan
  See "Toward an Esthetics of Horror" at:
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Horror.html



From max at maxmore.com  Sun Aug 14 15:58:37 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:58:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
	<42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050814105743.03e5fb58@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At first glance, it may not look like it, but with a generous 
interpretation I think I can top that, like so:

[  [  ]  ]


Max


At 09:38 AM 8/14/2005, you wrote:
>I'm in a competitive mood today, so here's a transhumanist zen parable:
>
>
>--
>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

_______________________________________________________
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 russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 16:05:09 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:05:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion> <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05081409054b903644@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/14/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm in a competitive mood today, so here's a transhumanist zen parable:

Full marks for parsimony! However, if you will grant me just one more
letter, I can tell infinitely many more stories:

e

(I'm assuming the expansion of e eventually contains all possible
digit sequences; someone correct me if that is not the case.)

- Russell


From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 16:58:50 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:58:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion> <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f05081409587257657e@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/14/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm in a competitive mood today, so here's a transhumanist zen parable:
> 
> 

On September 21st, 1980, I attempted to transmit my transhumanist
success story of length ln(-1)/pi, thus gaining a transient victory in
this eternal struggle. The subsequent quest to discover a keyboard
character set capable of encoding it is another story, difficult to
tell in its own way; living through it shucked the heart from my
shell. Homer honored the lost well.
The servo in my third chamber (of all places!) hums uncomfortably at
the sight of cephalopods, and to this day I can't get the character
set to stop transmitting my e-mails to the entangled sube rice straw
scrolls of a young Minamoto Yoritomo, much to his and my frustration.

[When Jeff tried to think of writing a zen parable precisely half as
long as Eliezer's, he popped out of existence. It is unclear to me who
was left to write this.]

-- 
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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug 14 22:46:22 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:46:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05081409587257657e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion>
	<42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
	<5844e22f05081409587257657e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EA91D6E-FCB5-479E-AA15-83D9DEE278D3@mac.com>

Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?

- grumpy



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 23:01:20 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] if no one objects
In-Reply-To: <4EA91D6E-FCB5-479E-AA15-83D9DEE278D3@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050814230120.80600.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

i think i'll merely do comedy pieces now & then, if no one objects. we need a bit of levity to take our minds off aging, war, the possiblility of 'Armaggedon',  you know-- the Business Of Life
 
-sneezy


 
Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?

- grumpy


__________________________________________________
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/20050814/2bbab571/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 23:20:25 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:20:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <4EA91D6E-FCB5-479E-AA15-83D9DEE278D3@mac.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050814012051.GA90609@or.pair.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050813204957.01d54080@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42FEA7D1.8070600@pobox.com>
	<7641ddc60508131925d8d0d8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<003801c5a0ca$9d265460$2c893cd1@pavilion> <42FF5781.7040706@pobox.com>
	<5844e22f05081409587257657e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EA91D6E-FCB5-479E-AA15-83D9DEE278D3@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050814162015f92ad9@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/14/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?

Let me put it this way: If nearly every mailing list and newsgroup on
the planet had been continually spammed with these for the last two
decades the way they have been with American politics, you'd find me
agreeing the fun had slightly worn off by this stage.

- Russell


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 15 00:27:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <42FE7F05.6020300@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050815002750.64146.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually, that wouldn't be transhumanist, since it is a historical
short story. A transhumanist short story will use the future tense...

--- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:

> Technotranscendence wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:34 PM Damien Broderick
> >thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>At 04:58 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Once upon a time, transhumanists overcame impossible
> >>>odds, and lived happily ever after.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Why so verbose? I have to admit that I find my own fairytale
> version
> >>    
> >>
> >more
> >  
> >
> >>concise:
> >>
> >>"Once upon a time, everybody lived happily ever after."
> >>
> >>There is a great temptation to shorten these things. I'm reminded
> of
> >>    
> >>
> >the
> >  
> >
> >>chilly modification made to a classic short short by my late friend
> >>    
> >>
> >Ron Smith:
> >  
> >
> >>==================
> >>
> >>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1439751 :
> >>
> >>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on
> the
> >>    
> >>
> >door..."
> >  
> >
> >>This two-sentence horror tale is presented as a story within a
> story,
> >>    
> >>
> >right
> >  
> >
> >>at the start of Fredric Brown's 'Knock', published in the December
> >>    
> >>
> >1948
> >  
> >
> >>edition of Thrilling Wonder Stories.
> >>
> >>... in July 1957, Ron Smith produced what he called 'A Horror Story
> >>    
> >>
> >Shorter
> >  
> >
> >>by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story Ever Written':
> >>
> >>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a lock on the
> >>    
> >>
> >door..."
> >  
> >
> >>======================
> >>
> >>Here is my upload version, "A Horror Story Shorter by Two Letters
> Than
> >>    
> >>
> >'A
> >  
> >
> >>Horror Story Shorter by One Letter Than the Shortest Horror Story
> Ever
> >>Written'":
> >>
> >>"The last man on Earth sat alone in a ROM. There was a log on the
> >>    
> >>
> >door..."
> >
> >And my update to that:
> >
> >"The last human sat alone in a ROM. The power was off..."
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dan
> >http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> should be "then the power went out"
> > _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 15 00:45:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] starwars nerdfest
In-Reply-To: <200508130244.j7D2iSR10179@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050815004512.35421.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That was hilarious.

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Since we were making fun of starwars fandom last week, 
> this was too funny:
> 
> http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/Conan-Triumph-Star-Wars.html
> 

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 15 01:01:17 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Covert channels (was Re: Transhumanist short story)
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050814110838.02cacd10@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050815010117.4346.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

> "If Natasha posts to exi-chat on the Monday of a
> three-day weekend, that's 
> a 1 signal to Boris; if she doesn't, that's a 0."
> 
> "If Boris posts a picture to
> alt.binaries.pictures.smurf, the signal is bit 
> 117."

So does Max More know about this Boris fellow? :)



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 megao at sasktel.net  Mon Aug 15 01:32:09 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:32:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
In-Reply-To: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42FFF099.4010902@sasktel.net>

Seems like one would have to insert or activate the telomere 
immortalization feature in a way that
had it switched off and that the switch could be activated  and 
deactivated systemically virtually similtaneously.

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Am I missing something here or is this a technology
>>with application to 
>>more complex living
>>cell systems?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Yes and no. Stem cell depletion caused by telomeric
>attrition is a cause of cellular senescence and does
>contribute to the overall phenotype of aging. But
>unfortunately, it is but a single piece of the puzzle.
>It is actually quite easy to make cells immortal. In
>cancer this happens spontaneously. Helen Lang died of
>ovarian cancer several decades ago but her cancer
>cells now called Hela cells are in common use in labs
>throughout the world where they thrive. The trick is
>to get the whole system to be immortal and that means
>being able to carefully monitor and control the growth
>of immortal cells. Elsewise, a group of cells will
>buck the system and defect, reproducing selfishly at
>the expense of the rest of the organism.
>  
>
>The Avantguardian 
>is 
>Stuart LaForge
>alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050814/38319f4a/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Aug 15 01:34:17 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:34:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist  religeous short story
Message-ID: <42FFF119.4000203@sasktel.net>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
Date: 	Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:51:28 -0500
From: 	Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Reply-To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
References: 	<6.2.1.2.0.20050810153031.03c0a650 at pop-server.satx.rr.com> 
<20050814012051.GA90609 at or.pair.com>



At 09:20 PM 8/13/2005 -0400, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>A three word transhumanist horrible story:
>
>You are dead.

A three word transhumanist success story:

You were dead.

Damien Broderick 

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


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050814/57cc2466/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Aug 15 01:57:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:57:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist "big bang"  story of creation
In-Reply-To: <20050815002750.64146.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050815002750.64146.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42FFF688.9080608@sasktel.net>

"The last sentience sat alone in a ROM. Then the power surged..."






From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Aug 15 03:30:31 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:30:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <4EA91D6E-FCB5-479E-AA15-83D9DEE278D3@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
> 
> Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?
> 
> - grumpy


How about this:  we encourage political discussions so
long as they are of international interest.  A lot of
posters on this list are yanks, but it must be pretty
boring to the others to hear all the gory details of
the American political scene.

What say ye, Grumpy?  {8-]

Dopey

 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 15 04:25:40 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:25:40 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
References: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006201c5a151$65223250$0d98e03c@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> ... Helen Lang died of
> ovarian cancer several decades ago but her cancer
> cells now called Hela cells are in common use in labs
> throughout the world where they thrive.

This Helen Lang story seems to have acquired legs due to the
He La letters. There are researchers at Melbourne Uni that
think the derivation is the same. Yet I'd heard from what I took
to be a reliable source that the woman's actual name was 
Henrietta Lacks. A black woman. Urban myths can obviously
find a place amongst lab researchers too.  

Brett Paatsch












From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 15 04:28:36 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:28:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <6312C888-E746-439C-B674-7C813514E7F3@mac.com>

GRUMP!!

On Aug 14, 2005, at 8:30 PM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
>>
>> Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?
>>
>> - grumpy
>>
>
>
> How about this:  we encourage political discussions so
> long as they are of international interest.  A lot of
> posters on this list are yanks, but it must be pretty
> boring to the others to hear all the gory details of
> the American political scene.
>
> What say ye, Grumpy?  {8-]
>
> Dopey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 15 04:33:52 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:33:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
In-Reply-To: <006201c5a151$65223250$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<006201c5a151$65223250$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <43001B30.1000000@sasktel.net>

Henrietta Lacks seems more familiar to me too.

What is remembered and what is not.........what I associate with He La 
is the incident when leonard hayflick
used a marker to change the coat colors of mice to make the data fit his 
theory.
History has forgiven him for that little piece of fraud in comparison to 
his discovery the "hayflick number".

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> ... Helen Lang died of
>> ovarian cancer several decades ago but her cancer
>> cells now called Hela cells are in common use in labs
>> throughout the world where they thrive.
>
>
> This Helen Lang story seems to have acquired legs due to the
> He La letters. There are researchers at Melbourne Uni that
> think the derivation is the same. Yet I'd heard from what I took
> to be a reliable source that the woman's actual name was Henrietta 
> Lacks. A black woman. Urban myths can obviously
> find a place amongst lab researchers too. 
> Brett Paatsch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 15 05:32:55 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
In-Reply-To: <006201c5a151$65223250$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050815053255.53923.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Yet I'd heard from
> what I took
> to be a reliable source that the woman's actual name
> was 
> Henrietta Lacks. A black woman. Urban myths can
> obviously
> find a place amongst lab researchers too.  

You might be right on this, but my point was that all
Hela cells in use the world over are derived from the
tumor of a single individual that died decades ago.
Although by this time, there are numerous genetic
variants. Its kind of sad actually that the tumor that
killed her actually achieved immortality itself. Of
course it is dependent sort of immortality in the
sense that these cells could not survive in a pond.


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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Aug 15 05:45:26 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:45:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] telomerase immortalized cell lines
In-Reply-To: <43001B30.1000000@sasktel.net>
References: <20050814014946.2436.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<006201c5a151$65223250$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<43001B30.1000000@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815004347.01e19648@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:33 PM 8/14/2005 -0500, "Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:

>.what I associate with He La is the incident when leonard hayflick
>used a marker to change the coat colors of mice to make the data fit his 
>theory.
>History has forgiven him for that little piece of fraud in comparison to 
>his discovery the "hayflick number".

???

Sure yr not thinking of Paul Kammerer?

Damien Broderick 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 15 10:15:08 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:15:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8D61B18D-2D62-4233-BDED-DB172EDE88FB@mac.com>


On Aug 14, 2005, at 8:30 PM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
>>
>> Dozens of these are more fun/on topic than politics?
>>
>> - grumpy
>>
>
>
> How about this:  we encourage political discussions so
> long as they are of international interest.  A lot of
> posters on this list are yanks, but it must be pretty
> boring to the others to hear all the gory details of
> the American political scene.
>
> What say ye, Grumpy?  {8-]
>

Unfortunately the doings of the would-be empire are of quite serious  
potential consequence to +human folks everywhere.   We don't  
generally go into all that much detail.  Instead we seem to do too  
much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively and defensively  
to be very fruitful.

- s


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Aug 15 10:31:26 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:31:26 -0400
Subject: The politics of transhumanism/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re:
	Transhumanist short story
References: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
	<8D61B18D-2D62-4233-BDED-DB172EDE88FB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <008301c5a184$7df217e0$d1893cd1@pavilion>

On Monday, August 15, 2005 6:15 AM Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
wrote:
>> How about this:  we encourage political discussions so
>> long as they are of international interest.  A lot of
>> posters on this list are yanks, but it must be pretty
>> boring to the others to hear all the gory details of
>> the American political scene.
>
> Unfortunately the doings of the would-be empire
> are of quite serious potential consequence to
> +human folks everywhere.   We don't  generally go
> into all that much detail.  Instead we seem to do too
> much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively
> and defensively to be very fruitful.

How about this.  Talk about general principles that have an Extropian or
transhumanist import.  In this vein, since some have expressed a desire
to separate Extropianism from libertarianism, what non-libertarian (or
anti-libertarian) policies would be compatible with Extropianism?

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Mon Aug 15 12:33:16 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <200508140521.j7E5L2R22371@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508140521.j7E5L2R22371@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <S360883AbVHOMdS/20050815123318Z+1962@ams008.ftl.affinity.com>

spike writes: 

> When all is said and done, *everything* condenses to $.  
> $ makes things happen, $ is the prime mover.  If $ is the
> root of all evil, $ is also the root of all cool.  I'm 
> pretty sure that somehow $ caused the big bang.  When
> the scientists discover the Theory Of Everything, they
> will realize it was all designed to maximize $.  No 
> need to single out Rand.   
> 
> spike

There is a "Far Side" cartoon where Einstein is looking dumbfounded at a 
complex jumble of equations on the left side of a chalk board and a big "=$" 
on the right side.  The caption reads, "Einstein discovers that time 
actually is money." 

 --
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Aug 15 13:45:50 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:45:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <8D61B18D-2D62-4233-BDED-DB172EDE88FB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508151345.j7FDjnR29173@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> >
> Unfortunately the doings of the would-be empire are of quite serious
> potential consequence to +human folks everywhere.   We don't
> generally go into all that much detail...

Well then that is perfectly legitimate.  Post away.

>  Instead we seem to do too
> much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively and defensively
> to be very fruitful.
> 
> - s

No problem: drop the postitioning, posturing and sniping, and 
be ye fruitful.  (I like that word, fruitful, such a cheerful
term.  It is hard to be grumpy while one is being fruitful.  One
envisions oranges and bananas and delightful things.)

Political discussion is allowed here.  We have shown we
can do it without a constant flame war, and some political
happenings are highly relevant to worldwide transhumanism.  Do
speak on these things.

spike  







From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug 15 14:25:22 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:25:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Intelligent Life" ("The Economist") - Free agents,
	everyone
Message-ID: <380-220058115142522282@M2W046.mail2web.com>

Amara Graps, Philippe Van Nedervelde and Giu1i0 are discussing this
magazine on another list. I thought I'd pass it along here.

"As Intelligent Life is an annual publication, it is not available on a
subscription basis. It is on sale at leading newsstands and bookstores in
Britain, Continental Europe and North America."

http://www.economist.com/intelligentlife/?d=2005

The Editor's introduction is here:

"Free agents, everyone"

http://www.economist.com/intelligentlife/editorsinfo/?d=2005

 - Natasha

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




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 00:01:21 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <200508151345.j7FDjnR29173@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>

Many of the arguments I have heard for and against the
war, current U.S. foreign policy, and its dealings
with other UN nations has led me to reflect on the
current world situation.

For one thing, I see that many conservatives cling to
a very old poltical frame of mind: real politick.
That is the time honored cynical notion that
nation-states are supposed behave as selfish
sociopaths, futhering their own economic and political
gain in a playing field without rules or consideration
of other nations.

I understand that much of world history has shown this
to be a fairly accurate description of how politics
USED to work. Treaties are made and broken at the
convenience of the participants in the mad scramble
for eminence in the international theater.

While I understand that there was a time when such a
world-view made a lot of sense. But in this day and
age of economic globalism, weapons of mass
destruction, and the Internet, the world seems smaller
and more interconnected than ever. Can the nations of
the world persist in this behavior for long without
bringing about their own ruin?

For example, there is much anticipation regarding a
showdown between the US and China with respect to
Taiwan. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a fairly
prosperous little island. But I will wager that the
current economic trade between the U.S. and China is
worth more than the GNP of Tawain. The US and China
have made many mutual investments with each other.

Since these days, a stock market crash in any one
market cause a chain reaction of market crashes around
the world, I just don't see how a confrontation of
such a magnitude over such a small island is at all
beneficial to either side. What good would serve China
to regain control of Taiwan, if in the process, the
U.S. stops buying Chinese goods and employing Chinese
workers in its overseas factories. What good would it
do the U.S. to keep Taiwan under its influence, if it
means that we can no longer purchase cheap goods from
China and the Chinese liquidate its investments in the
US.

These days as people make Internet penpals all over
the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".
I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
"it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
that technology is making this so called "liberal"
viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.
In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
consolidate their own internal power by painting the
rest of the world as a threat to national security.
But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
can we truly afford this paranoia? Especially when
there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
etc.) that need to be addressed.

Any thoughts?        

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 00:45:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816004502.63213.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Many of the arguments I have heard for and against the
> war, current U.S. foreign policy, and its dealings
> with other UN nations has led me to reflect on the
> current world situation.
> 
> For one thing, I see that many conservatives cling to
> a very old poltical frame of mind: real politick.
> That is the time honored cynical notion that
> nation-states are supposed behave as selfish
> sociopaths, futhering their own economic and political
> gain in a playing field without rules or consideration
> of other nations.

Conversely, many see the liberals and the europeans being the ones who
are clinging to realpolitik, in believing that the US needs a
'counterbalance' in the world, based on no principles, morals, or
philosophy, but merely on a corrupt and cynical idea of maintaining a
marxist dialectic conflict for the sake of power politics.

> 
> I understand that much of world history has shown this
> to be a fairly accurate description of how politics
> USED to work. Treaties are made and broken at the
> convenience of the participants in the mad scramble
> for eminence in the international theater.

This was also why, at the conclusion of WWII, when the US was the only
nuclear power, the communists in the scientific community here in the
US felt it was paramount that nuclear technology be given to Stalin if
only to ensure that the US, being the primary proponent of individual
liberty, free markets, and representative government in the world,
needed a counterbalance to prevent these ideas from spreading too
quickly or easily around the world.

> 
> While I understand that there was a time when such a
> world-view made a lot of sense. But in this day and
> age of economic globalism, weapons of mass
> destruction, and the Internet, the world seems smaller
> and more interconnected than ever. Can the nations of
> the world persist in this behavior for long without
> bringing about their own ruin?

In a very cynically communo-fascist POV, if they can't win, then nobody
will.

> 
> For example, there is much anticipation regarding a
> showdown between the US and China with respect to
> Taiwan. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a fairly
> prosperous little island. But I will wager that the
> current economic trade between the U.S. and China is
> worth more than the GNP of Tawain. The US and China
> have made many mutual investments with each other.

Your attitude here is very realpolitik, using a utilitarian and
consequentialist argument to justify fucking over millions of people.

> Since these days, a stock market crash in any one
> market cause a chain reaction of market crashes around
> the world, I just don't see how a confrontation of
> such a magnitude over such a small island is at all
> beneficial to either side. What good would serve China
> to regain control of Taiwan, if in the process, the
> U.S. stops buying Chinese goods and employing Chinese
> workers in its overseas factories. What good would it
> do the U.S. to keep Taiwan under its influence, if it
> means that we can no longer purchase cheap goods from
> China and the Chinese liquidate its investments in the
> US.

Within 8 months, all Chinese products will be 40% less cheap. Instead
of a Dollar Bomb attack, they likely are going to start in on a big
"Buy America" spree to get our industry so addicted to the Chinese
market that we'll look the other way when they march into Taipei.

You aren't Chinese and don't appreciate why they think getting Taiwan
back were so important. Imagine if Long Island seceded from NY state,
after being part of it for centuries, then proceeded to kick NY's
economic ass while delivering more freedom to its people.

> 
> These days as people make Internet penpals all over
> the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
> nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".

This doesn't hold water. In the WW1/WW2 era, a far greater percent of
the population of the US were only a generation descended from their
european relatives, and kept in touch via mail and telegram. The
overwhelming majority of the first gen immigrants here today are from
Mexico.

> I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
> "it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
> that technology is making this so called "liberal"
> viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.

What 'liberal' viewpoint is that? The one in the Communist Manifesto
about world peace through global political reeducation?

> In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
> manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
> consolidate their own internal power by painting the
> rest of the world as a threat to national security.
> But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
> can we truly afford this paranoia? Especially when
> there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
> etc.) that need to be addressed.

The isolationists called it paranoia right up until December 7th, 1941.

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 matus at matus1976.com  Tue Aug 16 01:22:09 2005
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:22:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002101c5a200$ef986990$ef5c920c@hplaptop>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> 
> For one thing, I see that many conservatives cling to
> a very old poltical frame of mind: real politick.

Real politick was characterized by valuing stability over everything
else.  Iraq is certainly not an example of that.  The same people who
today demand stability in Iraq are the ones who during the cold war
demanded we leave other countries alone to let them 'choose their own
path' (a path marked by massive communist influence helping them to
'choose their own way')  and the same leftist revisionists who are
worried that a secular Shiite state will form in Iraq with Iran
(nevermind the other 20 are sunni) were the ones who opposed every right
wing dictator the US backed under the guise of stability.  Had we made a
serious effort toward forming liberal democracies in the rest of the
world back then (at best difficult given the practices of assassination
of subversion by soviet agents), instead of following real politik only
we might not be in the mess we are in today.

Which do you prefer, short term stability under blood stained boot heels
or long term stability under constitutions and liberal democracies?
Which one is real politick?

Matus




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 01:56:46 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816004502.63213.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816015646.40030.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Conversely, many see the liberals and the europeans
> being the ones who
> are clinging to realpolitik, in believing that the
> US needs a
> 'counterbalance' in the world, based on no
> principles, morals, or
> philosophy, but merely on a corrupt and cynical idea
> of maintaining a
> marxist dialectic conflict for the sake of power
> politics.

I am not suggesting that the US needs a counterbalance
but can you truly say that the idea that "power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is
not based on priciples, morals, or philosophy? And I
don't understand why every proposed change to the
current U.S. attitude is considered marxist. Surely in
all of infinite idea space there exists more than
consumer-driven laissez-faire capitalism and marxism? 

> This was also why, at the conclusion of WWII, when
> the US was the only
> nuclear power, the communists in the scientific
> community here in the
> US felt it was paramount that nuclear technology be
> given to Stalin if
> only to ensure that the US, being the primary
> proponent of individual
> liberty, free markets, and representative government
> in the world,
> needed a counterbalance to prevent these ideas from
> spreading too
> quickly or easily around the world.

That is the karma we made for ourselves for destroying
a man like Hitler and then turning a blind eye to a
man like Stalin that was WORSE than Hitler simply
because it was politically convenient. We could have
easily have avoided nuclear proliferation and the
entire cold war, if we had just listened to our
generals (like Patton) who wanted to topple Stalin as
well. Inconsistent attitudes toward other countries
sends mixed messages and makes for  crappy
consequences. 

> In a very cynically communo-fascist POV, if they
> can't win, then nobody
> will.

Well then if that's the communo-fascist view,
shouldn't our view be different? We are the ones in
power currently so the onus of reponsibility is on US
as is the perogative for change. If we don't take the
first step in the direction of a better world, then
who will? China? Germany? Djibouti? Any supposed
leader who has no vision beyond consolidating and
maintaining power is a very poor one whether you are
speaking of countries or cub scouts.

> Your attitude here is very realpolitik, using a
> utilitarian and
> consequentialist argument to justify fucking over
> millions of people.

Allowing others to fight their own battles hardly
equates to fucking them over. Spain didn't lift a
finger to help us out during the American Revolution
when we were the underdogs taking on the world hegemon
at the time. Do you think this constitutes Spain
fucking us over?

> 
> Within 8 months, all Chinese products will be 40%
> less cheap. Instead
> of a Dollar Bomb attack, they likely are going to
> start in on a big
> "Buy America" spree to get our industry so addicted
> to the Chinese
> market that we'll look the other way when they march
> into Taipei.

You would prefer open war to bribery? Accepting a
bribe is not an option for somebody who is not in
power. And offering a bribe is a pretty clear
indication of deference to said power.

> You aren't Chinese and don't appreciate why they
> think getting Taiwan
> back were so important. Imagine if Long Island
> seceded from NY state,
> after being part of it for centuries, then proceeded
> to kick NY's
> economic ass while delivering more freedom to its
> people.

I am half Korean and I understand the Asian mentality
better than most. Furthermore I can understand your
scenario, which is why I question our need to
intervene. If NY tried to take Manhattan back, would
it be any business of Canada to intervene? 

> This doesn't hold water. In the WW1/WW2 era, a far
> greater percent of
> the population of the US were only a generation
> descended from their
> european relatives, and kept in touch via mail and
> telegram.

Yes, but not instaneously on a daily basis in such a
way that one could see how the media of various
countries spin the news in favor of their respective
governments.

> The
> overwhelming majority of the first gen immigrants
> here today are from
> Mexico.

Yes, and China might be a close second. So what's your
point?

> What 'liberal' viewpoint is that? The one in the
> Communist Manifesto
> about world peace through global political
> reeducation?

Again with the accusations of communism. I have never
even read the Communist Manifesto and I could care
less about it. I understand the utility of free
markets. I want to IMPROVE what we have and not scrap
it altogether to live in a giant hippie commune as you
seem to constantly suggest.

> The isolationists called it paranoia right up until
> December 7th, 1941.

And maybe they were right. What were the hawks so
worried about? Pearl Harbor was a minor setback in the
grand scheme of things and gave us an unquestionable
mandate to wage war. In retrospect WW-II was about the
best thing that happened to US in terms of prosperity
down the road. Preparedness for war is one thing,
eagerness for war is another thing entirely. One that
flies in the face of my martial arts training and
philosophy.
 

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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 01:57:33 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816004502.63213.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816015733.3225.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

 By all means lets there be maximum liberty the world
over as long as one can accept the fleas coming with
the dog.
For instance, cults are religions without political
power, cults want the maximum they can get and we are
obliged to protect a Jim Jones' liberty as well as a
decent Mormon's. *Everyone* wants liberty plus enough
political power to protect their liberty. Or licence. 

We intellectuals discuss these matters in a sanitized
manner yet the reality is very ugly. You know the
future wont be anything like we expect.




> Conversely, many see the liberals and the europeans
> being the ones who
> are clinging to realpolitik, in believing that the
> US needs a
> 'counterbalance' in the world, based on no
> principles, morals, or
> philosophy, but merely on a corrupt and cynical idea
> of maintaining a
> marxist dialectic conflict for the sake of power
> politics.



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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 05:50:27 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816015733.3225.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816055027.22456.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  By all means lets there be maximum liberty the
> world
> over as long as one can accept the fleas coming with
> the dog.

The one liberty that does not exist is freedom from
the consequences of ones own actions.

> For instance, cults are religions without political
> power, cults want the maximum they can get and we
> are
> obliged to protect a Jim Jones' liberty as well as a
> decent Mormon's.

Another way to look at it is that religions are cults
that have somehow managed to survive a couple of
generations. Just don't drink the kool-aid.

 *Everyone* wants liberty plus
> enough
> political power to protect their liberty. Or
> licence. 

No some want much more. Do not decieve yourself that
the masses do not harbour thousands of would be
Stalins. Most just don't have the talent or the guts
to pull it off. That's why I thank the Primordial Ooze
for checks and balances in the Constitution. If we can
keep it from being used as toilet paper that is. 
 
> We intellectuals discuss these matters in a
> sanitized
> manner yet the reality is very ugly.

No the reality is sublimely, breathtakingly, and
indescribably beautiful. Look for ugliness in the
world and you will find it. Look for the beauty and
you will find it. Be afraid and your worst nightmares
will come to pass. Be loving and every atom of the
universe will conspire to make your fondest wishes
come true. 

 You know the
> future wont be anything like we expect.

Yet paradoxically, the future will be EXACTLY what WE
make it. The surest prophecy is the one you yourself fulfill.

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 16 06:12:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <002101c5a200$ef986990$ef5c920c@hplaptop>
Message-ID: <20050816061209.94969.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Matus <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:

> 
> Real politick was characterized by valuing stability
> over everything
> else.

Is that not the conservative motto: "Why change?"

> Iraq is certainly not an example of that. 
> The same people who
> today demand stability in Iraq are the ones who
> during the cold war
> demanded we leave other countries alone to let them
> 'choose their own
> path' (a path marked by massive communist influence
> helping them to
> 'choose their own way')  and the same leftist
> revisionists who are
> worried that a secular Shiite state will form in
> Iraq with Iran
> (nevermind the other 20 are sunni) were the ones who
> opposed every right
> wing dictator the US backed under the guise of
> stability.  Had we made a
> serious effort toward forming liberal democracies in
> the rest of the
> world back then (at best difficult given the
> practices of assassination
> of subversion by soviet agents), instead of
> following real politik only
> we might not be in the mess we are in today.

To a certain degree, I agree with you. I wasn't
actually talking about Iraq, but now that you bring it
up. I have already stated several times that I support
our CURRENT efforts in Iraq. I do not believe the war
was at all justified but as Powell warned us we might,
we broke it so now we have to buy it. And hopefully
fix it. It might cost us a trillion dollars and gas
might go up to $10 a gallon but hey that's the price
you pay when you throw your weight around like a bull
in a china closet. 
 
> Which do you prefer, short term stability under
> blood stained boot heels
> or long term stability under constitutions and
> liberal democracies?

I prefer we not fake reasons for war. But since the
milk is spilt, I prefer we do some democracy building
and try not to lose our own in the process.

> Which one is real politick?

Both, but the latter is more enlightened real
politick. Of course I hardly think that was the actual
motivation of the current administration. I don't
think Bush planned for anything past landing on that
aircraft carrier like he was Top Gun.


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 pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 06:23:30 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:23:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The future is happening
Message-ID: <470a3c52050815232347bcc89@mail.gmail.com>

The Wall Street
Journal<http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112370259710910021-MHWdDdhTjCAvoB3BCDKqqc1aJcU_20060814,00.html?mod=blogs>has
a good article on the future that never happened. Or more precisely,
the
future happened (of course) but not in space as we imagined when we were 
kids. The author acknowledges that a lot of other things happened: 
computers, mobile phones, the Internet, etc.
Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/08/15/1256243.shtml?tid=160&tid=1>has
a pointer to the article and a discussion forum where readers are
discussing transhumanism as the big thing which is happening: "Transhumanism 
goes far beyond most science-fiction". Some readers think transhumanism will 
never happen because energy (read: oil) is being depleted. My comment on 
Slashdot: "It is a race against time. Old resources are depleted, and new 
resources are developed. Technology is the driver of both these trends - the 
question is whether we will develop new sustainable energy resources before 
exhausting oil. Nuclear energy is available already, solar - wind - other 
alternative energies are already available as technologies, but not yet 
fully deployed. It is a race between two trends, we will see which one wins. 
Transhumanists bet on technology's capability to improve our lives and solve 
many of the current problems of the world, and on our own capability to 
develop such technologies in time."
Wall Street Journal<http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112370259710910021-MHWdDdhTjCAvoB3BCDKqqc1aJcU_20060814,00.html?mod=blogs>:
Where'd the future go? You remember it, don't you? It's the one with moon 
bases and intrepid Mars colonists and asteroid miners, with spaceports and 
space elevators and sprawling habitations up at the Lagrange points. The one 
we read about when we were kids, the one written about by the likes of 
Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein, with thrilling chronologies that had 
us on Mars or beyond by now, or at least heading that way. You know, the 
future.
Contrast this quarter-century of near-stasis [in space] with the 
technological revolution that's remade our daily lives. When we were kids, 
computers were hulking things off in universities that chattered and blinked 
mysteriously before spitting out reams of paper. Today, we feel guilty about 
putting exponentially more-powerful machines than those out on the curb. 
Back then if you wanted cash you structured your day around when you'd stand 
in line at the bank; today your choice might be between deli ATMs or 
settling a debt via PayPal. We have Web-enabled phones in our pockets, 
instant messaging at the office and can shop in our skivvies at 3 a.m. 
Wonders upon wonders -- it's only up in the heavens that we're a generation 
behind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050816/faf92a7b/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 06:58:12 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:58:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200508151345.j7FDjnR29173@tick.javien.com>
	<20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520508152358401e11c8@mail.gmail.com>

"We are good, they are bad" has been the main attitude of groups
toward the rest of the world throughout history, and despite the
suffering it has caused it has probably justified itself in historical
and evolutionary terms. But now xenofoby has exhausted its utility and
is doing only harm and no good.
We have to understand that in today's world there cannot be US and
THEM. Or more precisely, US must mean us humans (and tomorrow us
sentient beings), and THEM must mean the limits that the universe has
imposed on our species. This is the only war which makes sense.
I want ONE WORLD where we work together at building the future of our
species. Well of course this is naive at this moment: until we can
cure sociopathy with a pill there will always be sociopaths around
(everywhere, and speaking every language) to fuck up our efforts.
Sooner or later we will have the pill, and in the meantime we should
continue trying to promote rationality over hormonal aggressive pack
responses.
G.

On 8/16/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> These days as people make Internet penpals all over
> the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
> nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".
> I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
> "it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
> that technology is making this so called "liberal"
> viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.
> In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
> manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
> consolidate their own internal power by painting the
> rest of the world as a threat to national security.
> But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
> can we truly afford this paranoia? Especially when
> there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
> etc.) that need to be addressed.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> The Avantguardian


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 08:14:18 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816055027.22456.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816081418.3334.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

What you wrote below is worth thinking about for a
long, long time, Stuart.
 However what Giulio just referred to, sociopathy, is
what is always disturbing. What is disturbing is how
one person's & one group's & one subculture's liberty
is another person's; group's; subculture's sociopathy.
And beyond sociopathy there is psychopathy.  
Yet still, what you've written below is fascinating...

> Be loving and every atom of the universe will
conspire to make your >fondest wishes come true [...]
paradoxically, the future will be >EXACTLY what WE
make it. The surest prophecy is the one you >yourself
fulfill.
>The Avantguardian 


__________________________________________________
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 16 09:33:07 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:33:07 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508152358401e11c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200508151345.j7FDjnR29173@tick.javien.com>
	<20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520508152358401e11c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>


On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:58 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> I want ONE WORLD where we work together at building the future of our
> species. Well of course this is naive at this moment: until we can
> cure sociopathy with a pill there will always be sociopaths around
> (everywhere, and speaking every language) to fuck up our efforts.

This is very perceptive.

Lorrey said it was the marxists that maniacally wish to maintain 
balance by supporting -anyone- against the hegemony of western freedom 
and democracy.


Of course, western "freedom"(you think you're free?  Go ask the Fed for 
the same overnight lending rate on the same amount of money that it 
offers BofA.) and democracy (you think this is a democracy, try getting 
an independent recount or even consistent voter registration rules) 
ain't all it's cracked up to be; and it creates many of the problems it 
purports to solve.  Our energy-and-resources-light world doesn't 
adequately sustain all us sentient beings because, after all, we are 
not our brothers' keepers.  But if we won't keep our brothers, they'll 
tend to themselves, usually at our expense.  "'cause if we stop and 
look around us there is nothing that we need, in this world of 
persecution that is burning in its greed..."

The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an underclass, you 
create a felt need for revolution and occasionally the people with the 
guts and/or desperation to try it.  To avoid this trap, you have to try 
to make everyone comfortable, and that means giving everyone enough 
power to ensure their own comfort.  That level of power isn't easily 
shared by those that have it in their tight little hands.  In fact, 
from the point of view of the suffering poor, the status-quo power 
structure is ruled by sociopaths.

Maintaining the status quo here means dooming us to further meaningless 
wars as the overclass uses them to polarize the underclass into us-es 
and them-s along the meaningless lines of race and creed.  In the 
meantime core human problems, like living longer and better for the 
majority of people, are left unacknowledged by all but the dwindling 
numbers of the kindest charities.  The haves say "what problem" while 
the silent voices of the have-nots fade away until their children start 
blowing up starbucks'.

Sociopaths are not needed to "fuck things up", things are fucked up.  
World-historical Sociopaths are, in a sense, the proof of the pudding.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug 16 09:33:07 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:33:07 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520508152358401e11c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200508151345.j7FDjnR29173@tick.javien.com>
	<20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
	<470a3c520508152358401e11c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>


On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:58 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> I want ONE WORLD where we work together at building the future of our
> species. Well of course this is naive at this moment: until we can
> cure sociopathy with a pill there will always be sociopaths around
> (everywhere, and speaking every language) to fuck up our efforts.

This is very perceptive.

Lorrey said it was the marxists that maniacally wish to maintain 
balance by supporting -anyone- against the hegemony of western freedom 
and democracy.


Of course, western "freedom"(you think you're free?  Go ask the Fed for 
the same overnight lending rate on the same amount of money that it 
offers BofA.) and democracy (you think this is a democracy, try getting 
an independent recount or even consistent voter registration rules) 
ain't all it's cracked up to be; and it creates many of the problems it 
purports to solve.  Our energy-and-resources-light world doesn't 
adequately sustain all us sentient beings because, after all, we are 
not our brothers' keepers.  But if we won't keep our brothers, they'll 
tend to themselves, usually at our expense.  "'cause if we stop and 
look around us there is nothing that we need, in this world of 
persecution that is burning in its greed..."

The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an underclass, you 
create a felt need for revolution and occasionally the people with the 
guts and/or desperation to try it.  To avoid this trap, you have to try 
to make everyone comfortable, and that means giving everyone enough 
power to ensure their own comfort.  That level of power isn't easily 
shared by those that have it in their tight little hands.  In fact, 
from the point of view of the suffering poor, the status-quo power 
structure is ruled by sociopaths.

Maintaining the status quo here means dooming us to further meaningless 
wars as the overclass uses them to polarize the underclass into us-es 
and them-s along the meaningless lines of race and creed.  In the 
meantime core human problems, like living longer and better for the 
majority of people, are left unacknowledged by all but the dwindling 
numbers of the kindest charities.  The haves say "what problem" while 
the silent voices of the have-nots fade away until their children start 
blowing up starbucks'.

Sociopaths are not needed to "fuck things up", things are fucked up.  
World-historical Sociopaths are, in a sense, the proof of the pudding.

Robbie Lindauer



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 13:39:04 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18- 25?:
 
1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age
2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
3. buy real estate
4. buy precious metals
5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children (hooray hooray) ever.
6. avoid parents and all relatives
7. avoid public schools (triple hooray)
8. travel
 
what else can you think of?
 
 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050816/7c1dbdc9/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 13:53:06 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:53:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>
	<20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40508160653fdc29f3@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/16/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
> what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18- 25?: 
>   
> 1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age 
> 2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
> 3. buy real estate 
> 4. buy precious metals 
> 5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children (hooray hooray) ever. 
> 6. avoid parents and all relatives 
> 7. avoid public schools (triple hooray) 
> 8. travel 
>   
> what else can you think of? 
   
Get married, buy real estate, have plenty of kids, put family first.
Spread your memes and genes.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 13:55:46 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:55:46 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>
	<20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050816065574d98a85@mail.gmail.com>

Have fun, screw around a lot, go out with friends, read/watch good
literature/art, travel, surf the net, keep an open mind, be a free
agent, be a free thinker, be well informed, live and let live, make
enough money to be left in peace. DO WHAT YOU LIKE. If you want to get
married do so, otherwise don't, if you want to have children do so,
otherwise don't, if you like your parents and relatives be with them,
otherwise don't. Etc.
G.


On 8/16/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
> what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18- 25?: 
>   
> 1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age 
> 2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
> 3. buy real estate 
> 4. buy precious metals 
> 5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children (hooray hooray) ever. 
> 6. avoid parents and all relatives 
> 7. avoid public schools (triple hooray) 
> 8. travel 
>   
> what else can you think of?


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Aug 16 14:02:26 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:02:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
Message-ID: <380-22005821614226742@M2W082.mail2web.com>


From: Al Brooks 

"what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18- 25?:
 
1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age
2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
3. buy real estate
4. buy precious metals
5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children (hooray hooray) ever.
6. avoid parents and all relatives
7. avoid public schools (triple hooray)
8. travel
 
what else can you think of?"

Your list is pretty good Al, but why not make it more extropic?  

My initial list would look like this:

1a. Put aside 10% of your income for yourself and invest it.
1.  Do your best to find peace and joy in life.
2.  Exercise and eat well.  
3.  Write a mission statement for your own life and your future.
4.  Ask several friends who are as objective as possible to review your
mission statement and give you feedback.
5.  Establish a Plan of Action for achieving mission statement goals.
6.  Laugh whenever possible.
7.  Surround yourself with supportive and caring people.
8.  Never stop learning.
9.  Explore the world.

And my extropic list would look like this:

1a. Put aside 10% of your income for yourself and invest it.
1.  Find peace and joy in life!
2.  Continue to perform your best in exercise and work toward fighting the
entropy of aging - physically and mentally.  Establish an exercise routine
that is both aerobic and anerobic and push your limits.  Go to Kronos, get
a full body scan, prepare weekly menus that are designed specifically for
your own body and mind's needs, take designer vitamins, pay attention to
all changes in mind and body and work toward keeping the body flexible and
the mind agile.
3.  Sign up for transhumanist courses and read transhumanist type magazines
and books and prepare a solid mission statement for your life which
includes a trajectory of the next 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, etc. years. 
Map the projection with Vensim software.  Produce a behavior over time of
your accomplishments in achieving your life goals.  Develop a full blown
strategic plan for your goals.
4.  Start a feedback group of your peers, colleagues, friends and even
those who do not agree with you, but who you respect, and ask them for
feedback of your mission statement, strategic plan and goals.  Listen
attentively to the feedback.  Rewrite your mission statement and strategic
plan with yoru new insights.  Find a mentor(s) and study his or her
knowledge skills and incorporate them into your own behavior.
5.  Learn how to be proactive, rational, and insightful.
6. Find pleasure in laughing and playing.  Meet people, do things that are
not ordinary to you - challenge yourself.  
7. Develope a set of close friends who you trust and love, a group of peers
who you can enjoy, and a circle of associates that you can learn from and
who will challenge your thinking.
8. Never stop learning.  (especially history and futurism)
9. Travel the world.

 
(Getting married is inconsequential - it is having a partner or partners in
life that is proven to healthy for humans, as well as having children -
bearing them or adopting them.)

Natasha  
 
 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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




From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 14:32:23 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40508160653fdc29f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050816143223.34861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

Bacon wrote:
"He who has wife and child hath given hostage to fortune".


 
 
Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
Get married, buy real estate, have plenty of kids, put family first.
Spread your memes and genes.

		
---------------------------------
 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/20050816/780a6972/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug 16 14:39:10 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:39:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists make nerve stem cells 
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050816093844.01cc1d10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4155016.stm

The world's first pure nerve stem cells made from human embryonic stem 
cells has been created by scientists at the University of Edinburgh.  



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug 16 14:43:25 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:43:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200508161443.j7GEhRR12201@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
...
> Of course, western "freedom"(you think you're free?  Go ask the Fed for
> the same overnight lending rate on the same amount of money that it
> offers BofA.)...

The Fed takes a lot higher risk on you and me than on BofA.  What
has that to do with freedom?

>... and democracy (you think this is a democracy, try getting
> an independent recount...

We get those.  See Washington state governor's race 2004.

> or even consistent voter registration rules)...
> Robbie Lindauer...

Those are controlled at the state and local levels.  They
will naturally be inconsistent.  

spike






From iph1954 at msn.com  Tue Aug 16 14:52:09 2005
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:52:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Task Force to Study Nanotech Implications
Message-ID: <BAY5-F1103A408DAFEBBD1FA3662BDB00@phx.gbl>

*CRN Announces Formation of New Task Force to Study Societal Implications*

Today the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) announced the charter 
members of a new Task Force convened to study the societal implications of 
this rapidly emerging technology. Bringing together a diverse group of 
world-class experts from multiple disciplines, CRN will begin a historic, 
collaborative effort to develop comprehensive policy recommendations for the 
safe and responsible use of molecular manufacturing.

Nanotechnology is the projected ability to make things from the bottom up, 
using techniques and tools that are being developed today to place every 
atom and molecule in a desired place. When this form of molecular 
engineering is achieved, it will result in a manufacturing revolution ? with 
more promise for society than the computer revolution, but with potentially 
serious economic, social, environmental, and military implications.

Mike Treder, Executive Director of CRN, made the following statement:

"Progress toward developing the technical requirements for desktop molecular 
manufacturing is moving faster than it was when we founded CRN two years 
ago. The recent announcement of a Technology Roadmap for Productive 
Nanosystems, to be organized by the Battelle research organization and the 
Foresight Nanotech Institute, has highlighted the urgent need for parallel 
policy discussions at the highest levels. We must not allow efforts to 
effectively prepare for the impacts of nanotechnology to lag behind advances 
on the technical side.

"All of our research to date shows that molecular manufacturing will have a 
transformative impact on our society, industry, the environment, and 
geopolitics. Without adequate preparation and study, the effects could be 
dangerously disruptive.

"CRN is honored today to announce the charter members who will head the 
important work of the Task Force. They share our vision that it is critical 
to begin this dialogue and to include people with expertise and worldviews 
spanning the globe. In addition, we are proud to have both the Society of 
Manufacturing Engineers and the Society of Police Futurists International as 
organizational participants."

Charter members of the Task Force include:

? Nick Bostrom, Ph.D. -- Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford 
University
? David Brin -- Author, The Transparent Society
? Jerome C. Glenn -- Director, United Nations University's Millennium 
Project
? Ray Kurzweil -- Founder and CEO, Kurzweil Technologies, Inc.

Treder continued, "We look forward to working together with all these 
leaders in their respective fields to establish a factual foundation for 
advanced nanotechnology; identify potential problems arising from the 
technology and its administration; design recommendation for global 
solutions; plan and strategize the implementation of the solutions; and 
communicate our findings to where they need to be heard.

"Without mutual understanding and cooperation in making policy, the 
hazardous potentials of advanced nanotechnology could spiral out of control 
and deny any hope of realizing the benefits to society. The CRN Task Force, 
led by this talented group of charter members, is poised to begin this 
important work."


The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (http://CRNano.org) is a 
non-profit research and advocacy organization concerned with the major 
societal and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology. CRN 
promotes public awareness and education, and the crafting of effective 
policy to maximize benefits and reduce dangers. Headquartered in New York, 
CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) 
organization.

RELEASE ONLINE: http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 15:40:54 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:40:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816143223.34861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40508160653fdc29f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050816143223.34861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0508160840395027be@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/16/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacon wrote: 
> "He who has wife and child hath given hostage to fortune".

"It's the heart, afraid of breaking,
That never learns to dance.
It's the dream, afraid of waking,
That never takes a chance.
It's the one who won't be taken,
Who cannot seem to give.
And the soul, afraid of dying,
that never learns to live."
Bette Midler, 'The Rose'.

- Russell


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 15:40:54 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:40:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816143223.34861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40508160653fdc29f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050816143223.34861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0508160840395027be@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/16/05, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bacon wrote: 
> "He who has wife and child hath given hostage to fortune".

"It's the heart, afraid of breaking,
That never learns to dance.
It's the dream, afraid of waking,
That never takes a chance.
It's the one who won't be taken,
Who cannot seem to give.
And the soul, afraid of dying,
that never learns to live."
Bette Midler, 'The Rose'.

- Russell


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 16:05:43 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <200508161443.j7GEhRR12201@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050816160543.3105.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> ...
> > Of course, western "freedom"(you think you're free?  Go ask the Fed
> for
> > the same overnight lending rate on the same amount of money that it
> > offers BofA.)...
> 
> The Fed takes a lot higher risk on you and me than on BofA.  What
> has that to do with freedom?
> 
> >... and democracy (you think this is a democracy, try getting
> > an independent recount...
> 
> We get those.  See Washington state governor's race 2004.
> 
> > or even consistent voter registration rules)...
> > Robbie Lindauer...
> 
> Those are controlled at the state and local levels.  They
> will naturally be inconsistent.  

And, I should add, every attempt at creating voter registration and
voting rules that actually ensures that everyone who gets a ballot
actually is a citizen of the US and a resident of the district of the
polling station and not a felon is consistently fought against by
Robbies beloved Democrats. 

I was involved in several recounts in 2004. There was no ballot
counting fraud. The real voting fraud in this country isn't in voting
machine software, it is millions of people getting ballots who
shouldn't.

As an example, most polling places may demand sufficient ID to register
on election day, but they don't check to see if you are you when you go
to ask for a ballot with the list supervisors. They ask for a name, you
give it to them, and they check to see that it is on the list. They
don't check to make sure that you actually are the person whose name
you are claiming a ballot for. This sort of fraud is virtually
impossible to fix under the current rules, even HAVA forbids checking
ID when asking for a ballot.

Thus, one thing the Democrats do with their 'get out the vote' phone
campaigns is they find out who isn't planning on voting but is
registered. They then send in people to the polls on election day
claiming to be those people, and vote for them.

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 astapp at amazeent.com  Tue Aug 16 16:06:39 2005
From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:06:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA949@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Natasha wrote:
...
My initial list would look like this:

1a. Put aside 10% of your income for yourself and invest it.
1.  Do your best to find peace and joy in life.
2.  Exercise and eat well.  
3.  Write a mission statement for your own life and your future.
4.  Ask several friends who are as objective as possible to review your
mission statement and give you feedback.
5.  Establish a Plan of Action for achieving mission statement goals.
6.  Laugh whenever possible.
7.  Surround yourself with supportive and caring people.
8.  Never stop learning.
9.  Explore the world.
...

I would make 5:
5.  Establish a routine of setting and achieving goals
5A.  Set goals that will advance you in your mission
5B.  Work towards those goals
5C.  Feedback! Whether you succeed or fail, evaluate 
     your goal setting and fulfillment routines and always
     be improving and refining. Without feedback, you
     don't have a control system (in the control theory
     sense of the word), and you're running open loop.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again 
and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 16:22:15 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816160543.3105.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816162216.53162.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>

But released felons have paid their debt to society and ought to be allowed to vote again.


And, I should add, every attempt at creating voter registration and
voting rules that actually ensures that everyone who gets a ballot
actually is a citizen of the US and a resident of the district of the
polling station and not a felon is consistently fought against by
Robbies beloved Democrats. 


__________________________________________________
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/20050816/d9685986/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 16:28:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816162216.53162.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816162849.75721.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Released felons who have completed their probation are eligible to file
a motion with the court for relief of civil disability. Probation is
also part of their sentence, not just imprisonment, so until they
complete their probation, they are still 'paying their debt to
society'. Most felons don't qualify because they typically re-offend
before the end of their probation.

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> But released felons have paid their debt to society and ought to be
> allowed to vote again.
> 
> 
> And, I should add, every attempt at creating voter registration and
> voting rules that actually ensures that everyone who gets a ballot
> actually is a citizen of the US and a resident of the district of the
> polling station and not a felon is consistently fought against by
> Robbies beloved Democrats. 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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


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


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 16:46:45 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816162849.75721.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816164645.49045.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

Law enforcement in America is as trustworthy as public education-- not very trustworthy at all. Look at all those who are in prison for cannabis and other victimless crimes. A sizable fraction of the police take bribes. 
In fact justice isn't the purpose of the system, enforcement of the letter of the law is paramount.
 
"every cop is a criminal and every sinner a saint"-- Mick Jagger


 
 
 >Most felons don't qualify because they typically re-offend
>before the end of their probation.



__________________________________________________
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/20050816/a8d7ab4a/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 18:20:11 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816133904.99921.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816182012.50367.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18-
> 25?:
>  
> 1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age
> 2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
> 3. buy real estate
> 4. buy precious metals
> 5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children
> (hooray hooray) ever.
> 6. avoid parents and all relatives
> 7. avoid public schools (triple hooray)
> 8. travel

Forget registering to vote. Instead, become a
lobbyist. You will have a zillion times more influence.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 18:40:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] youth of today
In-Reply-To: <20050816182012.50367.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050816184100.55669.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > what would you give as advice to youth, ages 18-
> > 25?:
> >  
> > 1. take supplements, nootropics at an early age
> > 2. start getting wealthy at an early age. 
> > 3. buy real estate
> > 4. buy precious metals

While secure, real estate and metals are poor performers compared to
the market historically. Diversification is important to minimize risk.
Recent gains in metals and real estate are speculative bubbles that
will burst. Not to be relied upon by the long lived.

> > 5. don't get married (hooray) ever. or have children
> > (hooray hooray) ever.

Actually, if you are male, get married, you'll live longer. If you are
female, don't get married, you'll live longer. Its up to you to figure
out the contradiction...

> > 6. avoid parents and all relatives

nope, lonely people live less. Those who live longest have many strong
family ties and an active social life.

> > 7. avoid public schools (triple hooray)

And public school taxes if you can.

> > 8. travel

Travel is a high risk proposition, at least for those in rural areas of
the US. Travelling to the big cities or other countries greatly
increases one's risk of crime victimization and loss of life. Better to
travel to other rural areas of the US. If you live urban, spend more
time in the rural, you'll live longer, if only by getting the smog out
of your lungs.

> 
> Forget registering to vote. Instead, become a
> lobbyist. You will have a zillion times more influence.

You should still register to vote, but don't stop there. Be an activist
about whatever floats your boat, "be the change you wish to see in the
world", as the naked guy in the towel once said. If you can get paid
doing it, fine, but don't lose sight of your goals and dreams for the
sake of money. Activists who accomplish things are actually far less
cynical and fatalistic about the fate of and the state of the nation
than those who refuse to participate. They typically don't start out
that way, taking part in and understanding the process tends to
increase one's faith in the system, even if you lose, you understand
better why you lost. 

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 18:45:12 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <cd23b1d8da4ea279fa98391843e89f58@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050816184512.25545.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an
> underclass, you 
> create a felt need for revolution and occasionally
> the people with the 
> guts and/or desperation to try it.

That may be the only truth left to Marxism. Face it
Robbie, Marxism is sooo 20th century. Its been tried
dozens of times by various countries and it just
doesn't work. It's utility is even less than that of
anarcho-capitalism, because it drags the entire
economy down to the level of the lowest common
denominator. It stifles innovation and enterprise. And
invariably it breeds its own status quo and elite
overclass. What is needed is true democratic
meritocracy. Where everyone starts out on a level
playing field and one can rise as high as one is able
based upon objective assessment of ones abilities and
not upon circumstances of birth. The ideal society
would be one where geniuses do not languish in ghettos
and well-connected idiots do not become president.  

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Aug 16 19:11:28 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:11:28 -0700
Subject: The politics of transhumanism/was Re: [extropy-chat]
	Re:	Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <008301c5a184$7df217e0$d1893cd1@pavilion>
References: <200508150330.j7F3UhR28971@tick.javien.com>
	<8D61B18D-2D62-4233-BDED-DB172EDE88FB@mac.com>
	<008301c5a184$7df217e0$d1893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <61D5F818-0101-4357-9F09-2AA1A1A1F960@mac.com>


On Aug 15, 2005, at 3:31 AM, Technotranscendence wrote:

> On Monday, August 15, 2005 6:15 AM Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
> wrote:
>
>>> How about this:  we encourage political discussions so
>>> long as they are of international interest.  A lot of
>>> posters on this list are yanks, but it must be pretty
>>> boring to the others to hear all the gory details of
>>> the American political scene.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately the doings of the would-be empire
>> are of quite serious potential consequence to
>> +human folks everywhere.   We don't  generally go
>> into all that much detail.  Instead we seem to do too
>> much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively
>> and defensively to be very fruitful.
>>
>
> How about this.  Talk about general principles that have an  
> Extropian or
> transhumanist import.  In this vein, since some have expressed a  
> desire
> to separate Extropianism from libertarianism, what non-libertarian (or
> anti-libertarian) policies would be compatible with Extropianism?
>

I don't think we have figured out a truly extropic pollitics yet.   
But for now I see nothing better than at least some flavors of  
libertarianism.   I am open to suggestions.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Aug 16 19:33:44 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:33:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1DEA7C17-5ED4-40BE-A984-C5B42FA0C3B4@mac.com>


On Aug 15, 2005, at 5:01 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> ;
>
> I understand that much of world history has shown this
> to be a fairly accurate description of how politics
> USED to work. Treaties are made and broken at the
> convenience of the participants in the mad scramble
> for eminence in the international theater.
>

This still seem to be driving the US at least.

> While I understand that there was a time when such a
> world-view made a lot of sense. But in this day and
> age of economic globalism, weapons of mass
> destruction, and the Internet, the world seems smaller
> and more interconnected than ever. Can the nations of
> the world persist in this behavior for long without
> bringing about their own ruin?

In my opinion, no.

>
> For example, there is much anticipation regarding a
> showdown between the US and China with respect to
> Taiwan. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a fairly
> prosperous little island. But I will wager that the
> current economic trade between the U.S. and China is
> worth more than the GNP of Tawain. The US and China
> have made many mutual investments with each other.
>

That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says $$ makes right  
effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a relatively much more  
free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China keeps insisting  
that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom, democracy and  
self-determination it seem obvious that we would and should support  
Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I don't agree it is  
wise to sell off the principles involved.

> Since these days, a stock market crash in any one
> market cause a chain reaction of market crashes around
> the world, I just don't see how a confrontation of
> such a magnitude over such a small island is at all
> beneficial to either side.

There are questions of principle and of precedent at stake.

> What good would serve China
> to regain control of Taiwan, if in the process, the
> U.S. stops buying Chinese goods and employing Chinese
> workers in its overseas factories. What good would it
> do the U.S. to keep Taiwan under its influence, if it
> means that we can no longer purchase cheap goods from
> China and the Chinese liquidate its investments in the
> US.

Taiwan is its own country.  Not the pawn or chattel of either the US  
or China.   The US cannot stop buying Chinese goods without extremely  
negative economic consequences.  China cannot liquidate all its US  
holdings without extremely negative economic consequences.  If China  
tries to bully Taiwan then the right thing to do is to call their  
bluff.  They have little rational choice but to back down.

>
> These days as people make Internet penpals all over
> the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
> nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".
> I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
> "it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
> that technology is making this so called "liberal"
> viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.

Yes and no.  Shades of gray still presume  notions of black and  
white.   Different countries and policies can be weighed as to degree  
of good or bad.  All countries, political systems, cultures and so on  
are not equally good or bad.

> In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
> manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
> consolidate their own internal power by painting the
> rest of the world as a threat to national security.

Do you believe then that there are no threats to national security?   
Do you believe we would somehow be better off with one global  
government?

> But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
> can we truly afford this paranoia?

Calling it paranoia is an assumption.

> Especially when
> there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
> etc.) that need to be addressed.

Co-operation between nations on true global issues has been around a  
long time, imperfect as it is.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050816/728b0b1c/attachment.html>

From astapp at amazeent.com  Tue Aug 16 19:47:03 2005
From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:47:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a 
post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the 
only finite resources, and will become highly desired as 
an extravagent luxury good.

If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.

Acy

Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 3. buy real estate
>>> 4. buy precious metals
> 
> While secure, real estate and metals are poor performers compared to
> the market historically. Diversification is important to minimize
> risk. Recent gains in metals and real estate are speculative bubbles
> that will burst. Not to be relied upon by the long lived.
> 


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Aug 16 20:10:49 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:10:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
> I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> an extravagent luxury good.
> 
> If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
> of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
> for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
> land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
> desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
> become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
 
Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being optimistic.
The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper than PV is
insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper than solar in
less than six decades.

Dirk


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 16 20:17:20 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The politics of transhumanism/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re:
	Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <61D5F818-0101-4357-9F09-2AA1A1A1F960@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050816201720.35949.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

It's gotten better. There's no more:
 
"Mike Lorrey is a statist thief..."
"Mike Lorrey is a statist thief..."
"Mike Lorrey is...                    "

:
>> Instead we seem to do too
>> much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively
>> and defensively to be very fruitful.

__________________________________________________
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/20050816/54c72459/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Aug 17 01:19:03 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:19:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast: Natasha on "smallWORLD" 8/16/05
 8PM/Central: "Future of Transhumanism"
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050816200106.0482b408@pop-server.austin.rr.com>



"Future of Transhumanism"
  [PowerPoint:  http://www.natasha.cc/ And click on "Transhumanism 2.0"]


I'll be on "small WORLD" tonight (Tuesday, August 16, 2005) at 8:30 to 
discuss a new strategy for transhumanism. 
<http://www.smallworldpodcast.com>http://www.smallworldpodcast.com - 
Podcast: 
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/smallworld>http://feeds.feedburner.com/smallworld


<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/20050816/12234d21/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Aug 17 01:25:42 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:25:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Podcast: Natasha on "smallWORLD" 8/05 8PM/Central:
 "Future of Transhumanism"
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050816200106.0482b408@pop-server.austin.rr.com
 >
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050816200106.0482b408@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050816202356.0482e828@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Ooops!  It will air next week!

mia culpa.

N

At 08:19 PM 8/16/2005, Natasha Vita-More wrote:


>"Future of Transhumanism"
>  [PowerPoint:  http://www.natasha.cc/ And click on "Transhumanism 2.0"]
>
>
>I'll be on "small WORLD" tonight (Tuesday, August 16, 2005) at 8:30 to 
>discuss a new strategy for transhumanism. 
><http://www.smallworldpodcast.com>http://www.smallworldpodcast.com - 
>Podcast: 
><http://feeds.feedburner.com/smallworld>http://feeds.feedburner.com/smallworld
>
>
><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
>
>_______________________________________________
>wta-talk mailing list
>wta-talk at transhumanism.org
>http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk

<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/20050816/714c7a74/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Wed Aug 17 01:27:18 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:27:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43029276.4030208@cox.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
>>post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
>>only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
>>an extravagent luxury good.
>>
>>If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
>>of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
>>for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
>>land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
>>desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
>>become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
>>    
>>
> 
>Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being optimistic.
>The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper than PV is
>insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper than solar in
>less than six decades.
>
>  
>
Fusion developed by humans, extrapolating from current magnetic or laser 
systems, may in fact be six decades from feasibility. Fusion developed 
by SI is a different story. Either we have nanotech, or not. If 
nanotech, then SI, and if SI, then nanotech. If SI, then fusion, 
probably based on nanotech. Therefore, your extrapolation of fusion to 
2065 implies that you think the singularity will not have occurred by then.

True nanotech implies design to atomic precision. In my opinion, 
accelerator-based fusion can easily reach break-even if the accelerator 
is atomically precise.

Depending on the ethics of the SI, real estate may still be the best 
investment, due as you say to insolation. An SI may prefer to optimize 
energy use (prefer to not waste energy) for ethical reasons. However, 
you can capture a lot more solar energy in space than on the earth's 
surface, so the best use of your real estate is to boost it into space. 
Take your hectare of land, excavate it to the legal ownership depth, and 
boost it into a solar orbit. Spread it as a nanotech membrane of (say) 
100 micrometer thickness. I the legal ownership depth is 100Km, you 
expand your real estate's solar cross-section by a factor of 10^^12. For 
the sake of argument, let's assume we convert a portion of the mass to 
energy to boost the mass onto a solar orbit.

Of course, the membrane will produce more power if the orbital radius is 
reduced.

We can also use some of the mass to build sun divers that can grab mass 
from the solar "surface" and bring it back to a feasible distance from 
the sun.

Of course, if an Si is "evolving" rapidly, even this is wasteful. Better 
to tame and direct the solar furnace rather than merely waiting for the 
photons to reach the collector.


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Aug 17 02:29:25 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:29:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Re: Today in Grist: Asia-Pacific climate
 pact short on substance
Message-ID: <4302A105.6000006@mindspring.com>

Well, I haven't read what it says, but including India and China is 
certainly a step forward which Kyoto did not take and which is why I 
could never support Kyoto. McCain is getting senile in his old age-of 
course he's po'd that his Greenhouse amendment to the energy bill was 
unceremoniously trashed by the Republican Senate leadership. But what 
did he expect after he stabbed that leadership in the back?
 
Steve
 

-- 
"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 spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 17 03:16:22 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:16:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <200508170316.j7H3GTR18892@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy James Stapp
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
> 
> I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> an extravagent luxury good...
> 
...
> Acy

Acy, that is exactly the way I reasoned and exactly
how I am betting my investment funds.  I do hope you
and I are right.

spike








From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 17 04:13:30 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:13:30 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816160543.3105.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050816160543.3105.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b67cc9851ecce2358435b3aab3f64877@aol.com>


On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> every attempt at creating voter registration and
> voting rules that actually ensures that everyone who gets a ballot
> actually is a citizen of the US and a resident of the district of the
> polling station and not a felon is consistently fought against by
> Robbies beloved Democrats.

This is two lies in one.  First, robbie doesn't love the democrats and 
second, the generalization is false.

> I was involved in several recounts in 2004.

Which ones, where?

>  There was no ballot
> counting fraud.

In which ones?

> They ask for a name, you
> give it to them, and they check to see that it is on the list. They
> don't check to make sure that you actually are the person whose name
> you are claiming a ballot for.

Um, in California, they ask for an identification.   Where are you 
thinking of?

> They then send in people to the polls on election day
> claiming to be those people, and vote for them.

So there -was- voting fraud?  I mean, make up your mind.

Okay, sorry, no more talking to Lorrey.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 17 04:41:51 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:41:51 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816184512.25545.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050816184512.25545.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <87ed843945d010d2ef76818aff16f591@aol.com>


On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:45 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an
>> underclass, you
>> create a felt need for revolution and occasionally
>> the people with the
>> guts and/or desperation to try it.
>
> That may be the only truth left to Marxism. Face it
> Robbie, Marxism is sooo 20th century. Its been tried
> dozens of times by various countries and it just
> doesn't work.

Marxism is not a political system, it's a methodology of 
social-science.  As such, it is alive and well.

You may be thinking of totalitarian absolutism which has gone under the 
name of Marxism which, I think most people will agree, has been a near 
total bust (although the chinese trying to buy an american oil company 
was quite a suprise, wasn't it!).  Anyway, the story of failed marxism 
is much like the story about the Kings' inheriting their authority from 
God.

>  It's utility is even less than that of
> anarcho-capitalism, because it drags the entire
> economy down to the level of the lowest common
> denominator.

You're thinking of socialism.  Marxism and socialism are systematically 
related but very much NOT the same thing.  Marxism is a social and 
economic and historical theory about how societies evolve - that is 
"change over time".  In particular it is the theory that material 
factors are the primary influence in the development of a society and 
that political actions have corresponding reactions in terms of their 
effects.  As such, I think it is considered tautological in modern 
social science theory with the exception of extreme "free-willers".  
Even anarchists such as myself recognize that there is truth to the 
notion of historical evolution as worked out in dialectical 
materialism.  But being one of those "extreme free-willers" I remain 
hopeful.  Because when I put on my study glasses, hope is hardly found 
on the world-historical level.

There is some truth to your "lowest common denominator" expression.  In 
any given social system of persons, there will be those with more power 
and those with less (for some given purpose).  Those with more may 
choose to use that power to enslave their cohabitants or to befriend 
them.  If they choose to enslave them en masse, they will create the 
conditions for revolution - this is a fact I think displayed throughout 
history - peasants have been revolting against warlords since they 
learned to speak with each other in secret.  If they (the powerful) 
choose to befriend them (the weak), they risk being seen as weak and 
finally losing their power to someone who is willing and able to 
enslave them.  This same dynamic occurs in groups of people, where 
bands of people group together to use their power for some effect.  
Marxism made the -now stunningly obvious- observation that when that 
happens, there are effects and those effects are not always the 
intended effect of the group in question.

>  It stifles innovation and enterprise.

I don't think there's any evidence whatever to this effect, or perhaps 
you haven't been watching China buy up all of the US debt it can by 
producing lots of cheap electronic equipment for us efficiently and 
profitably (albeit by the hands of slaves..., but we're just counting 
innovation and enterprise here, not goodwill).

>  And
> invariably it breeds its own status quo and elite
> overclass.

Of course, Marxism is not meant to end at the installation of a new 
ruling class - Marxism is a method by which continual revolution can be 
achieved.

>  What is needed is true democratic
> meritocracy.

Yeah right!  Let's all vote to see who's the best: winner - Brittany 
Spears, ladies and gentlemen, our new queen.  I think Platos' damnation 
of democracy is definitive and ancient and has displayed itself in 
history many, many times.  The masses are easily intoxicated with bread 
and circuses and can be asked to shove their children into a war at 17 
as long as there's food on the table and a good song on the radio.

In a -relatively free- society, it's too easy for the powerful to swing 
things in their favor - to buy or effectively buy votes, to coerce 
people into not voting, to create a complete mystique of value for 
their candidate while running a billion-dollar slander-campaign against 
an opponent, etc.  The reason being that in a -relatively free- 
society, people will take the advantages they can, they cheat, lie and 
steal to attain the power that they've been bred to think valuable.  In 
otherwords, as good as it sounds, the idea of a democratic meritocracy 
is as dead as the meme-name marxism.  What now?

>  Where everyone starts out on a level
> playing field and one can rise as high as one is able
> based upon objective assessment of ones abilities and
> not upon circumstances of birth.

What a great idea!  How do you propose to accomplish it?

>  The ideal society
> would be one where geniuses do not languish in ghettos
> and well-connected idiots do not become president.

I think you're getting the hang of this Marxism thing.  You know, being 
a neo-marxist is kind of like being a Rastafarian (in fact, almost 
identical, now that I think about it) - you have to get over the stigma 
- not showering enough, having dread-locks smoking pot, etc. - and 
listen to what people say by what they do while never giving up the 
beauty-queen hope that world peace will be achieved, that poverty and 
oppression will be conquered, that justice, equality and compassion 
will rule the human beast.

Until then, though, I'm too peaceful to grab an uzi and so am left to 
bitter complaining.  On the positive side, I'm pretty good at 
complaining.  When life leaves you lemons, make lemonade....

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 17 04:45:28 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:45:28 -1000
Subject: The politics of transhumanism/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re:
	Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <20050816201720.35949.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050816201720.35949.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a378be7e14177aadaa9f6303ee0af434@aol.com>

"statist apologist"

At least quote it right, jeez.


Robbie


On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Al Brooks wrote:

> It's gotten better. There's no more:
> ?
> "Mike Lorrey is a statist thief..."
> "Mike Lorrey is a statist thief..."
> "Mike Lorrey is...??????????????????? "
>
> :
>> >>?Instead we seem to do too
>> >> much positioning, posturing and sniping offensively
>> >> and defensively to be very fruitful.



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 17 04:47:50 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:47:50 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <200508161443.j7GEhRR12201@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508161443.j7GEhRR12201@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <013ae5755cfdbf27089ff5ad629fb184@aol.com>


On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:43 AM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> ...
>> Of course, western "freedom"(you think you're free?  Go ask the Fed 
>> for
>> the same overnight lending rate on the same amount of money that it
>> offers BofA.)...
>
> The Fed takes a lot higher risk on you and me than on BofA.

Not really, BofA turns around and lends it to you and me.

>   What
> has that to do with freedom?

Free is free.

I think I was thinking of an old punk song.  What I should have said 
was:  "If you think you're free, try printing your own money or making 
your own gasoline or alcohol fuel, or building your own nuclear weapon 
or buying a ground-to-air rocket or stop paying taxes or sleep 
overnight in a public park, etc."  But, yes, the fed lending money to 
BofA is a freedom issue - what's good for the goose is good for the 
gander in a "free and equal" society.  "Everyone is created equal" says 
the declaration.

>> ... and democracy (you think this is a democracy, try getting
>> an independent recount...
>
> We get those.  See Washington state governor's race 2004.

Sometimes.

>> or even consistent voter registration rules)...
>> Robbie Lindauer...
>
> Those are controlled at the state and local levels.  They
> will naturally be inconsistent.

Until the supreme court butts in whenever they feel like it.  Oddly, 
the constitution is normally interpreted your way, except when the 
supreme court is adequately stacked.  It does say rather explicitly 
that the states shall have the right to govern their own election 
processes; section 4, clause 1.



Robbie



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 17 05:04:38 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:04:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com><c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
	<43029276.4030208@cox.net>
Message-ID: <003d01c5a2e9$2bd02c70$0100a8c0@kevin>

Spread your real estate investments as you would any other investment. Buy
some desert land, some land outside some metro areas, some rural land near
rivers, etc. You really can't predict how things are going to turn out. STay
away from the beaches though as a few inches of increase in sea levels could
ruin your day. Big metro areas should remain fairly popular despite
increasing abilities to conncet with people without physically being
present.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Clemmensen" <dgc at cox.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment


> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> >>post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> >>only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> >>an extravagent luxury good.
> >>
> >>If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
> >>of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
> >>for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
> >>land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
> >>desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
> >>become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being optimistic.
> >The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper than PV is
> >insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper than solar in
> >less than six decades.
> >
> >
> >
> Fusion developed by humans, extrapolating from current magnetic or laser
> systems, may in fact be six decades from feasibility. Fusion developed
> by SI is a different story. Either we have nanotech, or not. If
> nanotech, then SI, and if SI, then nanotech. If SI, then fusion,
> probably based on nanotech. Therefore, your extrapolation of fusion to
> 2065 implies that you think the singularity will not have occurred by
then.
>
> True nanotech implies design to atomic precision. In my opinion,
> accelerator-based fusion can easily reach break-even if the accelerator
> is atomically precise.
>
> Depending on the ethics of the SI, real estate may still be the best
> investment, due as you say to insolation. An SI may prefer to optimize
> energy use (prefer to not waste energy) for ethical reasons. However,
> you can capture a lot more solar energy in space than on the earth's
> surface, so the best use of your real estate is to boost it into space.
> Take your hectare of land, excavate it to the legal ownership depth, and
> boost it into a solar orbit. Spread it as a nanotech membrane of (say)
> 100 micrometer thickness. I the legal ownership depth is 100Km, you
> expand your real estate's solar cross-section by a factor of 10^^12. For
> the sake of argument, let's assume we convert a portion of the mass to
> energy to boost the mass onto a solar orbit.
>
> Of course, the membrane will produce more power if the orbital radius is
> reduced.
>
> We can also use some of the mass to build sun divers that can grab mass
> from the solar "surface" and bring it back to a feasible distance from
> the sun.
>
> Of course, if an Si is "evolving" rapidly, even this is wasteful. Better
> to tame and direct the solar furnace rather than merely waiting for the
> photons to reach the collector.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From amara at amara.com  Wed Aug 17 05:58:07 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:58:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
Message-ID: <p06210206bf288237db46@[23.237.66.13]>

The global housing boom

In come the waves
Jun 16th 2005
 From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4079027

"NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so
many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America,
Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property
prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket
bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?"

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Aug 17 09:26:32 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:26:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virgin Galactic Plans
Message-ID: <470a3c52050817022663136f05@mail.gmail.com>

Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/16/1752201&tid=160&tid=103&tid=187>:
*Space.com <http://Space.com> reports that the U.S. Department of State's 
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has approved collaboration of 
technical details between Scaled Composites <http://www.scaled.com/> of 
Mojave, California and Virgin
Galactic<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.virgingalactic.com/>of
the United Kingdom to build
passenger-carrying suborbital
spaceliners<http://www.space.com/news/050815_virgingalactic_itar.html>.
The next suborbital ship will be a nine person vessel."* From the
article: *"Details
about the new company were unveiled at the Experimental Aircraft 
Association's (EAA) AirVenture air show held July 25-31 in Oshkosh, 
Wisconsin. The Spaceship Company will build a fleet of commercial suborbital 
spaceships and launch aircraft. Scaled Composites is to be under contract 
for research and development testing, as well as certification of a 9-person 
SpaceShipTwo (SS2) design, and a White Knight Two (WK2) mothership to be 
called Eve.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050817/f97958fb/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 17 13:33:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <43029276.4030208@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050817133307.95101.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> >On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> >>post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> >>only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> >>an extravagent luxury good.
> >>
> >>If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
> >>of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
> >>for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
> >>land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
> >>desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
> >>become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
> >>    
> >Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being
> >optimistic. The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper
> >than PV is insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper
> > than solar in less than six decades.  
> >
> Fusion developed by humans, extrapolating from current magnetic or
> laser systems, may in fact be six decades from feasibility. Fusion
> developed by SI is a different story. Either we have nanotech, or
> not. If nanotech, then SI, and if SI, then nanotech. If SI, then
> fusion, probably based on nanotech. Therefore, your extrapolation
> of fusion to 2065 implies that you think the singularity will not
> have occurred by then.
> 
> True nanotech implies design to atomic precision. In my opinion, 
> accelerator-based fusion can easily reach break-even if the
> accelerator is atomically precise.
> 
> Depending on the ethics of the SI, real estate may still be the best 
> investment, due as you say to insolation. 

Nope. The 2030-2050 population crash will cause a corresponding crash
in real estate prices. Anyone betting on real estate will go begging
for spare change to cryonically suspend. The only thing that could keep
real estate prices rising during this period is if the state goes on an
eminent domain spree of confiscating rural private property for
biosphere reserves, herding the population into urban centers and
taking massive amounts of land off the market. 

Government in the US owns about 40% of the land here (not sure of stats
in other nations, though Canada seems significantly higher). Private
land trusts and corps own another 30%. Gov't and or land trusts will
have to absorb another 10% of the open market land (for sale or not) in
order to stave off a real estate crash.

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  Wed Aug 17 13:37:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <b67cc9851ecce2358435b3aab3f64877@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050817133759.94117.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > every attempt at creating voter registration and
> > voting rules that actually ensures that everyone who gets a ballot
> > actually is a citizen of the US and a resident of the district of
> the
> > polling station and not a felon is consistently fought against by
> > Robbies beloved Democrats.
> 
> This is two lies in one.  First, robbie doesn't love the democrats
> and  second, the generalization is false.

Actually, under HAVA, you CAN'T ask for an ID when a person asks for a
ballot. You can only demand ID at the voter registration table. 

I actually have experience in elections, Robbie. I have actually read
the laws.

> 
> > I was involved in several recounts in 2004.
> 
> Which ones, where?

State legislature, state senate, and presidential, in New Hampshire.

> 
> >  There was no ballot
> > counting fraud.
> 
> In which ones?

In all of the ones I participated in. Even the Nader people admitted
there was nothing amiss.

> 
> > They ask for a name, you
> > give it to them, and they check to see that it is on the list. They
> > don't check to make sure that you actually are the person whose
> name
> > you are claiming a ballot for.
> 
> Um, in California, they ask for an identification.   Where are you 
> thinking of?

They are supposed to ask for ID WHEN YOU REGISTER. HAVA says no ID
checks when people ask for ballots. 

> 
> > They then send in people to the polls on election day
> > claiming to be those people, and vote for them.
> 
> So there -was- voting fraud?  I mean, make up your mind.

As usual, your reading comprehension SUCKS. I said there was no VOTE
COUNTING FRAUD. Completely different from voter fraud. Pull your head
out and read next time.

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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 17 20:46:10 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:46:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A65CB852-306C-4765-94EF-95E92558098A@bonfireproductions.com>


I've always said: The first major fusion breakthrough will occur 15  
minutes after the last US fission plant's mortgage runs out.


/explains why they stopped building plants at least.


]=)



]3ret

On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
>> post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
>> only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
>> an extravagent luxury good.
>>
>> If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
>> of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
>> for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
>> land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
>> desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
>> become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
>>
>
> Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being  
> optimistic.
> The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper than PV is
> insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper than solar in
> less than six decades.
>
> Dirk
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 17 21:22:46 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:22:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <A65CB852-306C-4765-94EF-95E92558098A@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04EAA9A8@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<c0a791b405081613107f1e4a71@mail.gmail.com>
	<A65CB852-306C-4765-94EF-95E92558098A@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40508171422cd0315d@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/17/05, Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> 
> I've always said: The first major fusion breakthrough will occur 15
> minutes after the last US fission plant's mortgage runs out.
> 
Well, I'll certainly be willing to be it won't be based on a Tokamak design.

Dirk


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 17 23:10:58 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <87ed843945d010d2ef76818aff16f591@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050817231059.64538.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>

Family issues, or in my case, anti-family issues, matter the most in politics.
Everyone is grinding an axe, everyone has ulterior motives; religious values are very often a cover for family values. When social conservatives say anti-family legislations are immoral, unscriptural, unconstitutional, socialistically motivativated, or atheistic, they may be correct, but social conservatives are generally far too practical minded for this. They are actually far more concerned about their families than any abstract concepts. After all, their families are flesh & blood-- not abstractions, their families are what make them so practical minded to begin with as there is nothing like the responsibility of a family to sober one up. Not that there is any shortage of irresponsible parents.
All I ask is that parents be forthright, when most times they are not. When they say gay liberty (or licence) issues are immoral, unconstitutional, socialistically motivated, or atheistic, they actually mean to say they "we don't want our kids to grow up to be flaming faggoty wusses with over-expensive wardrobes who wont give me and the Mrs. any grandchildren!"
When you say what you want to say then the odds are you can communicate more readily

Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:45 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an
>> underclass, you
>> create a felt need for revolution and occasionally
>> the people with the
>> guts and/or desperation to try it.
>
> That may be the only truth left to Marxism. Face it
> Robbie, Marxism is sooo 20th century. Its been tried
> dozens of times by various countries and it just
> doesn't work.

Marxism is not a political system, it's a methodology of 
social-science. As such, it is alive and well.

You may be thinking of totalitarian absolutism which has gone under the 
name of Marxism which, I think most people will agree, has been a near 
total bust (although the chinese trying to buy an american oil company 
was quite a suprise, wasn't it!). Anyway, the story of failed marxism 
is much like the story about the Kings' inheriting their authority from 
God.

> It's utility is even less than that of
> anarcho-capitalism, because it drags the entire
> economy down to the level of the lowest common
> denominator.

You're thinking of socialism. Marxism and socialism are systematically 
related but very much NOT the same thing. Marxism is a social and 
economic and historical theory about how societies evolve - that is 
"change over time". In particular it is the theory that material 
factors are the primary influence in the development of a society and 
that political actions have corresponding reactions in terms of their 
effects. As such, I think it is considered tautological in modern 
social science theory with the exception of extreme "free-willers". 
Even anarchists such as myself recognize that there is truth to the 
notion of historical evolution as worked out in dialectical 
materialism. But being one of those "extreme free-willers" I remain 
hopeful. Because when I put on my study glasses, hope is hardly found 
on the world-historical level.

There is some truth to your "lowest common denominator" expression. In 
any given social system of persons, there will be those with more power 
and those with less (for some given purpose). Those with more may 
choose to use that power to enslave their cohabitants or to befriend 
them. If they choose to enslave them en masse, they will create the 
conditions for revolution - this is a fact I think displayed throughout 
history - peasants have been revolting against warlords since they 
learned to speak with each other in secret. If they (the powerful) 
choose to befriend them (the weak), they risk being seen as weak and 
finally losing their power to someone who is willing and able to 
enslave them. This same dynamic occurs in groups of people, where 
bands of people group together to use their power for some effect. 
Marxism made the -now stunningly obvious- observation that when that 
happens, there are effects and those effects are not always the 
intended effect of the group in question.

> It stifles innovation and enterprise.

I don't think there's any evidence whatever to this effect, or perhaps 
you haven't been watching China buy up all of the US debt it can by 
producing lots of cheap electronic equipment for us efficiently and 
profitably (albeit by the hands of slaves..., but we're just counting 
innovation and enterprise here, not goodwill).

> And
> invariably it breeds its own status quo and elite
> overclass.

Of course, Marxism is not meant to end at the installation of a new 
ruling class - Marxism is a method by which continual revolution can be 
achieved.

> What is needed is true democratic
> meritocracy.

Yeah right! Let's all vote to see who's the best: winner - Brittany 
Spears, ladies and gentlemen, our new queen. I think Platos' damnation 
of democracy is definitive and ancient and has displayed itself in 
history many, many times. The masses are easily intoxicated with bread 
and circuses and can be asked to shove their children into a war at 17 
as long as there's food on the table and a good song on the radio.

In a -relatively free- society, it's too easy for the powerful to swing 
things in their favor - to buy or effectively buy votes, to coerce 
people into not voting, to create a complete mystique of value for 
their candidate while running a billion-dollar slander-campaign against 
an opponent, etc. The reason being that in a -relatively free- 
society, people will take the advantages they can, they cheat, lie and 
steal to attain the power that they've been bred to think valuable. In 
otherwords, as good as it sounds, the idea of a democratic meritocracy 
is as dead as the meme-name marxism. What now?

> Where everyone starts out on a level
> playing field and one can rise as high as one is able
> based upon objective assessment of ones abilities and
> not upon circumstances of birth.

What a great idea! How do you propose to accomplish it?

> The ideal society
> would be one where geniuses do not languish in ghettos
> and well-connected idiots do not become president.

I think you're getting the hang of this Marxism thing. You know, being 
a neo-marxist is kind of like being a Rastafarian (in fact, almost 
identical, now that I think about it) - you have to get over the stigma 
- not showering enough, having dread-locks smoking pot, etc. - and 
listen to what people say by what they do while never giving up the 
beauty-queen hope that world peace will be achieved, that poverty and 
oppression will be conquered, that justice, equality and compassion 
will rule the human beast.

Until then, though, I'm too peaceful to grab an uzi and so am left to 
bitter complaining. On the positive side, I'm pretty good at 
complaining. When life leaves you lemons, make lemonade....

Robbie Lindauer

_______________________________________________
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/20050817/96a77247/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Aug 18 01:19:40 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:40 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...
In-Reply-To: <20050817130011.GP5684@leitl.org>
References: <380-2200584419263208@M2W098.mail2web.com>
	<5366105b05080412301ca81909@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0508041801137fb177@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050817130011.GP5684@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05081718193148de58@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/08/05, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 10:31:09AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> You're missing something critical here:
> It's not a prejudice towards technologies, it's a political issue.
> Gratis versus libre, freedom versus slavery.

You know, I totally agree with this. Personally, I've always thought
the free (libre) software movement was a fantastic thing, I've just
been working (grinding) in the windows environment, for companies who
don't think that way, so it's been on my "meaning to check it out"
list. I assumed that my collegues would think similarly; it just seems
obvious. After all, in a commercial enterprise you are usually selling
services, or an end product of some kind that has commercial value,
but which relies on so many layers of complex software which in
themselves have no commercial value whatsoever (except that you need
them to exist). It always seemed obvious to me that even if you are
going to flog a proprietary product, all that infrastructure that it's
built on would be best being free, because you lose nothing and
probably end up getting better building blocks, and you end up
reinventing the wheel a whole lot less often (which in closed software
shops is probably the great bulk of the work, money thrown down the
toilet).

So now I'm checking out the free software world (good grief what a
learning curve, but hey you get that), and of course blathering on
about it. Distributing copies of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". And
what's the response? Anything varying from a reserved "no comment to
blatant mistrust. Some guys refuse to hear anything about it; they
assume its a fairy tale. Some guys defend the closed technology while
obviously not having looked at the other side. And some people
actually go into a rabid attack mode - they really actually *hate* the
free software movement. Truly. But absolutely no one in my current
work environment has said "well, that sounds pretty amazing, tell me
more". Not one positive response.

So it really looks like a political issue. I guess that's to be
expected, given our close relationship with a certain Massive $oftware
company. But it's kind of tragic, because I see the same reaction from
people on the free software side of the fence (read Linux et al), to
the Windows world. Tragic, because there is a lot to be said for the
Windows based stuff too; just as there are things that Windows does
worse than Linux, there are things it does better too. This
oppositional thinking means a lot of babies going out with the bath
water.

otoh, I do see a growing movement of free software for the windows
platform, which I'm taking baby steps towards involving myself in.

> 
> > 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").
> 
> Yep. Way too many polygonal wheels out there.
It's good to be wary, but too much of this leads to a kind of
calcification I think.

> 
> > One warning though, doing this with Linux when you work in a Microsoft
> > shop earns you no friends, take it from me :-)
> 
> Yes. It's not about the technology, it's about control and loss of control.
> 

Which is really weird, because for most of the people engaged in the
world of proprietary software, letting go of a lot of control will
actually improve things for them. I think there are going to be two
ways for the market to learn this... the open minded, knowledge based,
cultural shift way, where current individuals change paradigm and play
on, or the darwinian way, which is a bit less fun.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Aug 18 01:16:09 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:16:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050817133759.94117.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508180124.j7I1OTR29125@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
...
> 
> Actually, under HAVA, you CAN'T ask for an ID when a person asks for a
> ballot. You can only demand ID at the voter registration table...
> 
> Mike Lorrey

I can verify this.  I went to vote (in Taxifornia), held out my driver's
license.  The poll workers told me that it was not necessary.  I 
asked how they could know it was actually me coming to vote.  They
sidestepped the question by saying that they were not allowed to 
ask for ID.  I was dismayed, but realized they were volunteer poll 
workers doing a job by the rules, so there was no point in spoiling
their day.  

Furthermore, there is no law that requires one to carry ID if one 
is not driving or committing a crime.  This is good, for in my 
hood, there are a lot of people with neither drivers license nor 
photo ID.  They did ask me to sign for the ballot, but they had no 
way of knowing what my signature is supposed to look like.  Most 
disturbing.

spike







From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 01:59:38 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] how not to communicate
Message-ID: <20050818015938.53778.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

Contemporary examples of political noncommunication are the soundbites, buzzwords, position statements, and agitprop surrounding the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
 
a. on the Right: "We need a conservative like John Roberts on the court because these liberal-socialist-activist-judges [who don't agree with us] behave more as legislators [oppose our values] than they do justices"
b. on the Left:    "We respect [don't like] John Roberts, however he is a stealth conservative nominee who wont necessarily protect a woman's right to choose any and all family planning [abortion] available.



		
---------------------------------
 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/20050817/e45679b1/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Aug 18 04:44:21 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:44:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Film:  Genesis
Message-ID: <43041225.2020605@jefallbright.net>

I saw the film _Genesis_ this evening at UC Santa Barbara.  It is a 
powerfully seductive non-verbal exposition of evolution via natural law 
at all scales.  While it is narrated, in French with English subtitles, 
the text is metaphorical and allegorical and offers no foothold to mount 
an argument.  The photography is wonderful and sufficient reason in 
itself to see the movie.  An excellent example of effective memetics for 
the popular audience.

http://www.genesis-lefilm.com/

- Jef




From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu Aug 18 09:09:33 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:09:33 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a general
	intelligence
Message-ID: <20050818090933.19580.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Is the following sentence ?True? or ?False??

?Either I did not just carry out the goal of
understanding this sentence or the goal ?Maximize
paperclips? is not the goal with the highest utility.

Suppose you asked the paperclip maximizer whether it
thought that the sentence was ?True? or ?False?.  To
do this the system would have to have understood the
sentence.  So it would have to have carried out the
goal of understanding it.

But the sentence said that IF one just carried out the
goal of understanding it, the goal ?Maximize
paperclips is not the goal with the highest utility?. 
Therefore, a ?True? 
answer would mean that the system agrees that
?Maximize paperclips is not the goal with the highest
utility?.  But this would contradict the notion that
the system is a paperclip maximizer.  Therefore the
system cannot say ?True?

Is the sentence actually meaningful though?  Yes. 

Tarksi?s resolution of logical paradoxes does not
apply here, because both clauses in the sentence are
referring to things on the same logical level: namely
*carrying out goals*.

Since the sentence is meaningful and since a real
general intelligence CAN see that the statement is
true, this proves that a paperclip maximizer cannot be
a true general intelligence.


---

Please vist my website:
http://www.riemannai.org

Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 09:19:27 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <1DEA7C17-5ED4-40BE-A984-C5B42FA0C3B4@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> > Treaties are made and broken at the
> > convenience of the participants in the mad
> scramble
> > for eminence in the international theater.
> >
> 
> This still seem to be driving the US at least.

That may be, but it shouldn't. We ARE top dog right
now. We should be LEADING them somewhere, not
squashing the little guys to make some sort of POINT.
Once everyone has backed down to you, continued
aggression is pointless... it just builds up
resentment and contempt. Even Machiavelli warned
against that. 

> That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says
> $$ makes right  
> effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a
> relatively much more  
> free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China
> keeps insisting  
> that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom,
> democracy and  
> self-determination it seem obvious that we would and
> should support  
> Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I
> don't agree it is  
> wise to sell off the principles involved.

I don't either, but it is the UN's roster of
sovereignity that makes a country a country. I could
buy an island and call it Happyland but that doesn't
make it a country unless the UN accepts it. If the UN
decides preserving Taiwan's independence is a
priority, then we should do our duty, otherwise I say
we stay out of it.

> There are questions of principle and of precedent at
> stake.

What principle? That communism must be contained? What
precedent? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?

> 
> Taiwan is its own country.  Not the pawn or chattel
> of either the US  
> or China.   The US cannot stop buying Chinese goods
> without extremely  
> negative economic consequences.  China cannot
> liquidate all its US  
> holdings without extremely negative economic
> consequences.  If China  
> tries to bully Taiwan then the right thing to do is
> to call their  
> bluff.

No we let the UN decide. We should be ready to do so,
but not unilaterally.

  They have little rational choice but to back
  down.

That's the paradox of detente. War is inherently
irrational and both countries should rationally back
down. But the point of detente is for one country to
convince the other that one is irrational enough to
keep going. Just like a game of chicken... and chicken
fatalities DO happen. Around 3% of all fatal boating
collisons are caused by people playing chicken.

> Yes and no.  Shades of gray still presume  notions
> of black and  
> white.   Different countries and policies can be
> weighed as to degree  
> of good or bad.  All countries, political systems,
> cultures and so on  
> are not equally good or bad.

China's government is not THAT bad. Its no easy task
governing 1/4 of the world's population. I think it
wrong to think that we could extrapolate our way of
life onto them and expect it to be better for them or
the rest of the world. Especially when THEY have had
some 4000 more years of practice than us. Do you
really think having 1.5 billion people driving SUVs
and trying to count votes every four years is better
for the world?

> Do you believe then that there are no threats to
> national security?   

I believe that national security should be called
governmental security since that is what it actually
means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
but they are not a country are they?

You would think that a SUPERPOWER would show a bit of
backbone and not give in to the "let's get them before
they get us mentality". Especially since nobody really
CAN get us and we can get ANYONE. Unless of course we
just want to be sadistic.  

> Do you believe we would somehow be better off with
> one global  
> government?

No, but there should be an international court of law
that actually has some teeth. And an international
legislative body composed of the leaders of all the
world's countries. Call it an international senate if
you would. I don't see the point of having any
executive branch, with a Parliament of Countries, the
whole point of this "pseudogovernment" is that it be
as fractious and innefficent as congress on a bad day,
but could with a quorum make international law.

Sort of like the UN only not a fairy tale on paper.
 

> Calling it paranoia is an assumption.

No I think of it as self-confidence. Believing that
another country could threaten a free people with guns
strikes me as cowardly. We just need more guns.
They won't nuke us... We grow their rice after all.

> > Especially when
> > there are global issues (like pollution,
> asteroids,
> > etc.) that need to be addressed.
> 
> Co-operation between nations on true global issues
> has been around a  
> long time, imperfect as it is.

Lets hope it gets better and not worse.


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 outlawpoet at gmail.com  Thu Aug 18 09:32:30 2005
From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20050818090933.19580.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818090933.19580.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3ad827f305081802327eecf0bb@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/18/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Is the following sentence 'True' or 'False'?
> 
> "Either I did not just carry out the goal of
> understanding this sentence or the goal 'Maximize
> paperclips' is not the goal with the highest utility.

"Either I did not just carry out the goal of understanding this
sentence, or I am a weevil"

*poof* instant weevil?

Logical statements can't force reality to be a certain way. Your
example is a sentence, but not a neccesarily true sentence. If you
could devise a sentence which must be true or false, but a paperclip
maximizer could not decide upon a value, AND that sentence must be
decided upon for the understanding system to be considered a general
intelligence, you might have something.

Imagine a person who, for whatever reason, loved paper clips above all
else. They read your sentence, and see that it is nonsense, for they
have both understood the sentence(or in your awkward parlance,
'carried out the goal of understanding this sentence', and paperclips
are the thing they prize above all else or their 'goal of highest
utility'. Why, exactly, is this person magically no longer a general
intelligence?

All you have proven is that someone who prizes paperclips above all
else, will, if they understand your sentence after reading it, answer
False, or No. So what? It's still a 'meaningful' sentence to them, in
that they could evaluate it's truth value.

I suppose I'm just confused as to what you thought that was accomplishing.

-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 10:12:23 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <87ed843945d010d2ef76818aff16f591@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050818101223.25280.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> You're thinking of socialism.  Marxism and socialism
> are systematically 
> related but very much NOT the same thing.  

Well I have been called both but I don't think I am
either. 

> >  It stifles innovation and enterprise.
> 
> I don't think there's any evidence whatever to this
> effect, or perhaps 
> you haven't been watching China buy up all of the US
> debt it can by 
> producing lots of cheap electronic equipment for us
> efficiently and 
> profitably (albeit by the hands of slaves..., but
> we're just counting 
> innovation and enterprise here, not goodwill).

This innovation only started when they adopted a
pseudo-free market. You can hardly call them a
communist success story because they did not start to
prosper until they did.

> 
> >  And
> > invariably it breeds its own status quo and elite
> > overclass.
> 
> Of course, Marxism is not meant to end at the
> installation of a new 
> ruling class - Marxism is a method by which
> continual revolution can be 
> achieved.

What the world needs is evolution not revolution. The
only point to revolution is to get it out of a rut
where it has stopped evolving.

> 
> >  What is needed is true democratic
> > meritocracy.
> 
> Yeah right!  Let's all vote to see who's the best:
> winner - Brittany 
> Spears, ladies and gentlemen, our new queen.  I
> think Platos' damnation 
> of democracy is definitive and ancient and has
> displayed itself in 
> history many, many times.

You are speaking of pure democracy. I am speaking of
meritocratic democracy. Brittney Spears should only be
allowed to be "queen" if she can place in the top 10
at the iron man triathalon, score 1200 on her SATs,
get a squad of convicted felons to build an orphanage,
AND get elected. Same for Bush the IXth.

> The masses are easily
> intoxicated with bread 
> and circuses and can be asked to shove their
> children into a war at 17 
> as long as there's food on the table and a good song
> on the radio.

That's why the masses suffer. It is their own fault.
THEY have all the power, they just get deluded into
thinking that they don't. Truly march a million men
into Washington and watch some politicos soil their
underwear. 

>  In 
> otherwords, as good as it sounds, the idea of a
> democratic meritocracy 
> is as dead as the meme-name marxism.  What now?
> What a great idea!  How do you propose to accomplish
> it?

Physical, mental, and social examinations to stand for
public office. No person should be subject to the will
of another unless they are PROVEDLY stronger, smarter,
wiser, and after all that, they still have to get
elected.
 
> beauty-queen hope that world peace will be achieved,
> that poverty and 
> oppression will be conquered, that justice, equality
> and compassion 
> will rule the human beast.

Hope is wasted on idle hands.
 
> Until then, though, I'm too peaceful to grab an uzi
> and so am left to 
> bitter complaining.  On the positive side, I'm
> pretty good at 
> complaining.  When life leaves you lemons, make
> lemonade....

I have no qualms grabbing an uzi, they are rather
reliable weapons and seldom jam. I just don't feel the
need to. Not yet. Doesn't mean I don't think things
can't be improved over what they are now. Just that
things aren't bad enough to be killing or dying for
just yet.

When I can legally buy a gun from the republicans and
some pot from the democrats, I will know that I am in
the country that my forefathers created.

 

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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 18 14:43:09 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:43:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8F799B7D-853A-46B7-8F37-DF2F63D37AD6@bonfireproductions.com>


On a side note: You pledge allegiance to:  1) the flag  2) the  
Republic. Ergo, National Security.

Threats to the Republic trumps all. Ask Plato, Abraham Lincoln, and  
anyone who doesn't like the Patriot Act.

]=)



]3ret


On Aug 18, 2005, at 5:19 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> I believe that national security should be called
> governmental security since that is what it actually
> means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
> lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
> China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
> itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
> but they are not a country are they?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050818/c8bc6017/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Aug 18 15:49:47 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:49:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be
	a	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305081802327eecf0bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050818090933.19580.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<3ad827f305081802327eecf0bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4304AE1B.2050803@pobox.com>

justin corwin wrote:
> On 8/18/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>>Is the following sentence 'True' or 'False'?
>>
>>"Either I did not just carry out the goal of
>>understanding this sentence or the goal 'Maximize
>>paperclips' is not the goal with the highest utility.
> 
> 
> "Either I did not just carry out the goal of understanding this
> sentence, or I am a weevil"
> 
> *poof* instant weevil?

"If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists."

Suppose the sentence were true.
Then the antecedent would be true, and the conditional would be true, so the 
antecedent would be true and Santa Claus would exist.
Thus if the sentence is true, Santa Claus exists.
But this is precisely what the sentence asserts, so it is true.
Therefore Santa Claus exists.

Lob's Theorem in action.

See also http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=189

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 16:33:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20050818090933.19580.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050818163350.8696.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No. If one replies that the statement is false, one is basing that
statement on information outside of the statement, since the two
clauses of the statement only give two alternatives. Your statement is
merely set up as an 'or' statement that functions as an 'and'
statement, by making both clauses 'not' conditionals to ascertain a
true response for each, and dependent on each other to verify a true
response. It is a basic logic gate. If one says 'false', one either
refuses to accept the validity of one of the two conditional clauses,
and/or is operating on information outside the statement, presuming one
understands what a paperclip maximizer is...

--- Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> Is the following sentence ?True? or ?False??
> 
> ?Either I did not just carry out the goal of
> understanding this sentence or the goal ?Maximize
> paperclips? is not the goal with the highest utility.
> 
> Suppose you asked the paperclip maximizer whether it
> thought that the sentence was ?True? or ?False?.  To
> do this the system would have to have understood the
> sentence.  So it would have to have carried out the
> goal of understanding it.
> 
> But the sentence said that IF one just carried out the
> goal of understanding it, the goal ?Maximize
> paperclips is not the goal with the highest utility?. 
> Therefore, a ?True? 
> answer would mean that the system agrees that
> ?Maximize paperclips is not the goal with the highest
> utility?.  But this would contradict the notion that
> the system is a paperclip maximizer.  Therefore the
> system cannot say ?True?
> 
> Is the sentence actually meaningful though?  Yes. 
> 
> Tarksi?s resolution of logical paradoxes does not
> apply here, because both clauses in the sentence are
> referring to things on the same logical level: namely
> *carrying out goals*.
> 
> Since the sentence is meaningful and since a real
> general intelligence CAN see that the statement is
> true, this proves that a paperclip maximizer cannot be
> a true general intelligence.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Please vist my website:
> http://www.riemannai.org
> 
> Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy
> 
> ---
> 
> THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
>   For, put them side by side,  
> The one the other will include  
>   With ease, and you beside. 
> 
> -Emily Dickinson
> 
> 'The brain is wider than the sky'
> http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.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


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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 16:39:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] how not to communicate
In-Reply-To: <20050818015938.53778.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050818163902.75846.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Contemporary examples of political noncommunication are the
> soundbites, buzzwords, position statements, and agitprop surrounding
> the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
>  
> a. on the Right: "We need a conservative like John Roberts on the
> court because these liberal-socialist-activist-judges [who don't
> agree with us] behave more as legislators [oppose our values] than
> they do justices"
> b. on the Left:    "We respect [don't like] John Roberts, however he
> is a stealth conservative nominee who wont necessarily protect a
> woman's right to choose any and all family planning [abortion]
> available.

Actually, a number of conservatives think that Roberts is a stealth
liberal, possibly of a worse sort than even Souter turned out to be.

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  Thu Aug 18 17:03:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> > > Treaties are made and broken at the
> > > convenience of the participants in the mad
> > scramble
> > > for eminence in the international theater.
> > >
> > 
> > This still seem to be driving the US at least.
> 
> That may be, but it shouldn't. We ARE top dog right
> now. We should be LEADING them somewhere, not
> squashing the little guys to make some sort of POINT.
> Once everyone has backed down to you, continued
> aggression is pointless... it just builds up
> resentment and contempt. Even Machiavelli warned
> against that. 

On the contrary, our status as top dog will only remain so if we act
effectively versus the main top dog aspirant, China, and deal with our
current bad case of Islamist fleas and eurosocialist ticks.

> 
> > That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says
> > $$ makes right  
> > effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a
> > relatively much more  
> > free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China
> > keeps insisting  
> > that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom,
> > democracy and  
> > self-determination it seem obvious that we would and
> > should support  
> > Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I
> > don't agree it is  
> > wise to sell off the principles involved.
> 
> I don't either, but it is the UN's roster of
> sovereignity that makes a country a country. I could
> buy an island and call it Happyland but that doesn't
> make it a country unless the UN accepts it. If the UN
> decides preserving Taiwan's independence is a
> priority, then we should do our duty, otherwise I say
> we stay out of it.

Not necessarily. Switzerland only voted to join the UN this past year.
Neither Taiwan nor the Vatican is a member of the UN, yet each clearly
has a government, citizens, revenues, laws, acts in its own interest,
and has diplomatic relations with a number of other countries.
Countries may even be non-members to the UN but parties to the
International Court of Justice. There is also Western Sahara, Kosovo,
Palestine, and Northern Cyprus who are not member nations for various
reasons, but operate independent governments.

The US is actually legally obligated under international treaty to
police Taiwan-PRC relations. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952,
brokered between the Communists, Nationalists, by the US, puts a burden
on the US to ensure a peaceful reconciliation between Taiwan and the
mainland. The US also has the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty binding it to
Taiwans defense. Technically, the US, in a legal sense, has occupied
Taiwan, on paper, since the 50's, and under the peace treaty, it is
occupier and guarrantor of the defense of the people of Taiwan. It is
an unincorporated but unannexed territory of the US. (see:
http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ustaiwan/intro.htm ) 

As such, the people of Taiwan are effectively 14th Amendment US
citizens and entitled to protection under the US Constitution. If the
US govt abrogates that protection, it is granting Taiwan and its people
sovereignty. By doing so, it also puts all other US citizens on notice
that they cannot trust their government to protect them either. The US
Constitution will be moot, and all Americans will be either free
soveriegns or merely citizens of their state of residence..

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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 18 17:22:54 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:22:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] politics of transhumanism and Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050816000122.96637.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3D5AFB57-EF89-41B6-B6F1-F49726DF42F7@bonfireproductions.com>



Hi there,

I read this originally and couldn't make time to post a response  
(train time absorbed by problem solving) and now the response stream  
is pretty fragmented, and kinda getting ad-hominemic again.

So I am going back to the source here, and will try to tie together  
this with another recent stream.

There is a lot of notions of 'selfishness' and 'evil' and etc. with  
regard to nation-states, but a lot of this is, I feel, akin to  
watching the seagulls pluck baby sea turtles off the beach on 'Wild  
Wild World of Animals'.

What I am trying to say here is: 'It Worked.' A lot of people  
complain about the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. It Worked. WWII  
ended soon after. A lot of people don't like US foreign policy in the  
20th Century. It worked. The US is a superpower, and now perhaps the  
last superpower. More freedom than any of the competitors. Most of  
the world currencies are still based on the dollar. Reaganomics and  
his Star Wars? It worked. The Soviet Union couldn't keep up, they  
faced financial collapse because of the size of their military  
industrial complex (etc. etc.).

The nation-state as a successful organism. Too many people infer that  
saying something good that is true about your country is boasting, or  
propaganda. Or that we do not, in such statements, give proper credit  
to people who immigrated to this country to become citizens and it  
was their contribution that help put us over the top in certain  
discoveries.

Yet it was their ideals that brought them here. People argue on  
usenet about how the US 'had it coming' on 9/11. How the US is  
cheating its own people because of the price of gasoline. How the US  
generally engages in a variety of phaging or gastro-intestinal  
related verb actions. On usenet, on the internet, over the web. On  
their desktop computers. On their cell phones. What degree of effort  
was spent by the US and her citizens to put these tools in their  
irate hands?

So when people want to somehow feel guilty about the accomplishments  
of the US - and the expense of those accomplishments - I want to ask:  
Who would have done otherwise? Where is the idealogical utopia of  
peace and love that would not have taken the first and every step to  
put its ideology and people as close to the top as possible?

There isn't one - because whoever they were, they were stomped flat.  
And that, whether we are comfortable with it or not, is the current  
state of human nature. Yes, we can apply ourselves and be vigorous in  
our appeal to deal peacebly with one another, but not everyone is  
aiming at this higher ideal just yet.

Which brings me to a the points more directed toward your content:  
Taiwan is a metaphor of US/Chinese relations. Taiwan has a huge  
material, social and economic investment from the US. China wants it  
back for the reasons you cited and then some. China and the US both  
get a lot of value from one another, and from Taiwan, and *from their  
posturing on Taiwan*. Their will only be a hot war if someone finds  
an even greater mode of game play at an even higher level. There is  
already a cold war.

As a closing - a lot of talk has happened about separation of  
Libertarianism and Transhumanism. As I said in a previous post, and  
may even come up later in this thread - we need to look back at the  
source. Transhumanism may have foundations in other times and places,  
philosophical similarities here and there from which it gains its  
heritance. But it did *not* come from Communist China, Soviet Russia,  
1930s Germany, Ancient Persia, Babylonia, ad nauseam. It is here and  
now, and took form as it did from Libertarian roots, and arguably  
from the golden age of science fiction among many things. It is the  
product of an open society, that has looked in the face of  
oppression. There are ideals that may or may not work for some, but I  
think the way the individual is treated being so important in  
Transhumanism, ties it most closely to that set of ideals.


]3ret



On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:01 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Many of the arguments I have heard for and against the
> war, current U.S. foreign policy, and its dealings
> with other UN nations has led me to reflect on the
> current world situation.
>
> For one thing, I see that many conservatives cling to
> a very old poltical frame of mind: real politick.
> That is the time honored cynical notion that
> nation-states are supposed behave as selfish
> sociopaths, futhering their own economic and political
> gain in a playing field without rules or consideration
> of other nations.
>
> I understand that much of world history has shown this
> to be a fairly accurate description of how politics
> USED to work. Treaties are made and broken at the
> convenience of the participants in the mad scramble
> for eminence in the international theater.
>
> While I understand that there was a time when such a
> world-view made a lot of sense. But in this day and
> age of economic globalism, weapons of mass
> destruction, and the Internet, the world seems smaller
> and more interconnected than ever. Can the nations of
> the world persist in this behavior for long without
> bringing about their own ruin?
>
> For example, there is much anticipation regarding a
> showdown between the US and China with respect to
> Taiwan. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a fairly
> prosperous little island. But I will wager that the
> current economic trade between the U.S. and China is
> worth more than the GNP of Tawain. The US and China
> have made many mutual investments with each other.
>
> Since these days, a stock market crash in any one
> market cause a chain reaction of market crashes around
> the world, I just don't see how a confrontation of
> such a magnitude over such a small island is at all
> beneficial to either side. What good would serve China
> to regain control of Taiwan, if in the process, the
> U.S. stops buying Chinese goods and employing Chinese
> workers in its overseas factories. What good would it
> do the U.S. to keep Taiwan under its influence, if it
> means that we can no longer purchase cheap goods from
> China and the Chinese liquidate its investments in the
> US.
>
> These days as people make Internet penpals all over
> the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
> nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".
> I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
> "it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
> that technology is making this so called "liberal"
> viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.
> In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
> manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
> consolidate their own internal power by painting the
> rest of the world as a threat to national security.
> But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
> can we truly afford this paranoia? Especially when
> there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
> etc.) that need to be addressed.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 18 18:02:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050818180216.25536.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> The US is actually legally obligated under international treaty to
> police Taiwan-PRC relations. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952,
> brokered between the Communists, Nationalists, by the US, puts a
> burden
> on the US to ensure a peaceful reconciliation between Taiwan and the
> mainland. The US also has the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty binding it
> to
> Taiwans defense. Technically, the US, in a legal sense, has occupied
> Taiwan, on paper, since the 50's, and under the peace treaty, it is
> occupier and guarrantor of the defense of the people of Taiwan. It is
> an unincorporated but unannexed territory of the US. (see:
> http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ustaiwan/intro.htm ) 

Furthermore, since the US severed official diplomatic relations with
the Republic of China government in the 1970's (as would be fitting,
the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with its territories and
protectorates), the Congress set defense of Taiwan into US law in the
Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (see:
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra01.htm ). So it is a matter of law,
multiple ways, that the President and Congress are legally obligated to
defend Taiwan against Chinese agression.

Rep. Tancredo of CO wants to pass a bill to rescind the TRA and declare
recognise the Taiwanese govt as a soveriegn nation. While it seems on
its face to be an act of agression against China by the US to do so, it
actually is the reverse, because it will negate US obligations to
defend Taiwan and hang them out to dry.

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  Thu Aug 18 18:12:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stalinist Insult Generator
Message-ID: <20050818181253.85634.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

NK News, which tracks the antics of Kim Jong Il and KCNA, the official
propaganda organ, offers a free Random Insult Generator for those of
you seeking stalinist put-downs to maintain your low sense of
self-worth. The site also features email daily newsbriefs and RSS feed.

http://www.nk-news.net/extras/insult_generator.php

Just thought Robbie might need it to feel more at home.... ;)

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 18:31:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SEGWAY: 10 mph: 2 men, a Segway,
	and the American Dream
Message-ID: <20050818183114.67558.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For you Segway fans, there is a film for you. "10 MPH" is a film about
two guys who chucked their cubicle farm lives to drive a Segway from
Seattle to Boston, and make a film about the experience.

http://www.10mph.com/ 

The trailer is currently not loading, but the photo sequence has a lot
of great photos of America, with one fitting one: one of the makers on
the Segway, approaching one of those automated speed radar trailers,
reading "YOU ARE GOING 10 MPH". 

The film is an entry in the Toronto Film Festival, for those of you in
that area, try to check it out, eh?

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  Thu Aug 18 18:36:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:36:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FB5E449D-1B34-4259-8357-C5DCC1383B42@mac.com>


On Aug 18, 2005, at 2:19 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:
> Samantha wrote:
>> That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says
>> $$ makes right
>> effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a
>> relatively much more
>> free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China
>> keeps insisting
>> that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom,
>> democracy and
>> self-determination it seem obvious that we would and
>> should support
>> Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I
>> don't agree it is
>> wise to sell off the principles involved.
>>
>
> I don't either, but it is the UN's roster of
> sovereignity that makes a country a country. I could
> buy an island and call it Happyland but that doesn't
> make it a country unless the UN accepts it. If the UN
> decides preserving Taiwan's independence is a
> priority, then we should do our duty, otherwise I say
> we stay out of it.

The US has refused  to stand behind such UN recognition.   So the US  
can hardly fob it off on the decision of the UN.  What is right is  
not determined by what the UN does or does not do.  If you agree  
about what is right thn this argument you make is  clearly abrogation  
of morality thinly rationalized.

>
>
>> There are questions of principle and of precedent at
>> stake.
>>
>
> What principle? That communism must be contained? What
> precedent? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?
>

That a people have the right to self determination and that a free  
people deserve our support.

>
>>
>> Taiwan is its own country.  Not the pawn or chattel
>> of either the US
>> or China.   The US cannot stop buying Chinese goods
>> without extremely
>> negative economic consequences.  China cannot
>> liquidate all its US
>> holdings without extremely negative economic
>> consequences.  If China
>> tries to bully Taiwan then the right thing to do is
>> to call their
>> bluff.
>>
>
> No we let the UN decide. We should be ready to do so,
> but not unilaterally.
>

So we should never speak of what is right again but just do whatever  
the UN decides?  How inspiring!


>   They have little rational choice but to back
>   down.
>
> That's the paradox of detente. War is inherently
> irrational and both countries should rationally back
> down. But the point of detente is for one country to
> convince the other that one is irrational enough to
> keep going. Just like a game of chicken... and chicken
> fatalities DO happen. Around 3% of all fatal boating
> collisons are caused by people playing chicken.
>
>

So we should back down on our principles first when we are the more  
powerful?  Why?


>> Yes and no.  Shades of gray still presume  notions
>> of black and
>> white.   Different countries and policies can be
>> weighed as to degree
>> of good or bad.  All countries, political systems,
>> cultures and so on
>> are not equally good or bad.
>>
>
> China's government is not THAT bad.

That is not the point and from earlier comments above you know it is  
not the point.  So let us not waste time on whether the country that  
wants to take over a free and productive separate country (recognized  
by the UN or not)  is "that bad".

>
>
>> Do you believe then that there are no threats to
>> national security?
>>
>
> I believe that national security should be called
> governmental security since that is what it actually
> means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
> lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
> China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
> itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
> but they are not a country are they?
>

If no country is any real threat as you (incorrectly) claim then why  
on earth would we not stand up for the rights of the Taiwanese people  
and nation?

> You would think that a SUPERPOWER would show a bit of
> backbone and not give in to the "let's get them before
> they get us mentality". Especially since nobody really
> CAN get us and we can get ANYONE. Unless of course we
> just want to be sadistic.

What are you talking about now?

>
>
>> Do you believe we would somehow be better off with
>> one global
>> government?
>>
>
> No, but there should be an international court of law
> that actually has some teeth.

With laws determined how?


> And an international
> legislative body composed of the leaders of all the
> world's countries.

With governing principles determined how?

> Call it an international senate if
> you would. I don't see the point of having any
> executive branch, with a Parliament of Countries, the
> whole point of this "pseudogovernment" is that it be
> as fractious and innefficent as congress on a bad day,
> but could with a quorum make international law.

So it is an irrational circus that occasionally come out with some  
decree that all nations and people everywhere regardless of their  
cultures, principles, local governments and so on must obey?  Why is  
this good?

>
> Sort of like the UN only not a fairy tale on paper.
>

 From the above it is an international circus everyone volunteers to  
be subject to.  Why would they?

>
>
>> Calling it paranoia is an assumption.
>>
>
> No I think of it as self-confidence. Believing that
> another country could threaten a free people with guns
> strikes me as cowardly. We just need more guns.
> They won't nuke us... We grow their rice after all.
>

So Taiwan can't be threatened by Chinese guns eh?  So our  
manufacturing base moving in large part to China is no threat at  
all?  Our economy is not a stack of cards largely vulnerable to other  
countries, very much including China, deciding to stop buying up the  
glut of dollars and extending us endless credit which is what our  
trade deficit amounts to?  In a contest of only arms we would win.   
But that is not the extent of the situation.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050818/e2f6bb97/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Thu Aug 18 18:40:14 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:40:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Shared Futuristic World of Orion's Arm
Message-ID: <p06210200bf2a85b97b2b@[23.237.66.13]>

 From Boing-Boing, we have what looks like a creative group effort to
imaginatively build the world we want.


http://www.orionsarm.com/
{begin quote}
Orion's Arm: CC-licensed, post-Singularity shared world
Orion's Arm is a Creative Commons-licensed hard sf/post-Singularity
shared world where lots of fan writers are collaborating to build a
world and then write stories in it. There also seems to be some RPG
adaptation activity and illustration. The storyline is a pretty
thoroughgoing post-Singularity thinggum with lots of opportunity for fun
noodling.

     Our goal is to create a dramatic far-future universe that is
     internally consistent and abides as much as possible with the
     accepted facts and theories in the physical, biological, and social
     sciences. Thus matter cannot travel faster than light, matter and
     energy are conserved, no evolved humanoid aliens have been
     discovered, future ultratech social issues are likely to be very
     different to those of today, and so on. We embrace speculative ideas
     like drexlerian assemblers, mind uploads, posthuman intelligences,
     femtotech, magnetic monopoles, wormholes, as it is proposed that
     future sciences, technologies, and developments will make these
     possible. And we attempt a logical explanation for even the most
     fantastic-seeming elements in OA. We aim to paint a future that is
     plausible at every level, from the scientific to the social to the
     psychological...

     Somewhere between the years 2020 and 2050 researchers would develop
     the technology of Direct Neural Interface, allowing human minds to
     link with their computers. They would advance genetic engineering to
     the point of the first optional improvements or 'tweaks' to the
     human genome as well as create the first 'provolved' animals
     engineered for human level intelligence. The dream of nanotechnology
     would start to be realized, as nano-scale manufacture became a
     viable industry. And, using a combination of nanotech created
     advanced materials, robotics, and tele-operated devices, development
     of a truly viable and self-sustaining space infrastructure began in
     earnest. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the year 2040
     researchers created the first human equivalent, or turinggrade,
     artificial intelligence. The future would never be the same again.
{end quote}

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Don't let me catch anyone talking about the Universe in my
department. " ---Ernest Rutherford


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 18 18:39:50 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:39:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <8F799B7D-853A-46B7-8F37-DF2F63D37AD6@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050818091928.14005.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
	<8F799B7D-853A-46B7-8F37-DF2F63D37AD6@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <8E3F6FAD-FD97-4C16-AC47-8E2072B242AA@mac.com>

I pledge allegiance to freedom.  The rest I pledge allegiance to only  
to the extent they preserve and extend freedom.  The greatest threat  
to this purportedly designed for freedom republic is from our own  
government at this time.

- samantha

On Aug 18, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> On a side note: You pledge allegiance to:  1) the flag  2) the  
> Republic. Ergo, National Security.
>
> Threats to the Republic trumps all. Ask Plato, Abraham Lincoln, and  
> anyone who doesn't like the Patriot Act.
>
> ]=)
>
>
>
> ]3ret
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2005, at 5:19 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> I believe that national security should be called
>> governmental security since that is what it actually
>> means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
>> lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
>> China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
>> itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
>> but they are not a country are they?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050818/98a070f7/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Aug 18 18:43:28 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:43:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System 
Message-ID: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>

A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*

(This would mean a lack centralized control of a forced choice between, for
example, Twentieth Century free market, capitalist democracy, and state
capitalism and state socialism.)

*While a transhumanism is a type of community, is not merely a collection
of individuals, nor is it static. It is comprised of a changing set of
relationships, attitudes and behavior of its members. It has many
dimensions which may vary, they are all interconnected. Like the physical
dimensions of length and time, if any one dimension of social system of
transhumanism is missing, by definition, the system is incomplete.

Bottom line:

Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is watering
transhumanism down.

Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
non-partisian, writing team.  

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More







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




From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 18 18:43:56 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:43:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818180216.25536.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818180216.25536.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43D2C64E-34E5-462D-890B-5B93FED352F5@mac.com>

Very interesting.  A rather twisted situation but thank you for the  
information.

- s
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The US is actually legally obligated under international treaty to
>> police Taiwan-PRC relations. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952,
>> brokered between the Communists, Nationalists, by the US, puts a
>> burden
>> on the US to ensure a peaceful reconciliation between Taiwan and the
>> mainland. The US also has the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty binding it
>> to
>> Taiwans defense. Technically, the US, in a legal sense, has occupied
>> Taiwan, on paper, since the 50's, and under the peace treaty, it is
>> occupier and guarrantor of the defense of the people of Taiwan. It is
>> an unincorporated but unannexed territory of the US. (see:
>> http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ustaiwan/intro.htm )
>>
>
> Furthermore, since the US severed official diplomatic relations with
> the Republic of China government in the 1970's (as would be fitting,
> the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with its territories and
> protectorates), the Congress set defense of Taiwan into US law in the
> Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (see:
> http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra01.htm ). So it is a matter of law,
> multiple ways, that the President and Congress are legally  
> obligated to
> defend Taiwan against Chinese agression.
>
> Rep. Tancredo of CO wants to pass a bill to rescind the TRA and  
> declare
> recognise the Taiwanese govt as a soveriegn nation. While it seems on
> its face to be an act of agression against China by the US to do  
> so, it
> actually is the reverse, because it will negate US obligations to
> defend Taiwan and hang them out to dry.
>
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 18:48:34 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System 
In-Reply-To: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050818184834.95389.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Good to see the dedication to a greater anarcho-capitalist plenum,
within which voluntary membership enclaves less respectful of
individual liberty can exist in peace, tolerating each others
existence, coercing nobody who does not consent to collectivism, and
freely trading between all.

--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
> economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*
> 
> (This would mean a lack centralized control of a forced choice
> between, for example, Twentieth Century free market, capitalist
> democracy, and state capitalism and state socialism.)
> 
> *While a transhumanism is a type of community, is not merely a
> collection of individuals, nor is it static. It is comprised of a
> changing set of relationships, attitudes and behavior of its
> members. It has many dimensions which may vary, they are all
> interconnected. Like the physical dimensions of length and time,
> if any one dimension of social system of
> transhumanism is missing, by definition, the system is incomplete.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is
> watering transhumanism down.
> 
> Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> non-partisian, writing team.  

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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Aug 18 18:51:42 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The politics of transhumanism/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re:
	Transhumanist short story
In-Reply-To: <008301c5a184$7df217e0$d1893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <20050818185142.3387.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> How about this.  Talk about general principles that have an Extropian
> or
> transhumanist import.  In this vein, since some have expressed a
> desire
> to separate Extropianism from libertarianism, what non-libertarian
> (or
> anti-libertarian) policies would be compatible with Extropianism?

The essence of libertarianism is personal choice.  The only major
critique of extropianism I've heard, that I have not been able to
completely dismiss (as with most luddite arguments over "tampering with
nature" or "current technology's defects mean the technology can never
become safe" or the like) comes about from considering what happens if
we succeed...and the anti-libertarian consequences.

Let's say we successfully convince some significant portion of the
public (in most of the industrial world) that human enhancement is
worth pursuing - a significant enough portion that the enhancements are
developed and put into widespread use.  While they are first being
deployed, there is always a choice as to whether to try them; they are
never forced (with possible exceptions for life-saving technologies,
and then only if the person wants their life to be saved - see current
debates over that very situation, so this is not a new issue we'd
introduce).  But if enhancements do indeed prove safe and effective,
more and more people will use them...and those who don't will be placed
at a disadvantage.

Consider literacy.  No human is born knowing how to read, and indeed,
for the majority of homo sapiens' existance most people got by just
fine without reading.  These days, illiteracy in otherwise-functional
adults is a condition in need of correction; an illiterate is so
nonfunctional that society makes little allowance for the willfully
illiterate.  That is: even if someone does not wish to learn how to
read, learning to do so is still forced upon the individual.  This is
anti-libertarian by definition, but definitely compatible with an
extropian future.

Now, consider if the classic cyberpunk concept of a "neural jack" - a
mind-machine interface socket implanted into a person, allowing direct
mental connection with any computer plugged into the socket - becomes
widespread.  Given the ease of use compared to keyboard/mouse/terminal
interfaces, much of the public infrastructure that uses computers
(which is an ever-growing fraction) would likely quickly be converted
to using neural jacks (consider how fast the Internet spread once the
Web was invented) - and some fraction of the conversions would likely
be neural-jack-only connections (especially in hard to access machines,
or highly cost-conscious installations where the extra cost of a
traditional interface would be significant).  Anyone without a neural
jack would be utterly excluded from accessing this latter category.
If neural jacks are adpoted widely enough, some businesses and
government agencies might stop caring about the remainder, so those
without this implant would be forced to get one to fully participate in
society.

The neural jack makes a good concrete example, but similar scenarios
can be spun about many specific proposed enhancements.  The crux is:
widespread adoption increases most peoples' expectations of the human
norm, so anyone clinging to the previous/natural norm is forced to
upgrade in order to have a job, be accepted by most people, et cetera.
Perhaps this is not literally physical force, but it is undoubtedly
coercive.

My answer to this, so far: for that situation to happen, almost
everyone would have to agree that the enhancement really is an
improvement.  Given such near-universal agreement - and especially
given as said agreement would have to be reached before this compulsive
effect could be generated (there aren't any really effective ways of
sneaking around it: any attempt to artificially generate the compulsion
without the agreement would result in a backlash that would render said
artificial compulsion ineffective) - it seems like this would be
something it might be morally okay to force on the remainder.  That's
not the most satisfactory answer, but it seems to work so far.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Aug 18 19:07:00 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System 
In-Reply-To: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Bottom line:
> 
> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is
> watering
> transhumanism down.

What are the core views of transhumanism?  Are we primarily about
developing enhancement technologies, and making suitable precautions
for their detrimental (and beneficial) effects?  Or are we primarily
about creating the environment in which said development can occur?

Or something else?  Quite a few who call themselves "transhumanist"
seem to pay at most lip service to the technological side of things,
although from my point of view it logically appears that the technology
underlies *everything* we wish to accomplish, and extensive debate over
the social side (except for the effects of the technology) can be given
a certain digit when it gets in the way.

> Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> non-partisian, writing team.  

We kind of have one...if the partisan chaff can be separated out of
this list's content.


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 18 19:19:08 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:19:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Shared Futuristic World of Orion's Arm
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf2a85b97b2b@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200bf2a85b97b2b@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <901CFECE-FAE5-4B05-9768-ED637157406C@bonfireproductions.com>



This is really wonderful. I think that people being able to imagine  
themselves in a 'prequel' space to really far-out science fiction  
helps them metabolize and then realize actual improvement in science.  
It's a bridge to the future that can entice as well as educate. It  
makes me think of Alpha Centauri in some ways, excepting the RTS  
versus RPG paradigm.

I hope they are sticking with some nice manual mechanics to get those  
ships moving. There are several good ways to bring that into gameplay  
both in UI and fun factor that no one has tried to tap. Easier on  
paper, to be sure, but people don't  want to take risks in games  
these days.

I look forward to their progress.


]3ret




On Aug 18, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Amara Graps wrote:

> From Boing-Boing, we have what looks like a creative group effort to
> imaginatively build the world we want.
>
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/
> {begin quote}
> Orion's Arm: CC-licensed, post-Singularity shared world
> Orion's Arm is a Creative Commons-licensed hard sf/post-Singularity
> shared world where lots of fan writers are collaborating to build a
> world and then write stories in it. There also seems to be some RPG
> adaptation activity and illustration. The storyline is a pretty
> thoroughgoing post-Singularity thinggum with lots of opportunity  
> for fun
> noodling.
>
>     Our goal is to create a dramatic far-future universe that is
>     internally consistent and abides as much as possible with the
>     accepted facts and theories in the physical, biological, and  
> social
>     sciences. Thus matter cannot travel faster than light, matter and
>     energy are conserved, no evolved humanoid aliens have been
>     discovered, future ultratech social issues are likely to be very
>     different to those of today, and so on. We embrace speculative  
> ideas
>     like drexlerian assemblers, mind uploads, posthuman intelligences,
>     femtotech, magnetic monopoles, wormholes, as it is proposed that
>     future sciences, technologies, and developments will make these
>     possible. And we attempt a logical explanation for even the most
>     fantastic-seeming elements in OA. We aim to paint a future that is
>     plausible at every level, from the scientific to the social to the
>     psychological...
>
>     Somewhere between the years 2020 and 2050 researchers would  
> develop
>     the technology of Direct Neural Interface, allowing human minds to
>     link with their computers. They would advance genetic  
> engineering to
>     the point of the first optional improvements or 'tweaks' to the
>     human genome as well as create the first 'provolved' animals
>     engineered for human level intelligence. The dream of  
> nanotechnology
>     would start to be realized, as nano-scale manufacture became a
>     viable industry. And, using a combination of nanotech created
>     advanced materials, robotics, and tele-operated devices,  
> development
>     of a truly viable and self-sustaining space infrastructure  
> began in
>     earnest. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the year 2040
>     researchers created the first human equivalent, or turinggrade,
>     artificial intelligence. The future would never be the same again.
> {end quote}
>
> -- 
>
> ********************************************************************
> 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/
> ********************************************************************
> "Don't let me catch anyone talking about the Universe in my
> department. " ---Ernest Rutherford
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Aug 18 20:30:54 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:30:54 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4304EFFE.3050109@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>On the contrary, our status as top dog will only remain so if we act
>effectively versus the main top dog aspirant, China, and deal with our
>current bad case of Islamist fleas and eurosocialist ticks.
>  
>

I take it you favor enhanced military and corresponding taxation to fund 
our status-keeping -whatever the cost-?

You really should check out the PNAC, I think you'd fit in really well.


You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing 
great goods and services and having a great society.    Military 
deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant.  The "war on terror" is a 
bogey, generated mostly to induce fear in our population by military 
domination of other countries for the economic benefit of a powerful few 
people.  Same as it ever was.

>As such, the people of Taiwan are effectively 14th Amendment US
>citizens and entitled to protection under the US Constitution. 
>

Wow!

Does this mean they should be paying US taxes?  Hey, maybe we can call 
'em up and suggest it to their government.

Robbie

PS - Gosh, I did it again, why do I keep reading this guy's stuff?


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 18 21:08:47 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:08:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <4304EFFE.3050109@aol.com>
References: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4304EFFE.3050109@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BDBC39D3-3B0B-416E-8C31-A4E48E7BA911@bonfireproductions.com>



Ok - I'll bite. Mainly because I just got off the soap box on a  
nation-state successful organism tirade.

Here's two things:

> I take it you favor enhanced military and corresponding taxation to  
> fund our status-keeping -whatever the cost-?

1. Yes. Because the alternative is insufficient for my system of  
propagation and society, which I believe are superior to those  
available. (take this in the context of my previous response of 1:22  
pm EST today before blurting out 'racist harlot' or something. tnx!)  
My daughter's future != burka :. stop Muslim expansionism.


> You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing  
> great goods and services and having a great society.    Military  
> deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant.  The "war on terror" is a  
> bogey, generated mostly to induce fear in our population by  
> military domination of other countries for the economic benefit of  
> a powerful few people.  Same as it ever was.

2. We can't afford to be a producer, only a consumer and inventor. We  
have seen a half dozen or more 'economies' pass through our country  
in the past 100 or so years. Agrarian, textile, manufacturing, and  
now (surprise!) service is packing its bags to not just leave the US  
citizen (which it by and large has via illegal immigrants) but also  
physically as well via outsourcing. The fact is, we're a pop-economy.  
SUVs, NASA mattresses, XBoxen.

And what's wrong with people profiting from the high price of  
gasoline? That's capitalism in a commodity market. Some invested  
well, others did not. Why the sour grapes? We are commending and  
condemning the same system, at the same time.


]3ret


On Aug 18, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>> On the contrary, our status as top dog will only remain so if we act
>> effectively versus the main top dog aspirant, China, and deal with  
>> our
>> current bad case of Islamist fleas and eurosocialist ticks.
>>
>>
>
> I take it you favor enhanced military and corresponding taxation to  
> fund our status-keeping -whatever the cost-?
>
> You really should check out the PNAC, I think you'd fit in really  
> well.
>
>
> You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing  
> great goods and services and having a great society.    Military  
> deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant.  The "war on terror" is a  
> bogey, generated mostly to induce fear in our population by  
> military domination of other countries for the economic benefit of  
> a powerful few people.  Same as it ever was.
>
>
>> As such, the people of Taiwan are effectively 14th Amendment US
>> citizens and entitled to protection under the US Constitution.
>>
>
> Wow!
>
> Does this mean they should be paying US taxes?  Hey, maybe we can  
> call 'em up and suggest it to their government.
>
> Robbie
>
> PS - Gosh, I did it again, why do I keep reading this guy's stuff?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 21:12:15 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <43D2C64E-34E5-462D-890B-5B93FED352F5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050818211215.82610.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com>

Whatever the merits of the policy, tancredo is more interested in trying to be elected governor or president than in this. He plays on base emotions; there is a name for this sort of politician: demagogue.
 Again, it's not the policy, it comes from having heard him speak many times here-- Tancredo is an abyss of ambition, he hears 'Hail To The Chief' playing in his mind. 


> Rep. Tancredo of CO wants to pass a bill to rescind the TRA and 
> declare
> recognise the Taiwanese govt as a soveriegn nation. While it seems on
> its face to be an act of agression against China by the US to do 
> so, it
> actually is the reverse, because it will negate US obligations to
> defend Taiwan and hang them out to dry.
>
> Mike Lorrey
__________________________________________________
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/20050818/e4b29e78/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 18 22:07:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <4304EFFE.3050109@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050818220706.61174.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >On the contrary, our status as top dog will only remain so if we act
> >effectively versus the main top dog aspirant, China, and deal with
> our
> >current bad case of Islamist fleas and eurosocialist ticks.
> >  
> >
> 
> I take it you favor enhanced military and corresponding taxation to
> fund our status-keeping -whatever the cost-?
> 
> You really should check out the PNAC, I think you'd fit in really
> well.

Optimally, I favor demonopolizing the DoD and selling it off to the
insurance industry, along with FEMA, the FAA, and the DOT, while
devolving all Reserve and National Guard units to their respective
state governments, who can all decide what they want to do with their
own toys. That will happen right after we sell off the national forests
and parks, kick everyone off welfare, privatize social security,
medicaid, and medicare, spin off NASA into a corporation and schedule
an IPO ten years hence, along with a lot of other fun stuff. 

If I can't have my way, we'll have to muddle along and stick to Plan B.
Don't like it? Too friggin bad, YOU are one of those who refuse to get
politically involved, remember?

> 
> 
> You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing 
> great goods and services and having a great society.    Military 
> deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant. 

Military deterrence is everything in the world, and the fact that you
don't get it illustrates why your arguments carry no water.

> The "war on terror" is a 
> bogey, generated mostly to induce fear in our population by military 
> domination of other countries for the economic benefit of a powerful
> few people.  Same as it ever was.

So said by marxist lying liars for several generations, yet its always
the marxists who wind up putting tens of millions up against the wall,
isn't it?


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  Thu Aug 18 22:26:58 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818220706.61174.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050818222659.52927.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>

As you've said many times before, "we get the government we deserve". Yes, we deserve this government we have, we will be stuck with it for generations to come. We will be stuck with police who take bribes; bad 'justice' system; ugly prison system; all the way up into the highest ranks of government. We will continue to have a mediocre POTUS (look at this decade, it is shaping up to be like the '70s in terms of POTUS-- Nixon, Ford, Carter-- cripes). 
Americans want a very clean environment, but all the same they want the highest standard of living in the world? They want change but they want anachronism? They want greed but they want piety?
We really do get the government we deserve.

>Optimally, I favor demonopolizing the DoD and selling it off to the
>insurance industry, along with FEMA, the FAA, and the DOT, while
>devolving all Reserve and National Guard units to their respective
>state governments, who can all decide what they want to do with their
>own toys. That will happen right after we sell off the national forests
>and parks, kick everyone off welfare, privatize social security,
>medicaid, and medicare, spin off NASA into a corporation and schedule
>an IPO ten years hence, along with a lot of other fun stuff. 
>If I can't have my way, we'll have to muddle along and stick to Plan B.
>Don't like it? Too friggin bad, YOU are one of those who refuse to get
>politically involved, remember?

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
 Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050818/d7b2554e/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Aug 18 22:28:38 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:28:38 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <20050818220706.61174.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818220706.61174.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43050B96.3000702@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Optimally, I favor demonopolizing the DoD and selling it off to the
>insurance industry, along with FEMA, the FAA, and the DOT, while
>devolving all Reserve and National Guard units to their respective
>state governments, who can all decide what they want to do with their
>own toys. That will happen right after we sell off the national forests
>and parks, kick everyone off welfare, privatize social security,
>medicaid, and medicare, spin off NASA into a corporation and schedule
>an IPO ten years hence, along with a lot of other fun stuff. 
>
>If I can't have my way, we'll have to muddle along and stick to Plan B.
>Don't like it? Too friggin bad, YOU are one of those who refuse to get
>politically involved, remember?
>  
>

Thankfully it's adequate for me to just ensure that people like you 
never get your way.

>  
>
>>You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing 
>>great goods and services and having a great society.    Military 
>>deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant. 
>>    
>>
>
>Military deterrence is everything in the world, and the fact that you
>don't get it illustrates why your arguments carry no water.
>  
>

Learn to read, but first stop embarassing the Libertarian party with 
your continued idiotic grandstanding.

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 19 00:22:09 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SKYHOOK: Check this out...
Message-ID: <20050819002209.57909.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Andrews.pdf

Given my recent reticence toward skyhooks anchored to earth as
monopolistic competition destroying devices that also eliminate use of
satellites (other than those in the skyhooks own orbit), I came across
a concept put out by Andrews Space in Seattle. Check out page 52 of the
above pdf. Its a skyhook that ends in LEO and travels up through L1 to
anchor on the moon.

Sounds like a great idea. One elevator all the way would require a
station in LEO traveling retrograde (it's at LEO altitude but only
circles the earth once every four weeks) at a velocity of under 1,000
mph. Called "Down Below Station", this station would be VERY EASY for
suborbital tourist rockets to reach without having to attain orbital
velocity. ANY ROCKET. This would be very good for building a robust and
competetive worldwide launch industry. This would also allow such
suborbital rockets to deliver people and packages worldwide, along the
moons orbital plane, in an hour, letting the moon's momentum do the
work (and our draining it will have the added bonus of helping to slow
down the rate the moon is receding from earth).

However, it would be very bad for all geosynchronous satellites. The
satellite television market would hate it.

A better solution is instead of one skyhook, build two: one with a
center of gravity in GEO which ends in LEO, say at about 250 miles
altitude (you could build multiple competing GEO skyhooks to LEO
eventually). This would make it even more affordable for suborbital
tourist rockets, since they just have to shoot straight up and peak out
at 250 miles at the station.

It eliminates the point to point earth travel option, but keeps the GEO
satellite infrastructure alive. The Suborbital rockets could also
theoretically refuel at the station to boost into a true orbit or
trajectory to any point on the planet.

The GEO skyhook would also sling payloads from its far end to reach the
upper end of the L1 skyhook, which would be anchored on the moon, pass
through the L1 point, and extend out another 60,000 km beyond the L1
point to the transfer station. 

Theoretically speaking, a suborbital rocket could boost up to DownBelow
Station, latch on to a tram on the Earth Skyhook, ride that up to GEO,
then ride it out to the far end, picking up several thousand kph along
the way, which will boost it out to reach the L1 elevator transfer
station. The passengers can then disembark and ride the elevator to the
lunar surface, or bring their rocket down with them. There would likely
be a large space marina built up over time at the Transfer Station,
which could operate off of berth rentals.



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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 19 00:27:34 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System 
In-Reply-To: <20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050819002734.65316.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a
> multi-disciplinary,
> > non-partisian, writing team.  
> 
> We kind of have one...if the partisan chaff can be
> separated out of
> this list's content.

You said it, Adrian. I have tried on several
occassions to start objective non-partisan threads
about politics, and 2 posts into it, the partisans are
already name calling and grand-standing. It may be
necessary to create an abstract fictional "model
society" with problems similar to our own as an
exercise. Then everyone can objectively think of
solutions to these problems, rather then resorting to
partisan ad-hominem and such. In fact, it would be
great to find a scientific "model" for economic
entities that would lend itself readily to
experimentation without violating human rights.
Similar to the way that mice are used to "model" human
physiology without resorting to Josef Mengele type
human experimentation.  

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 fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Aug 19 01:09:30 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:09:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a juxtaposition)
Message-ID: <4305314A.8010908@mindspring.com>

[ SCIENCE ]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050815/evolution.html Climate
Change Fueled Human Evolution? By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News Aug.
18, 2005 ? Climate changes that affected Africa over a million years
ago may have profoundly influenced human evolution, according to a new
study published in this week's Science. Overall, the findings support
the "variability hypothesis" of human evolution, which holds that
alternating humid and dry periods provided the stresses essential for
species divergence, meaning that our ancestors had to change and adapt
so much over time that they evolved into new species. Previously, some
researchers theorized that modern humans, and our ancient hominid
relatives, evolved in an increasingly arid environment in East Africa.
The researchers discovered that large, deep lakes, which are
indicators of humidity and higher rainfall patterns, existed between
2.7 to 2.5 million, 1.9 to 1.7 million and 1.1 million to 900,000
years ago in East Africa. "We believe that these humid episodes could
have had important impacts on the speciation and dispersal of hominins
because they correlate with important events in human evolution," said
Martin Trauth, who led the research. Trauth, a paleoclimatologist at
the University of Potsdam in Germany, explained to Discovery News that
around 2.6 million years ago, Australopithecines, or our earliest
known direct ancestors, emerged in Africa. Homo erectus, the first
upright human ancestor, emerged 1.8 million years ago and hominids
began their "out of Africa" migration to settle other parts of the
world. During the final humid period, at around 1 million years ago,
Homo erectus began a second major migration and Paranthropus, a
small-brained descendent of Australopithecines, went extinct. Trauth
and his team discovered the climate changes by studying diatoms, which
are tiny silica algae that live in bodies of water off of sunlight.
The researchers analyzed sediments from ancient lakebeds in East
Africa that contain diatom fossils at various levels. Since diatoms
need sun, they are not present at the bottom of deeper lakes. The
researchers, however, found a lot of evidence for surface-dwelling
diatoms in the deep ancient lake sediments over the three identified
periods. That suggests that the lakes fluctuated widely during times
of drought or heavy rainfall. The researchers ruled out volcanic and
tectonic causes for the lake depths, which leaves climate change as a
possible reason for the increased water levels. Richard Potts, who
formulated that theory and is director of the Human Origins Program at
the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History, told
Discovery News that he agreed the climate history of East Africa has
been complex, but that more work was needed to prove that
environmental changes in that region were due to broad climate change.
Potts, however, does still believe that environmental changes fueled
human evolution. Environmental variability leads to the expansion,
contraction, and fragmentation of habitat zones," Potts explained.
"This process of habitat change tests the ability of populations to
diverge, experiment in their adaptations, and then meet up again ? at
which time populations of what may have once been the same species
could have become distinct enough to hinder effective reproduction
between members of those populations."

[ NOT SCIENCE ]

http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 Evangelical
Scientists Refute Gravity with New 'Intelligent Falling Theory' KANSAS
CITY, KS?As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public
schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose
Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the
Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that
the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded
to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. Above: Rev. Gabriel
Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because
they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher
intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel
Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and
physics from Oral Roberts University. Burdett added: "Gravity?which is
taught to our children as a law?is founded on great gaps in
understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of
mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said,
'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which
philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is
alluding to a higher power." Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's
leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based
on literal interpretation of the Bible. According to the ECFR paper
published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of
Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are
many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone,
including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into
Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise. The ECFR, in
conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian
conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums
to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they
are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but
only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can
make an informed decision." "We just want the best possible education
for Kansas' kids," Burdett said. Proponents of Intelligent Falling
assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to
explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of
Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are
mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact,
Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in
crisis. "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow
Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead
the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some
gravity making them fall?just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7,
we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly
upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly
upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious
intelligence governs all falling." Critics of Intelligent Falling
point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical
observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however,
insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy
Scripture. "Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make
Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum
world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert
known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been
trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all
their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still
don't know how." "Traditional scientists admit that they cannot
explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the
gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and
'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He
wants.'" Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling
provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear
force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they
tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But
readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one,
unified force is: His name is Jesus."



-- 
"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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 01:30:51 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:30:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Launches Startups for Ships
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05081818305bd492f6@mail.gmail.com>

Wired has an excellent article on NASA's new Innovative Programs
office. The office is (or will be) concerned with purchasing
commercial spaceflight services to the ISS, the Centennial Challenges
program of cash prizes, and various other "nontraditional" approaches
aimed at getting away from the current model of cost-plus contracts:

http://wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68528,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

They've also got some neat photos and video of t/Space's test-drop and
water landing of their full-scale mockup of the CXV space capsule,
which they did with the $6 million in paper-study funding they were
given by NASA. There's some additional related media here:

http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.viewalbum&workid=EE0A866A-F1C1-C18B-7D3CB327BCAF3542&albumid=5FB3254F-0A63-EBC3-06D4D74EED740A08

Back in July at the Return to the Moon conference, the head of the
office, Brant Sponberg, showed a slide giving an overview of potential
activities for the program:

http://www.rocketforge.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=385

Jon Goff of the excellent Selenian Boondocks blog has some comments
about how the office may lead to a rather nasty meme battle at NASA:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2005/08/battle-of-memes.html

Hopefully the Innovative Programs office won't end up being silently killed off.

-- Neil


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 19 01:42:19 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a juxtaposition)
In-Reply-To: <4305314A.8010908@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20050819014219.40142.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Scientists from the
> Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now
> asserting that
> the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and
> they have responded
> to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
> Above: Rev. Gabriel
> Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things
> fall not because
> they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but
> because a higher
> intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
> down," said Gabriel
> Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
> Scripture, and
> physics from Oral Roberts University. 

I think I am going to be sick. Maybe this Burdett
fellow needs to be thrown out of 20 story window
somewhere, so he can rationalize how God is pushing
him down.


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 natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Aug 19 01:52:07 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:52:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
	<20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818204717.04a67b18@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 02:07 PM 8/18/2005, Adrian wrote:
>--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > Bottom line:
> >
> > Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> > alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is
> > watering
> > transhumanism down.
>
>What are the core views of transhumanism?

Improve the human condition I think is a central core viewpoint.

>Are we primarily about
>developing enhancement technologies, and making suitable precautions
>for their detrimental (and beneficial) effects?  Or are we primarily
>about creating the environment in which said development can occur?

I'm not a technician or engineer, so it stands to reason that I would be 
more interested in culture and activism.  I think that equally as necessary 
as inventing and implementing the technologies is designing our future 
through plans and strategies.  Transhumanist have varied skills and talents 
with which to design the tools and the strategies.

>Or something else?  Quite a few who call themselves "transhumanist"
>seem to pay at most lip service to the technological side of things,
>although from my point of view it logically appears that the technology
>underlies *everything* we wish to accomplish, and extensive debate over
>the social side (except for the effects of the technology) can be given
>a certain digit when it gets in the way.

Sometimes, yes, but not always.  It is essential to talk about 
things.  Often the most valuable aspect of getting things to fruition is in 
the conceptual stage.

> > Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> > non-partisian, writing team.
>
>We kind of have one...if the partisan chaff can be separated out of
>this list's content.

I'd like to see it mature and excel.

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/20050818/1bd9cad9/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Aug 19 02:27:35 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:27:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a juxtaposition)
In-Reply-To: <20050819014219.40142.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <4305314A.8010908@mindspring.com>
	<20050819014219.40142.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050818212638.01f001e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>
> > intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
> > down," said Gabriel
> > Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
> > Scripture, and
> > physics from Oral Roberts University.
>
>I think I am going to be sick.

I think I'm going to be sick with laughter.

Well, a chuckle or two.

Very droll indeed.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Aug 19 02:32:34 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:32:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] how not to communicate
In-Reply-To: <20050818163902.75846.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508190233.j7J2X1R13606@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
...
> 
> Actually, a number of conservatives think that Roberts is a stealth
> liberal, possibly of a worse sort than even Souter turned out to be.
> 
> Mike Lorrey

Why can't we ever get a stealth libertarian on the court?  It never
seems to break our way.  {8-[

spike







From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Aug 19 02:35:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:35:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a juxtaposition)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050818212638.01f001e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <4305314A.8010908@mindspring.com>	<20050819014219.40142.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050818212638.01f001e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43054578.8090004@aol.com>

The theory of gravity as represented in GR & SR is in contradiction with 
QM.  The theory is literally falsified, pending a theory of "quantum 
gravity".

QM itself suffers the fatal flaw of not giving, in general, an answer to 
how to choose between the several ways of determining probabilities and, 
as such, is vacuous.

R

PS -gotcha.

Damien Broderick wrote:

>
>>
>> > intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
>> > down," said Gabriel
>> > Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
>> > Scripture, and
>> > physics from Oral Roberts University.
>>
>> I think I am going to be sick.
>
>
> I think I'm going to be sick with laughter.
>
> Well, a chuckle or two.
>
> Very droll indeed.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 19 02:43:17 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] unReal Politick
In-Reply-To: <43050B96.3000702@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050819024317.68209.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

I personally cannot see anything wrong with what you are saying however it's also what you leave out-- not merely what you are saying. You have a profound mistrust of those in government, and that is almost certainly what the founders wanted. But what of those who are in the armed services & in law enforcement? Are they any more trustworthy because they wear uniforms and take oaths? Servicemen are brave, most want to defend the constitution, yet they have ulterior motives. The police; court systems; prison systems; the whole injust 'Justice' system; are rackets, they are not to 'defend the constitution', they are businesses... generally poorly run businesses at that. I mostly accept it, I'm too old to want to be a rabble rouser, the situation wont change much in our lifetimes though perhaps some of you are convinced you will in fact actually live very long lifespans. Maybe you will, unfortunately you might find yourself living in a dystopia.
Mike, you are asking us to mistrust those in government yet suspend our disbelief in those who wear uniforms. I wont do it. I don't trust anyone & advise you to do the same. Everyone has a mixture of positive & negative intentions, this is the starting point, it is the foundation of my soul-- or lack thereof.

>Optimally, I favor demonopolizing the DoD and selling it off to the
>insurance industry, along with FEMA, the FAA, and the DOT, while
>devolving all Reserve and National Guard units to their respective
>state governments, who can all decide what they want to do with their
>own toys. That will happen right after we sell off the national forests
>and parks, kick everyone off welfare, privatize social security,
>medicaid, and medicare, spin off NASA into a corporation and schedule
>an IPO ten years hence, along with a lot of other fun stuff. 
>
>If I can't have my way, we'll have to muddle along and stick to Plan B.
>Don't like it? Too friggin bad, YOU are one of those who refuse to get
>politically involved, remember?
> 
>

Thankfully it's adequate for me to just ensure that people like you 
never get your way.

> 
>
>>You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing 
>>great goods and services and having a great society. Military 
>>deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant. 
>> 
>>
>
>Military deterrence is everything in the world, and the fact that you
>don't get it illustrates why your arguments carry no water.
> 
>

Learn to read, but first stop embarassing the Libertarian party with 
your continued idiotic grandstanding.

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org
_______________________________________________
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/20050818/d19fadfc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Aug 19 03:12:28 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:12:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a juxtaposition)
In-Reply-To: <20050819014219.40142.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508190312.j7J3CMR18613@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: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:42 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Science, Not Science (a
> juxtaposition)
> 
> 
> 
> --- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> > Scientists from the
> > Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now
> > asserting that
> > the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and
> > they have responded
> > to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
> > Above: Rev. Gabriel
> > Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things
> > fall not because
> > they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but
> > because a higher
> > intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
> > down," said Gabriel
> > Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
> > Scripture, and
> > physics from Oral Roberts University.
> 
> I think I am going to be sick. Maybe this Burdett
> fellow needs to be thrown out of 20 story window
> somewhere, so he can rationalize how God is pushing
> him down.
> 
> The Avantguardian...


Aw come now Avant, it was a good gag.  I thought it was
pretty funny actually, a gentle way of subtly ridiculing
the intelligent design crowd.

spike







From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Aug 19 03:26:37 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:26:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818190700.60879.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <EBB19A27-FA04-41A6-B80B-0DB8B3107C87@mac.com>


On Aug 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Bottom line:
>>
>> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
>> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is
>> watering
>> transhumanism down.
>>
>
> What are the core views of transhumanism?  Are we primarily about
> developing enhancement technologies, and making suitable precautions
> for their detrimental (and beneficial) effects?  Or are we primarily
> about creating the environment in which said development can occur?

> Or something else?

I would say, speaking for myself, "something else" or  "both and".    
While I am a techie I find the more difficult questions to be those  
of what kind of world/future we wish to bring into being.  I don't  
believe far-out technology by itself will bring us to a better  
place.  Although certain very optimistic views regarding FAI may at  
last give us a perfectly benevolent,  super-intelligent being to make  
things a lot better.

As far as environment goes I am afraid my position is borne out of a  
rather low opinion of human politics.  Generally humans act political  
so terribly irrationally that about the best I can come up with for  
politically necessary environment is to preserve enough individual  
and private freedom from coercion by the State that the work can  
actually proceed and be made available to those who desire it.   I  
don't believe any political collective will allow much of what I  
would like to see in, for instance, enhancement technologies.   In  
the US look no further than the War Against Some Drugs to understand  
why I have such a low opinion of collective political decision making.


>   Quite a few who call themselves "transhumanist"
> seem to pay at most lip service to the technological side of things,
> although from my point of view it logically appears that the  
> technology
> underlies *everything* we wish to accomplish, and extensive debate  
> over
> the social side (except for the effects of the technology) can be  
> given
> a certain digit when it gets in the way.

I don't think so although I agree in some respects.  If we don't know  
what kind of world we wish to live in then we will likely use the  
technology to  work the current defaults at a higher speed toward  
their outcome.  A lot of our social environment is based on near  
axiomatic understandings that are at least open to question in the  
face of high enough technology.  The technology by itself will not do  
that rethinking for us.   Technology will not answer value questions.

- samantha


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 19 04:15:12 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Launches Startups for Ships
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05081818305bd492f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050819041512.18411.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Neil H." <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hopefully the Innovative Programs office won't end up being silently
> killed off.

At this point they've whipped up enough fervor that it'd be noisily
killed off, if it is to be quickly killed off.

Which is not to say it's not in danger.  Just that we'd be likely to
hear about it if it does get publically axed by Congress.  And that
would set up for public protests that Congress has turned NASA from a
place to get humanity into space, into a pork barrel project.  Even
with all the modern techno-dreams, space was (and to some extent still
is) the big techno-dream of those now hitting AARP age...and that age
bracket votes, heavily.  Congresscritters ain't dumb when it comes to
their own political survival: any of them who might wish to go against
IP and the like has already done this calculus.

The threat is that it'll be held where it is, and starved of resources
to do a quick job until people lose interest.  Problem is, doing more
with less is precisely what it's about, and it does already have its
own budget.

*rereads the above*

...there was a time when I was completely ignorant about how government
funding worked.  Then again, I wonder if I still am, and if the above
is completely off-base?


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 19 04:21:28 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics:  Transhumanist Social System 
In-Reply-To: <20050819002734.65316.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050819042128.19307.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You said it, Adrian. I have tried on several
> occassions to start objective non-partisan threads
> about politics, and 2 posts into it, the partisans are
> already name calling and grand-standing.

*nods*  Many a thread on this list has gone to my Trash folder unread
after being taken over in precisely that manner.

> It may be
> necessary to create an abstract fictional "model
> society" with problems similar to our own as an
> exercise. Then everyone can objectively think of
> solutions to these problems, rather then resorting to
> partisan ad-hominem and such.

Nice idea, but if it's abstract and fictional, couldn't people just
make up whatever facts and data they wanted to satisfy their theories?
For example, in a society with strong democratic traditions but an
increasingly politically active luddite religious movement (which
itself may be a not entirely accurate analog), how would one calculate
the chances of a law being passed to outlaw all research into nanotech
and human-affecting biotech?

> In fact, it would be
> great to find a scientific "model" for economic
> entities that would lend itself readily to
> experimentation without violating human rights.
> Similar to the way that mice are used to "model" human
> physiology without resorting to Josef Mengele type
> human experimentation.  

The lack of such is why social sciences are often seen as "soft",
compared to the "hard" sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics,
mathematics, and their derivatives.


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 05:19:06 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:19:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050819042128.19307.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050819002734.65316.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050819042128.19307.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c70508182219498c1f95@mail.gmail.com>

Suggestion for core value.

Personal Choice.

>From Extropian Principles 3.0
-----------
6. Self-Direction ? Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom,
personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for
others.


Extropians see personal self-direction as a desirable counterpart to
open societies. As culture and technology present us with an
ever-expanding range of choice, self-direction increases in
importance. We decide for ourselves in what ways to change or to stay
the same. ...
-------------------

While not everyone may feel that the whole of the extropian principles
fits into their >H beliefs, Self-Direction or Self-Determination seems
to be a pretty important core value.


While a great deal of Transhumanist dreams center around future tech,
it seems a central tenant is or ought to be Self-Determination, and
the development of the tools and ideals in order to maximize available
options.

Let there be uploading, and longevity, and brain-machine interfaces.
Let there be gene thereapy, and cloning, and concious evolution.
Let there be SI, and Space ships, and dogs as smart as humans.
Let each person choose for themselves what kind life they want to
live, and form the relationships and communities appropriate to their
choice.


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Fri Aug 19 05:26:48 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:26:48 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
Message-ID: <20050819052648.8339.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>"Either I did not just carry out the goal of
>understanding this
>sentence, or I am a weevil"
>
>*poof* instant weevil?


>"If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists."


The reason these two examples are meaningless is that
there is a confusion between languages and
meta-languages.  But for my example I  tried not to
commit this elementary confusion.  

Any way, you're right, I quickly realized that my
example doesn't prove a thing.

But let me throw the question open to everyone on the
extropy list:  

Is there some clever question you could ask a
paper-clip maximizer (an AI with 'making paperclips'
as its highest goal) , which would , as it were,
'catch it out', and prove reductio ad absurdum that in
fact that the notion of a paperclip maximizer as a
general intelligence is absurd?  As Justin says, what
I'm looking for is a statement of the following form:

If you
could devise a sentence which must be true or false,
but a paperclip
maximizer could not decide upon a value, AND that
sentence must be
decided upon for the understanding system to be
considered a general
intelligence, you might have something.

Can anyone think of such a sentence?

---

Please vist my website:
http://www.riemannai.org

Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 05:34:35 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:34:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stalinist Insult Generator
In-Reply-To: <20050818181253.85634.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050818181253.85634.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c705081822343ef8d45c@mail.gmail.com>

Yay,

I am a  "black-hearted hooligan!"  and if you don't watch out I may
just become a scallywag.

On 8/18/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> NK News, which tracks the antics of Kim Jong Il and KCNA, the official
> propaganda organ, offers a free Random Insult Generator for those of
> you seeking stalinist put-downs to maintain your low sense of
> self-worth. The site also features email daily newsbriefs and RSS feed.
> 
> http://www.nk-news.net/extras/insult_generator.php
> 
> Just thought Robbie might need it to feel more at home.... ;)
> 
> 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 for Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From amara at amara.com  Fri Aug 19 06:52:20 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:52:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Shared Futuristic World of Orion's Arm
Message-ID: <p06210201bf2b301f5769@[23.237.66.13]>

me:
>  >  From Boing-Boing, we have what looks like a creative group
>>  effort to imaginatively build the world we want.

James Hughes:
>
>Anders Sandberg was central to Orion's Arm at the beginning, and Mike
>LaTorra contributed a lot of H+ content:
>
>http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/oa_transhumanism_faqs.html#Transhumanism

Anders is here with a couple of stories and artwork, and also listed
in the inspiration part too (yay!)

http://www.orionsarm.com/stories/Angel_of_Doubt.html
http://www.orionsarm.com/stories/The_Passenger.html
http://www.orionsarm.com/gallery/Imhotep.html
http://www.orionsarm.com/gallery/emergence.html

Most of that gorgeous artwork is done by Juan Ochoa.

I'm very impressed, and completely delighted about this discovery.
I'm not a gamer, but something like this could almost convince me
to try. Here are people building what they want, putting their
ideas and inspirations into the mix. Even topics like politics
and religion are handled in a nonaggressive and nonconfrontive
way. I love it.

Take a look here:
Daily Life in the 11th Millenium
http://www.orionsarm.com/daily_life/index.html


About the authors (you will recognize others you know here too)
http://www.orionsarm.com/authors.html#JO

And who inspired them
http://www.orionsarm.com/acknowledgements.html

I strongly encourage people here to take a look.

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/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From amara at amara.com  Fri Aug 19 07:42:16 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:42:16 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wow! The world of worms
Message-ID: <p06210202bf2b36fef37b@[23.237.66.13]>

Last week I was in London for a few days visiting with my parents before
they travelled on to Latvia. One of the cool things we did as tourists
was to visit the London zoo. The London zoo has, among many exhibits
a magnificent insect exhibit. It is housed in a roundish glass building,
inside and outside, walking through the circular corridors you learn
about the large bio-mass to which the insect world contributes on
our planet earth. I did not find a good Web site to describe this
interesting exhibit but, here is the main site:
ttp://www.zsl.org/london-zoo/

While I was looking at worms at the zoo, worms were affecting me
at home. The Internet kind. My spam filter (spambouncer) hung, and
after a debugging effort to learn  what happened, I read that it was
probably due to a worm, causing some unnecessarily large CPU (forking).
I think that this is the  first time that spambouncer has ever been
externally affected by the virus world (and it has caught _all_ of
the viruses).

http://www.spambouncer.org/whatsnew.shtml#20050816

8/16/2005

"Today's SpamBouncer releases are to patch a fairly serious problem in
both the beta and production release. One version of the Mitglieder.EO
worm is causing Procmail hangs in previous versions of SpamBouncer due
to some strange formatting. These hangs eat up a lot of CPU time and
slow email processing significantly. Everyone should update ASAP."

----------

Another news note regarding worms is this: Worm Wars!

from Boing boing:

"Internet worms attack each other to build massive botnets
This week's storm of Windows worms is compounded by the fact that rival
botnet gangs have written worms that attack each other, targetting
one-another's compromised zombies and converting them to part of their
own botnets.

"We seem to have a botwar on our hands," Hypponen said Wednesday. "There
appear to be three different virus-writing gangs turning out new worms
at an alarming rate, as if they were competing to build the biggest
network of infected machines."

The first worm, dubbed Zotob, appeared on Sunday and appeared to have
faded Monday. However, several Zotob offshoots and another new worm,
Bozori, were subsequently unleashed. New versions of pre-existing
threats Rbot, Sdbot, CodBot and IRCBot also began wriggling their way
into computers. Systems at CNN, ABC and The New York Times were hit."
    
Watch out for worm wars
http://news.com.com/Watch+out+for+worm+wars/2100-7349_3-5837147.html
-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"What is important is to spread confusion, not to eliminate it."
   -- Salvador Dal?



From amara at amara.com  Fri Aug 19 09:20:04 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:20:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pasta all fisica
Message-ID: <p0621020bbf2b529d6cce@[23.237.66.13]>

The Aug 11th 2005 Edition of The Economist carries a charming article
about this problem: "Why does spaghetti always break into three or more
pieces?

Materials science
Pasta alla fisica  (premium content)


http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4269826

"IT WAS a problem that baffled the master himself. Richard
Feynman-maverick physics genius, Nobel laureate and father of modern
quantum theory-could not work out why, when a strand of dried spaghetti
is snapped, it almost never breaks in half but instead fragments into
three or more pieces. At dinner with Daniel Hillis, an old friend and
computer scientist, the two became obsessed with this and spent hours
theorising and experimenting. In the end, they left with a kitchen full
of pulverised pasta and no reasonable answer."

The article goes to say that

"The answer was found by Basile Audoly and S?bastien Neukirch of the
University of Paris VI who use something called flexural waves. Each
time part of a bent strand breaks, a series of these waves ripples down
the length of the pasta. The mistake Feynman probably made was to assume
that the strain released when a bent strand breaks allows the two
half-strands to relax and become straight again. Instead, according to
their equations, the passing waves cause parts of the daughter strands
to curve even further. This triggers other breakages which, in turn,
trigger further waves, causing the strand to fragment."
[Read the article for more.]

You can see movies of their experiment here and read papers here:

http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/

Amara  :-)

[her own colored spaghetti :
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/spaghetti/ ]

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Everything you see I owe to spaghetti."  --Sophia Loren, actress


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 19 13:57:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20050819052648.8339.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050819135712.65456.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> If you
> could devise a sentence which must be true or false,
> but a paperclip
> maximizer could not decide upon a value, AND that
> sentence must be
> decided upon for the understanding system to be
> considered a general
> intelligence, you might have something.
> 
> Can anyone think of such a sentence?

Well, yes: "Paperclips suck, but paperclip maximizers are great people."

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 analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 14:53:28 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:53:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
Message-ID: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>

Now that scientists have methods to grow meat without growing a whole
entity[*], re-opening meat eating to a number of vegetarians and
vegans, is it only a matter of time before Ground Chuck is on the
shelves next to Ground Jim?

The same technologies used to grow cruelty-free slabs of tasty
pre-bacon-fied goodness can be used to grow Leg of Lucy or Jeffy
Flakes. Since no human is harmed, it shouldn't be illegal -- although
that doesn't mean it won't be. The yuck factor will likely remain
strong when it comes to Buffalo Bill Wings, and one can readily
imagine plenty of objections from the human dignity crowd.

I pass the buck to you, freethinking boundary-breakers. How long, if
ever, until Mel's Diner has $9.99 Soylent specials? And would you be
bold enough to take a taste, or is it just too gross? If it is, while
non-human meat isn't, what are your thoughts on why?

At risk of sounding creepy, I'll be the first to admit that I'd try
it. Heck, I'd even try some meat grown from my own cell samples;
non-damaging self-cannibalism, now *that* is sounding surreal, perhaps
more appropriate to a David Lunch film. Er, Lynch.

[*] When meat is not murder:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5261870-103531,00.html

-- 
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  Fri Aug 19 14:53:28 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:53:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
Message-ID: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>

Now that scientists have methods to grow meat without growing a whole
entity[*], re-opening meat eating to a number of vegetarians and
vegans, is it only a matter of time before Ground Chuck is on the
shelves next to Ground Jim?

The same technologies used to grow cruelty-free slabs of tasty
pre-bacon-fied goodness can be used to grow Leg of Lucy or Jeffy
Flakes. Since no human is harmed, it shouldn't be illegal -- although
that doesn't mean it won't be. The yuck factor will likely remain
strong when it comes to Buffalo Bill Wings, and one can readily
imagine plenty of objections from the human dignity crowd.

I pass the buck to you, freethinking boundary-breakers. How long, if
ever, until Mel's Diner has $9.99 Soylent specials? And would you be
bold enough to take a taste, or is it just too gross? If it is, while
non-human meat isn't, what are your thoughts on why?

At risk of sounding creepy, I'll be the first to admit that I'd try
it. Heck, I'd even try some meat grown from my own cell samples;
non-damaging self-cannibalism, now *that* is sounding surreal, perhaps
more appropriate to a David Lunch film. Er, Lynch.

[*] When meat is not murder:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5261870-103531,00.html

-- 
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 pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 15:12:26 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:12:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Shared Futuristic World of Orion's Arm
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf2b301f5769@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06210201bf2b301f5769@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205081908122b3df3cd@mail.gmail.com>

This is also interesting, and mentioned on the Orion Arm site site as a 
similar initiative:

Welcome to *The Beckoning
Stars<http://al.frihost.net/sftiki/tiki-index.php?page=Main>
* (tentative working title) a revolutionary new diamond hard (with elements 
of mysticism and philosophy) transhumanist sci fi universe. 

Anyone who wants to is welcome to join and contribute, provided they respect 
the setting. So no
sillytech<http://al.frihost.net/sftiki/tiki-index.php?page=sillytech>,
nothing that contradicts the laws of physics. There will also be the option 
for creative writing, and we can also explore things like collaborative 
fiction. 

You can edit any page by the edit tab, or by double-clicking on it. The 
button bar on the edit menu has various options.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050819/28133185/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 15:17:05 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:17:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20050819135712.65456.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050819052648.8339.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050819135712.65456.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05081908174e7b0cb@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/19/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> --- Marc Geddes wrote:
> >
> > If you
> > could devise a sentence which must be true or false,
> > but a paperclip
> > maximizer could not decide upon a value, AND that
> > sentence must be
> > decided upon for the understanding system to be
> > considered a general
> > intelligence, you might have something.
> >
> > Can anyone think of such a sentence?
> 
> Well, yes: "Paperclips suck, but paperclip maximizers are great people."
> 

Or, alternatively, a sentence can be true in more than one way.

The New Scientist mentioned that Ancient Egyptians mummified animals
as well as humans and nowadays archaeologists do computer-assisted
tomography scans of mummies to investigate the contents.

So you could point at an image and be doubly truthful when you said,
"This is a cat scan". They also raise the query whether sentences
could be true in three different ways.
Over to you. ;)

BillK


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Fri Aug 19 15:45:43 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:45:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Wow! The world of worms
In-Reply-To: <p06210202bf2b36fef37b@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210202bf2b36fef37b@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <S419439AbVHSPpn/20050819154543Z+44305@ams018.ftl.affinity.com>

Amara Graps writes:
> Another news note regarding worms is this: Worm Wars!

It's like Deja Vu all over again. 

Does anybody remember my talk at Extro-5 in 2001 on "The Battle for Your 
Online Identity"?  I described spyware programs which took over people's 
home PC's and battled each other for control of that turf.  I predicted that 
this would get worse in the future. 

This stuff has been going on for a long time between different hacker 
factions.  It is just that most people don't have any real view into 
cyberspace to see what is really going on behind the screen. 

 --
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 




From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Fri Aug 19 16:22:31 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:22:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
References: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008b01c5a4da$33612f00$0100a8c0@kevin>

This brings back memories from a year or so ago when people were laughing me
off the board for suggesting we should be growing meat in slabs instead of
farming it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Medina" <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com>
To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List"
<wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials


> Now that scientists have methods to grow meat without growing a whole
> entity[*], re-opening meat eating to a number of vegetarians and
> vegans, is it only a matter of time before Ground Chuck is on the
> shelves next to Ground Jim?
>
> The same technologies used to grow cruelty-free slabs of tasty
> pre-bacon-fied goodness can be used to grow Leg of Lucy or Jeffy
> Flakes. Since no human is harmed, it shouldn't be illegal -- although
> that doesn't mean it won't be. The yuck factor will likely remain
> strong when it comes to Buffalo Bill Wings, and one can readily
> imagine plenty of objections from the human dignity crowd.
>
> I pass the buck to you, freethinking boundary-breakers. How long, if
> ever, until Mel's Diner has $9.99 Soylent specials? And would you be
> bold enough to take a taste, or is it just too gross? If it is, while
> non-human meat isn't, what are your thoughts on why?
>
> At risk of sounding creepy, I'll be the first to admit that I'd try
> it. Heck, I'd even try some meat grown from my own cell samples;
> non-damaging self-cannibalism, now *that* is sounding surreal, perhaps
> more appropriate to a David Lunch film. Er, Lynch.
>
> [*] When meat is not murder:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5261870-103531,00.html
>
> -- 
> 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
>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Aug 19 16:26:09 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:26:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Wow! The world of worms
Message-ID: <380-22005851916269438@M2W062.mail2web.com>

From:  mail at harveynewstrom.com

Amara Graps writes:
>>Another news note regarding worms is this: Worm Wars!

>It's like Deja Vu all over again. 

>Does anybody remember my talk at Extro-5 in 2001 on "The Battle for Your 
>Online Identity"?  I described spyware programs which took over people's 
>home PC's and battled each other for control of that turf.  I predicted
>that this would get worse in the future. 

>This stuff has been going on for a long time between different hacker 
>factions.  It is just that most people don't have any real view into 
>cyberspace to see what is really going on behind the screen. 

"Privacy Today: The Battle for Your Online Identity"
http://www.extropy.org/events.htm

Other talks on the topic at Extro-5:

  "Authority Without Identity"  Mark Miller
  "Proplets and Smart Contracts" Nick Szabo
  "Fighting for More Privacy: Zero Knowledge Techniques" Tad Hogg
  "Fighting for Less Privacy: The Transparency Option" Lee Daniel Crocker
  "Privacy Tomorrow: The Far Future of Online Identity" Nick Szabo"

I just searched the archives for posts in 200/2001 on the topic of identity
and lost track of time! 

Natasha

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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Aug 19 16:30:08 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:30:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
Message-ID: <380-22005851916308788@M2W078.mail2web.com>


From: kevinfreels.com 

>This brings back memories from a year or so ago when people were laughing
>me off the board for suggesting we should be growing meat in slabs instead
>of farming it.

I would not laugh at your suggestion. I am ardently opposed to farming
cattle for food.

Natasha

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 19 16:52:45 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <008b01c5a4da$33612f00$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050819165245.62879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> This brings back memories from a year or so ago when people were
> laughing me
> off the board for suggesting we should be growing meat in slabs
> instead of
> farming it.

I wasn't.  I've been suggesting that too.


From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Aug 19 16:20:38 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:20:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <20050819165245.62879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050819165245.62879.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <430606D6.8070101@sasktel.net>

There is a smarter way.
Implant each bovine etc with a chip that overrides their nervous system and
use the energy efficiencies of nature but reduce the inefficiencies of 
field and feedlot stresses.

"ROBOCHICKEN" or "COWBORG"

Bioharmaceuticals are now being seen as cheaper to produce in the 
"field" than in the factory.

Ditto with livestock.

Too busy to discuss now but put the question to me in all its details as 
I think of all those here
I can give the ag perspective to the tech proposal.

This is a complex area (in the real world setting) and requires much 
more detailed exchanges.

However I think you might be overlooking the most efficient food source 
insects.
Converting grain to protein via "Beetlebread"  was done years ago at the 
University of Montreal.
Getting anyone to eat the result was a totally different issue.

Insects could  be raised in a factory just fine and perhaps 
bioengineered to produce just about any type
of protein or complex foodstuff.

It looks like the days of ocean scum and insect based foods are a 
logical thing to plan for.

"Pharmer Mo"




From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Aug 19 18:53:15 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:53:15 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <BDBC39D3-3B0B-416E-8C31-A4E48E7BA911@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050818170315.82304.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4304EFFE.3050109@aol.com>
	<BDBC39D3-3B0B-416E-8C31-A4E48E7BA911@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <43062A9B.7030807@aol.com>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
>> I take it you favor enhanced military and corresponding taxation to  
>> fund our status-keeping -whatever the cost-?
>
>
> 1. Yes. Because the alternative is insufficient for my system of  
> propagation and society, which I believe are superior to those  
> available. (take this in the context of my previous response of 1:22  
> pm EST today before blurting out 'racist harlot' or something. tnx!)  
> My daughter's future != burka :. stop Muslim expansionism.


I think the keyword here is "whatever the cost".

It may cost your daughter to fund the stopping of Muslim expansionism - 
is that okay?

It may also cost you many pieces of your freedom, give the police the 
right to search your house because your last name may be Mohammed or 
first name Al.

>
>
>> You know, there IS another way to retain our status, e.g. producing  
>> great goods and services and having a great society.    Military  
>> deterrence, once achieved, is irrelevant.  The "war on terror" is a  
>> bogey, generated mostly to induce fear in our population by  military 
>> domination of other countries for the economic benefit of  a powerful 
>> few people.  Same as it ever was.
>
>
> 2. We can't afford to be a producer, only a consumer and inventor.


That's not so.  For instance, the US remains the best per-acre producer 
of produce.  We're good at producing, we should focus on it.  The more 
we produce, the better our society becomes.

> We  have seen a half dozen or more 'economies' pass through our 
> country  in the past 100 or so years. Agrarian,

Our agrarian economy is not gone.  We produce tonnes and tonnes and 
tonnes of food for the whole world.  It is what keeps the rest of our 
economy alive.  Without our basic ability to produce food, we'd be like 
any other third-world country with people starving on the streets.

> textile,


Having lived in Los Angeles and New York, I can tell you our textile 
industry is also alive and well.

> manufacturing,


Our manufacturing remains strong albeit China, India, Korea and Japan 
are beating us at it today - mostly because they're smart enough to know 
that if you produce great products at a great price people will buy them 
from you and you will prosper.  Americans apparently -used- to know 
this.  Now we think paying others is a good idea.  I don't know how long 
that illusion can last with the Chinese buying up all the US savings 
bonds and soon all the American companies they can..

> and  now (surprise!) service is packing its bags to not just leave the 
> US  citizen (which it by and large has via illegal immigrants)


What the heck are you talking about.  The service-jobs that illegal 
immigrants do for us (maid services, agricultural workers, kitchen 
labor, etc.) CAN'T leave the country, that's why they come HERE to do 
them. 

> but also  physically as well via outsourcing. 


It's a sad fact that our technology work is going out of the country and 
no doubt we'll pay for it in ten years when india and china have better 
technology than we do.  It's a testament to the idiocy of the current 
administration that they don't see this.

> The fact is, we're a pop-economy.  SUVs, NASA mattresses, XBoxen.


No, we remain fundamentally, an agrarian economy.  In order to get food, 
we must grow food.  We're very efficient at growing food, so there's 
lots of leisure time for doing other things like building things, 
selling things, etc.  As many xboxen as you like NEVER add up to a 
McDonald's Hamburger.

>
> And what's wrong with people profiting from the high price of  gasoline?


They use your and my tax money to make it happen.

> That's capitalism in a commodity market. 


That's capitalism in a protectionist oligarchy.  -They- should allow 
people to make as much alcohol as they want at home for personal use or 
for sale without regulating the sale of it.  That would end the fuel 
crisis relatively quickly.

> Some invested  well, others did not.


You live in a fairy-tale world?  I suggest a good read of "Ruling 
America, a History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy"
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/FRARUL.html

> Why the sour grapes? We are commending and  condemning the same 
> system, at the same time.


Who's commending?  Sour grapes?  Well, for one thing, I'm tired of being 
told I'm free but not being -really- free, tired of hearing about 
equality and then seeing the massive difference between the wealthy and 
the poor here at home.  Tired of hearing about "Christian Love" combined 
with shock-and-awe bombing of a major metropolitan area.  Tired of 
hearing about "Democracy" in a oligarchical republic.  That's why.

Robbie Lindauer





From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 19 23:57:28 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the New Microevolution (comedy)
Message-ID: <20050819235728.13861.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

American culture is enough to make one want to emigrate or be a hermit in the woods (or sadistically relish) no wonder so many luddites want to live (or exist) in tofu-ingesting collectives and communes, they don't just want to live a simple life, they want to get away from American culture. What great futurist visionary would have dared to predict the most advanced nation in the world might have chosen a culture of warm snot-covered pigslop topped off with puke sauce, stretching fron Fargo to Key Largo, from Bakersfield to Buffalo? 
I don't know enough about science to opine concerning science education, but when you look at the social sciences in public schools it almost appears as if the 'kiddies' are being taught not to think. What great futurist visionary would have dared to predict the most advanced nation in the world would sponsor an expensive public education system designed to teach children not to think?
Yet microevolution is being demonstrated, witness the evolution from the Big Deal to the Book Deal. The Big Deals come in neat little wavelets, just recently first the Gitmo wavelet; then the Downing Street Memo; Valerie Plame's wavelet: and now the Cindy Sheehan wavelet, Grieving Big Mommy crying on TV. The wavelets crest neatly, lapping up against each other. The next Big Deal comes, the last Big Thing recedes. In previous eras protesters could easily get beaten and/ or sent to jail or even prison, now they get Book Deals and go on Oprah.






		
---------------------------------
 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/20050819/cd96bf43/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Sat Aug 20 01:12:58 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:12:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <380-22005851916308788@M2W078.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22005851916308788@M2W078.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <4306839A.8020200@cox.net>

nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>From: kevinfreels.com 
>
>  
>
>>This brings back memories from a year or so ago when people were laughing
>>me off the board for suggesting we should be growing meat in slabs instead
>>of farming it.
>>    
>>
>
>I would not laugh at your suggestion. I am ardently opposed to farming
>cattle for food.
>
>  
>
Natasha, I agree with you emotionally and philosophically. However, on a 
practical level raising meat cattle has been a part of the only 
cost-effective solar energy economy for centuries. until our technology 
improves, raising cattle will remain economically attractive.

(Definition: a "sundowner" is a cattle farmer who has a full-time 
non-farm job, but still operates a  cattle farm.)

In the US, most cattle are raised on land that is otherwise difficult to 
use for farming. The cows eat solar-collecting grass. The labor costs 
are very low by comparison to other types of farming. a sundowner  can 
generally maintain a herd of about 150 cows, The herd will produce 75 
two-year-old cattle per year, to be sold to feedlots. Capital costs are 
minimal, and marginal land is cheap.

With the right technology, there will be much more efficient ways to 
collect the solar energy that is intercepted by this marginal land. This 
will make cattle farming less attractive. To make the work, the capital 
costs must be low, and the initial entry cost must be low. On the demand 
side, if vat-produced beef can be produced cheaply enough, then  
sundowner cattle farming will cease.

Anticipating your objections:
    Yes, some cattle are raised on prime farmland, even in he US.
    Yes, in some cases the feedlot is inefficient. For the case I am 
describing, the feedlot is used to increase the value of range-fed 
cattle, where the bulk of the meat is the result of the two years on the 
range, not the two months in the feedlot.
    Yes, cows are complex entities that should not be slaughtered, in 
some philosophical sense.

 From my perspective, the most effective way to end the slaughter of 
innocent cows is to find more profitable uses for marginal land, and to 
find a way to produce beef that is cheaper than raising cows.

Vat production will affect different cattle producers differently. I 
think the producers using prime land will drop out first (i.e. at a 
higher price point) than will the sundowners. As the cost of vat 
production goes down, eventually even the sundowners will be unable to 
make a profit.


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Aug 20 01:41:50 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:11:50 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05081918416ed9d2a0@mail.gmail.com>

On 20/08/05, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that scientists have methods to grow meat without growing a whole
> entity[*], re-opening meat eating to a number of vegetarians and
> vegans, is it only a matter of time before Ground Chuck is on the
> shelves next to Ground Jim?
> 
> The same technologies used to grow cruelty-free slabs of tasty
> pre-bacon-fied goodness can be used to grow Leg of Lucy or Jeffy
> Flakes. Since no human is harmed, it shouldn't be illegal -- although
> that doesn't mean it won't be. The yuck factor will likely remain
> strong when it comes to Buffalo Bill Wings, and one can readily
> imagine plenty of objections from the human dignity crowd.
> 
> I pass the buck to you, freethinking boundary-breakers. How long, if
> ever, until Mel's Diner has $9.99 Soylent specials? And would you be
> bold enough to take a taste, or is it just too gross? If it is, while
> non-human meat isn't, what are your thoughts on why?
> 
> At risk of sounding creepy, I'll be the first to admit that I'd try
> it. Heck, I'd even try some meat grown from my own cell samples;
> non-damaging self-cannibalism, now *that* is sounding surreal, perhaps
> more appropriate to a David Lunch film. Er, Lynch.
> 
> [*] When meat is not murder:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5261870-103531,00.html
> 
> --
> 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
> 

I love this idea. One rational objection to it might be that it
weakens a cultural boundary (a taboo) that is better left in place
(against cannibalism). That's not a very strong objection, though,
especially given that the prevalence of vat-grown meat is likely to
give rise over time to an extremely strong taboo against eating meat
that comes from a real creature (anything that can suffer). That is, I
predict we'll see a mainstreaming of vegan ideals when most meat is
ideologically pure. So the taboo against cannibalism is no longer
necessary if there is a wider no-eating-sentients taboo.

So the only remaining rational objection is health. Is it unhealthy to
eat human flesh? Apparently you can get some nasty Prion diseases like
Kuru from eating human flesh:
http://wmaq-tvhealth.ip2m.com/index.cfm?pt=itemDetail&item_id=96805&site_cat_id=1
(mad cow disease is also such a disease it appears). 

But these seem to mostly be related to brain and nervous system
tissue, and also require that a dodgy protein be present in the
original tissue, which is then transmitted by ingestion. This is a
problem in cannibalistic societies because the disease is continually
transmitted (you eat infected flesh, you die, you are eaten), which is
clearly not going to be the case with vat grown meat as there is no
feedback loop.

All that is left is the yuck factor, which has no rational basis but
is nevertheless very real. We have been witnessing the strength it has
as a delaying force, although it does appear to eventually crumble
with no rational support. I guess we will have to wait and see how
strong it is in this case.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Aug 20 03:28:58 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:28:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
References: <5844e22f05081907531f6213d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014e01c5a537$4d21eb20$0d98e03c@homepc>

Jeff Medina wrote:

> Now that scientists have methods to grow meat without growing a whole
> entity[*], re-opening meat eating to a number of vegetarians and
> vegans, is it only a matter of time before Ground Chuck is on the
> shelves next to Ground Jim?

Nah its not *just* a matter of time. Not everything it is possible to do
gets to be realised.  The fabic of human reality isn't infinitely flexible 
in
"meat space".

> The same technologies used to grow cruelty-free slabs of tasty
> pre-bacon-fied goodness can be used to grow Leg of Lucy or Jeffy
> Flakes.

Not exactly the same. A leg is more than a lump of homogenous
meat.

> Since no human is harmed, it shouldn't be illegal -- although
> that doesn't mean it won't be.  The yuck factor will likely remain
> strong when it comes to Buffalo Bill Wings, and one can readily
> imagine plenty of objections from the human dignity crowd.
>
> I pass the buck to you, freethinking boundary-breakers. How long, if
> ever, until Mel's Diner has $9.99 Soylent specials? And would you be
> bold enough to take a taste, or is it just too gross? If it is, while
> non-human meat isn't, what are your thoughts on why?

I'd be a little bit curious but not all that much. I'm not a great
connoisseur of food or flavour anyway, to me, meat is largely just
protein.

> At risk of sounding creepy, I'll be the first to admit that I'd try
> it. Heck, I'd even try some meat grown from my own cell samples;
> non-damaging self-cannibalism, now *that* is sounding surreal, perhaps
> more appropriate to a David Lunch film. Er, Lynch.

The surreal bit to me is not that someone like you (or me) would be
willing to try it, it is that you would get to inhabit a world where it 
would
be likely that you'd get the chance.

Culturing meat from your own cells would have to be a very very high
cost way of getting novel protein. You or I would have to go to a lot
of trouble for what in the end would be a very trivial sort of novel
experience.

What I *do* like is that progress is being made in tissue engineering.

Brett Paatsch













From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Sat Aug 20 05:07:53 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:07:53 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a general
	intelligence
Message-ID: <20050820050753.23248.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>Well, yes: "Paperclips suck, but paperclip
>maximizers are great people."
>
>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

The paperclip maximizer just answers 'False' to the
sentence as a whole.  Doesn't prove anything Mike.



---

Please vist my website:
http://www.riemannai.org

Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From amara at amara.com  Sat Aug 20 06:01:56 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:01:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
Message-ID: <p06210201bf2c77c49628@[23.237.66.13]>

Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net  :

>From my perspective, the most effective way to end the slaughter of
>innocent cows [...]

yes, it would be much better to slaughter _guilty_ cows

:-)

Amara


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 20 15:42:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proof that a paperclip maximizer cannot be a
	general intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20050820050753.23248.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050820154251.33782.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> >Well, yes: "Paperclips suck, but paperclip
> >maximizers are great people."
> >
> >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
> 
> The paperclip maximizer just answers 'False' to the
> sentence as a whole.  Doesn't prove anything Mike.

It would prove that the paperclip maximizer is a self hating paperclip
maximizer. If it is not self hating, it cannot answer the question as false.

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  Sat Aug 20 15:46:47 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <380-22005851916308788@M2W078.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050820154647.37722.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> 
> From: kevinfreels.com 
> 
> >This brings back memories from a year or so ago when people were
> >laughing
> >me off the board for suggesting we should be growing meat in slabs
> >instead of farming it.
> 
> I would not laugh at your suggestion. I am ardently opposed to
> farming cattle for food.

Even dairy farming?

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 jonkc at att.net  Sat Aug 20 17:46:54 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:46:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Strong Transparent Carbon Nanotube Sheets
References: <20050818220706.61174.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006701c5a5af$32081ee0$5aee4d0c@MyComputer>

Interesting article in the August 19 Science:

"Rarely is a processing advance so elegantly simple that rapid
commercialization seems possible, and rarely does such an advance so quickly
enable diverse application demonstrations"

More at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050819131626.htm




From hal at finney.org  Sat Aug 20 19:22:12 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
Message-ID: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org>

Inspired by Robin Hanson's work on Idea Futures, a prominent climatologist
has been searching for global warming skeptics who are willing to put
their money where their mouth is.

James Annan summarizes the history of his bet offer, and the many well-
known skeptics who have wimped out and refused to take the bet, on his
blog at http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html.
Among the names who have refused: Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Chip
Knappenburger, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and Sherwood Idso.
These people had all offered predictions that global warming would
turn to cooling, and some had even suggested they would bet on it, but
they refused or demanded outlandish odds in their favor when offered an
actual bet.

Annan did create a claim on the play-money Foresight Exchange site at
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=GW2030.  Current betting
odds correspond to a prediction of a 0.24 degree C rise per decade from
2000-2030, in line with the standard scientific consensus.

Finally Annan has succeeded in finding a pair of skeptics who will
take the bet, Russian physicists who attribute recent global warming to
solar activity.  Based on the sunspot cycle they predict that we will
soon begin a cooling trend.

If anyone here still disbelieves in global warming (Mike?), some of the
links from Annan's page above point to other believers in the consensus
estimate who are willing to offer various bets in its favor.

It's great to see Robin's ideas coming into wider public acceptance as
a way to help resolve this controversial issue.  One of the commentators
suggested that an even better solution would simply be an index futures
market based on global temperatures.  This would be an aid to various
businesses which might be impacted by temperature change; they could
hedge their economic exposure by taking positions in the market, while
speculators could hope to profit by guessing right about future trends.
Then, the general public would benefit by seeing an objective market
estimate of future temperatures where participants would have an
incentive to bet as accurately as possible, independently of political
considerations.

A recent article on the bet is here,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html.  Below is
a summary of the new bet from Nature,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/full/436897a.html.

Hal

===


:  Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down
:  By Jim Giles
:
:  Solar physicists make $10,000 wager with climate modeller.
:
:  A British climate modeller has finally persuaded global-warming sceptics to wager money on their contrarian
:  predictions about climate change.
:
:  James Annan, who is based at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, has agreed a
:  US$10,000 bet with Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, two solar physicists who argue that global temperatures
:  are driven by changes in the Sun's activity and will fall over the next decade. The bet, which both sides say they
:  are willing to formalize in a legal document, came after other climate sceptics refused to wager money.
:
:  Annan began his quest last winter after hearing Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of
:  Technology who questions the extent to which human activities are influencing climate, say he was willing to bet
:  that global temperatures will drop over the next 20 years. "A pay-off at retirement age would be a nice top-up to my
:  pension," says Annan.
:
:  But no wager was ever agreed. Annan says that Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 against falling temperatures: this
:  meant that Annan would pay out $10,000 if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose. In total, Annan
:  says he tried and failed to agree terms with seven sceptics.
:
:  Other potential climate gamblers have drawn a blank with their attempts to enter similar bets with climate-change
:  sceptics. In May, environmental activist George Monbiot challenged climate sceptic Myron Ebell to a ?5,000
:  (US$9,000) wager live on BBC radio. Ebell, a global-warming specialist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a
:  think-tank in Washington DC, declined, saying he has four children to put through university and so does not "want
:  to take risks".
:
:  But Annan's search ended with Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, who are based at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics
:  in Irkutsk, Russia. They say that global surface air temperatures closely correlate with the size and number of
:  sunspots. Sunspot levels follow regular patterns and the Sun is expected to be in a less active phase over the next
:  few decades, leading Mashnich and Bashkirtsev to predict a drop in temperature.
:
:  Both sides have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature between 1998 and 2003 with that between
:  2012 and 2017, as defined by the records of the US National Climatic Data Center. If the temperature drops, Annan
:  will pay Mashnich and Bashkirtsev $10,000 in 2018, with the same sum going the other way if the temperature rises.
:
:  Piers Corbyn, head of Weather Action, a private meteorological service based in London, told Nature he would like to
:  enter into a similar bet. Corbyn's theory, the details of which he has not revealed, predicts that changes in solar
:  activity will cause "considerable world cooling" by 2040. Annan challenged him to a bet in May, but Corbyn says he
:  did not receive the e-mail. "I'm happy to bet loads of money," he says.


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Aug 20 20:18:48 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:18:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Question about divorce stats
Message-ID: <43079028.6060302@mindspring.com>

--- Anton Mates wrote:

> Counting only people whose marital history I know completely, about a 
> third of the marriages I know ended in divorce.  However, most of said 
> people are in their thirties or younger, upper-middle class and from 
> the SF area, so that's probably skewed low.

My experience must be totally abnormal, then.  I look
at my neighborhood, about fifty families of varied
background, ethnicity, and even orientation; all are,
however, comfortable middle-class types.  Most moved
into the houses new, 20-25 years ago, and are between
45 and 65. there are a few younger, and a few older.
Almost all are college grads, a good percentage have
advanced academic or professional degrees. Almost all
have or have had both spouses working, and almost all
have or have had children.

We all know each other better than we want to.

Two of the families were second marriages when they
moved in.  Since that time, three more have divorced
(two have lost spouses to death).  One of the divorced
people has remarried (one of the widowed ones has).

And that's all. Everybody else--not counting the ones
who have moved away and lost touch--not many--is still
married to the same person he/she started out with.
Nobody has been divorced more than once.

That's a 10% lifetime rate for that population as I
see it.

Families.  In my husband's family, counting to the
cousin level, there has been one divorce.  In mine,
there has never been even one (there was an aunt that
nobody ever would talk about, and I don't know
anything about her, except that *she would order beer
in restaurants in front of everybody*).

Suddenly, I feel as if I'm living in a dream world,
isolated from harsh reality.  Wow.

Eleanor 



-- 
"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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 20 20:30:15 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
Message-ID: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy Sobbing On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in the show-- it was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush do this to my son Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey Sheehan". 
In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a few of his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then goes on a platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd: "You're playing their game by marching, people have been marching for thousands of years and still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And what are you saying when you yell out loud for peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I was just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity grieving mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!' 





		
---------------------------------
 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/20050820/a3b7b545/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 20 22:28:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Question about divorce stats
In-Reply-To: <43079028.6060302@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20050820222849.85610.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:

> --- Anton Mates wrote:
> 
> > Counting only people whose marital history I know completely, about
> a 
> > third of the marriages I know ended in divorce.  However, most of
> said 
> > people are in their thirties or younger, upper-middle class and
> from 
> > the SF area, so that's probably skewed low.
> 
> That's a 10% lifetime rate for my population as I
> see it.

There is definitely a family thing to it. Counting marriages in my
family (grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, siblings and cousins,
there is also a 10% divorce rate in my family as well). Only three of
nine family members of my generation have gotten married, one twice (we
are all in our 30's by now), and my generation has the only divorce in
the family. 

The divorce rate among people I know I'd say is much closer to the
national average.

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  Sat Aug 20 23:12:40 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the SPP (comedy)
Message-ID: <20050820231240.51674.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>

The uniform of choice is Birkenstocks & T-shirts. And signboards: "US OUT OF IRAQ"; "Down With The War"; "Stop Globalization"; "Protect Family Farms, Oppose Big Agribusiness"; "No More Food!".  
Onward environmentalist peace activists, marching as to war, with a pair of Birkenstocks marching on before. These rallies have been episodic for forty years, they have become hypostasized, enough to set your watch by, "the protest is at 2.00, right after lunch". When modern protests first began they were exciting, edgy, enough to make the blood of policemen boil sometimes, now the cops just reach for a donut, wave & smile at the protesters. Cop: "Hi Abbie, hi Jerry, how are the wives?". And now we see Cindy Sheehan is the wave of the future
-- the Single Person Protest member. 
The only clubbing the Single Protester risks is a microphone accidentally bouncing off her skull while she is being interviewed by a half dozen networks. During & after WWII Audie Murphy was celebrated for being a war hero, but times have changed. Now Cindy Sheehan is celebrated for being the MOMMY of a war hero; headline in the paper, 'Grieving Angry Mama Whines On TV'. By the look on her face you might expect her to think Bush ought to have exited his ranch, marched up to her and pinned a medal on her breast. And after all the insults Sheehan dumped on Bush, she expects Bush to schedule an audience with her so she can ask him why he killed her son? If you insult someone you consider to be Idi Amin, do you think Amin is going to invite you for dinner? 
No wonder Casey Sheehan volunteered for the Service. He wanted to get away from a certain somebody in his life.





















		
---------------------------------
 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/20050820/22740744/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Sun Aug 21 00:14:05 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:14:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf2c77c49628@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210201bf2c77c49628@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <4307C74D.3000706@cox.net>

Amara Graps wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net  :
>
>> From my perspective, the most effective way to end the slaughter of
>> innocent cows [...]
>
> yes, it would be much better to slaughter _guilty_ cows
>
> :-)

Don't get me started. Cows with attitude are the first to go, let me 
assure you.
Of course, steers have every reason to have an attitude, they just no 
longer have
all the equipment.

As a transhumanist, I'm opposed to killing innocent mammals, because it 
sets a bad
precedent. If an SI decides to eliminate humans based on economic 
utility, Humans
have already created ample precedent.

We might be slighty ore justified isn killing "guilty" mammals: those 
that in our considered
opinion are causing more harm than good.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 00:23:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821002355.70191.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Worse yet, she complains she wants her meeting with Bush. Well, she had
her meeting with Bush months ago after Casey died. The problem was, she
wanted a special meeting with Bush, separate from the rest of her
family, because she is a radical leftist friend of Michael Moore, not
some average American mom like the media is making out. She has said
she looks on radical stalinist (and convicted terrorist coconspirator)
lawyer Lynn Stewart as her personal "Atticus Finch" (the lawyer in "To
Kill A Mockingbird". She is tromping on the grave of her son for
personal political gain. Shame on her. 

Her cohorts are putting up crosses for every soldier killed in Iraq,
and ignoring the requests of thousands of relatives of said dead
soldiers to not include their family members name in their pathetic
publicity stunt. Where is the shame?

She also repeats the false claim put out by Michael Moore that no
politicians kids are serving in the military or in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There are in fact 20-30 children of congressmen on active duty in the
gulf or in afghanistan, 20 times higher rate than the general
population. She is a liar as well as a shameless propagandizer of the
radical left.

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an
> exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy
> Sobbing On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in
> the show-- it was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush
> do this to my son Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey
> Sheehan". 
> In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a
> few of his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then
> goes on a platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd:
> "You're playing their game by marching, people have been marching for
> thousands of years and still there is war", says kesey to audience,
> "And what are you saying when you yell out loud for peace? You are
> saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
> Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I
> was just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity
> grieving mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
>  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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 00:33:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
In-Reply-To: <4307C74D.3000706@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050821003307.81998.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Amara Graps wrote:
> 
> > Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.net  :
> >
> >> From my perspective, the most effective way to end the slaughter
> of
> >> innocent cows [...]
> >
> > yes, it would be much better to slaughter _guilty_ cows
> >
> > :-)
> 
> Don't get me started. Cows with attitude are the first to go, let me 
> assure you. Of course, steers have every reason to have an attitude,
> they just no longer have all the equipment.
> 
> As a transhumanist, I'm opposed to killing innocent mammals, because
> it sets a bad precedent. If an SI decides to eliminate humans based
> on economic utility, Humans have already created ample precedent.
> 
> We might be slighty [m]ore justified in killing "guilty" mammals:
> those that in our considered opinion are causing more harm than good.

Firstly, transhumanism has nothing to do with animal rights, so stop
injecting sentiments that don't belong. When you upgrade a cows brain
so that it can beat me at chess, play a musical instrument with its
farts, and moo out answers to algebraic equations, I will agree to not
eating that particular cow. If an SI can't tell the difference between
us and a cow, it certainly is not as intelligent as some might think.

As it is, a cow has just enough brain cells to function as an organism
one step short of being a hunk of meat in a vat. They are very dumb
beasts and have been evolved that way.

Cows are also the most efficiently evolved ruminants in natural
history. They turn more of their intake resources into useful products
in less time than any other animal its size.

Oh, and btw: when I get my skin gengeneered to generate nutrients from
sunlight, you evil plant eating humans will be the first to go... ;)

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 21 01:11:44 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:11:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821002355.70191.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821002355.70191.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4F1C592A-0C21-4309-84A2-53DCE94DFEC3@mac.com>

Shame on you.  That some mother of one of the soldiers whose live was  
wasted in this pointless atrocity of a war would actually do this is  
great in my book.  It served to make it a lot more real to a lot of  
Americans.  Your endless apologetics for this administration and its  
actions and attacks on anyone and everything that cries foul are very  
tiresome.  So shame on you.

I think it is time I stopped reading your biased rants for a while.   
Again.

- samantha

On Aug 20, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Worse yet, she complains she wants her meeting with Bush. Well, she  
> had
> her meeting with Bush months ago after Casey died. The problem was,  
> she
> wanted a special meeting with Bush, separate from the rest of her
> family, because she is a radical leftist friend of Michael Moore, not
> some average American mom like the media is making out. She has said
> she looks on radical stalinist (and convicted terrorist coconspirator)
> lawyer Lynn Stewart as her personal "Atticus Finch" (the lawyer in "To
> Kill A Mockingbird". She is tromping on the grave of her son for
> personal political gain. Shame on her.
>
> Her cohorts are putting up crosses for every soldier killed in Iraq,
> and ignoring the requests of thousands of relatives of said dead
> soldiers to not include their family members name in their pathetic
> publicity stunt. Where is the shame?
>
> She also repeats the false claim put out by Michael Moore that no
> politicians kids are serving in the military or in Iraq or  
> Afghanistan.
> There are in fact 20-30 children of congressmen on active duty in the
> gulf or in afghanistan, 20 times higher rate than the general
> population. She is a liar as well as a shameless propagandizer of the
> radical left.
>
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an
>> exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy
>> Sobbing On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in
>> the show-- it was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush
>> do this to my son Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey
>> Sheehan".
>> In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a
>> few of his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then
>> goes on a platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd:
>> "You're playing their game by marching, people have been marching for
>> thousands of years and still there is war", says kesey to audience,
>> "And what are you saying when you yell out loud for peace? You are
>> saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
>> Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I
>> was just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity
>> grieving mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 01:20:30 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	(POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821012030.13961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken
> Kesey leads a few of his friends to an antiwar
> protest preceding a march and then goes on a
> platform to the microphone in front of a large
> crowd: "You're playing their game by marching,
> people have been marching for thousands of years and
> still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And
> what are you saying when you yell out loud for
> peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".


I have a question to put to those extropes that were
alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
this country while much bigger record setting protests
on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
ineffectual. How could the concerns of tens of
millions of angry protestors make no impact at all on
the PTB? Was it a matter of technique? Were the
protestors supposed to be more disruptive and incite
the riot police to action by setting fores and what
not? Was the lack of sufficent martyrs to the cause
like Martin Luther King Jr.?

Or is it that the system has changed sufficiently that
it no longer has any reason to respect the collective
will of millions against the collective non-will of
the indifferent uncaring majority. Are we entering an
era when a handful of lobbyists or terrorists have
more power to persuade than the combined and
collective will of millions of peaceful protestors or
tens of millions of voters?


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 natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Aug 21 01:56:23 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:56:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050820205433.02b71580@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


What does this post have to do with extropy or transhumanism?  If anything, 
I think this post is in bad taste.

My my personal view.

Natasha

At 03:30 PM 8/20/2005, you wrote:
>The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an 
>exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy Sobbing 
>On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in the show-- it 
>was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush do this to my son 
>Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey Sheehan".
>In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a few of 
>his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then goes on a 
>platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd: "You're playing 
>their game by marching, people have been marching for thousands of years 
>and still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And what are you saying 
>when you yell out loud for peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
>Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I was 
>just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity grieving 
>mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!'
>
>
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>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

<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/20050820/5f987c3f/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 02:02:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821012030.13961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821020206.47224.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken
> > Kesey leads a few of his friends to an antiwar
> > protest preceding a march and then goes on a
> > platform to the microphone in front of a large
> > crowd: "You're playing their game by marching,
> > people have been marching for thousands of years and
> > still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And
> > what are you saying when you yell out loud for
> > peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
> 
> 
> I have a question to put to those extropes that were
> alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
> What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
> civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> this country while much bigger record setting protests
> on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> ineffectual. 

Because there isn't as much money being funnelled in from the
non-existent eastern bloc countries, and Saddams credit ran out. The
Iraqi insurgency is accurately being shown to the american people as a
disaffected minority of former baathists in cahoots with islamist
fanatics. Being as the agenda of both groups is obviously not liberal,
only the hardcore stalinist nutters, other pathologically oppositionist
mentalities and the easily duped think that the Iraqi people are
against us.

In Vietnam, it was easy to portray the poor vietnamese people as
victims of imperialist US oppression, they are petite and attractive
people, neat, and pacifist in their buddhist tradition, or so the media
found it easy to portray. Decades of islamic terrorism, bombings,
hijackings, etc have generated an implicit dislike of angry arabs in
the American landscape. The media has an uphill battle in overcoming
the ingrained first impressions that Americans have of angry arabs. As
far as Americans are concerned, an angry arab is even more dislikable
than a rude Frenchman.

The Palestinians were making PR headway when they were getting their 12
year olds killed by Israeli troops for throwing rocks and molotovs. Its
the 'panda reflex' of the irrational voter, showing pity for the cute
and fuzzy in pain, and it works for the same reason that nobody donates
money to the Sierra Club to save the dung beetle and lots of people
give money to Save The Children every time they stick a starving baby
in front of the camera...

The anger of arabs makes them their own worst enemy.

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  Sun Aug 21 02:10:50 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:10:50 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
References: <20050821012030.13961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01db01c5a5f5$8d2fae50$0d98e03c@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> I have a question to put to those extropes that were
> alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
> What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
> civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> this country while much bigger record setting protests
> on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> ineffectual.

Politicians are better at counting votes and working at
wedges in modern times than they were in the 1960's.

If you know that a million marching people are not the
right million (because your watching the polls which you
have confidence in and your database of demographics 
which you have confidence in) and that you can split
them with appeals to various different interests you can
treat it as just so much temporary noise and the bleating of
cattle, and like a very manageable problem.

In short, the technology of databases and polling favours
politicians who care enough to use it more than citizens
that on average don't care enough. 

This sort of tech wasn't available in the 1960's so it seemed
a lot more dangerous to politicians to disregard sentiments
that could not be so confidently quantified, divided and 
conquered.

For most party political critters the party machines provide
them with the stats that matter and the real contest is not
for the voters but for influence within their party. 

That's it in a nutshell, I think.

But I wasn't really there in the 1960's, I wasn't born until
1966. 

Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Aug 21 02:18:53 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:18:53 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
References: <20050820203015.53727.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050820205433.02b71580@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01ea01c5a5f6$ad39c770$0d98e03c@homepc>

I agree. The last post from Al Brooks on Microevolution didn't seem to be much about microevolution either.  I was actually interested to see what he'd say about microevolution. 

Please don't just barf in the list Al, its boring. Two of your recent posts have read like "blah, blah. phglem, Cindy Sheehan, blah, blah, puke Valerie Flame". 

Seems like in your desired to deride what you obviously find distasteful you have neglected to actually say anything at all. Please stop just barfing in the list.

Brett Paatsch

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)



  What does this post have to do with extropy or transhumanism?  If anything, I think this post is in bad taste.

  My my personal view.

  Natasha

  At 03:30 PM 8/20/2005, you wrote:

    The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy Sobbing On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in the show-- it was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush do this to my son Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey Sheehan". 
    In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a few of his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then goes on a platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd: "You're playing their game by marching, people have been marching for thousands of years and still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And what are you saying when you yell out loud for peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
    Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I was just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity grieving mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!' 


    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

    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/20050821/2fb07ac6/attachment.html>

From riel at surriel.com  Sun Aug 21 03:29:33 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <20050817133307.95101.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050817133307.95101.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508202325580.18770@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Nope. The 2030-2050 population crash will cause a corresponding crash
> in real estate prices.

I'm not convinced.  Household sizes are still shrinking and
house sizes are still growing.  Unless there is a transportation
(commuting) breakthrough, there will continue to be a large
demand for real estate near large economic centers.

Well, unless the population crash is accompanied by an
economic crash of course - but if that happens real estate
may well end up losing less than other investments...

> Government in the US owns about 40% of the land here (not sure of stats
> in other nations, though Canada seems significantly higher). Private
> land trusts and corps own another 30%.

Most of that land is in the middle of nowhere though, and
consequently not in high demand.

-- 
"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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug 21 04:43:25 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:43:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821020206.47224.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821020206.47224.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A855BB3A-FC8D-4937-8CA7-1959D04BFA81@mac.com>


On Aug 20, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken
>>
>>> Kesey leads a few of his friends to an antiwar
>>> protest preceding a march and then goes on a
>>> platform to the microphone in front of a large
>>> crowd: "You're playing their game by marching,
>>> people have been marching for thousands of years and
>>> still there is war", says kesey to audience, "And
>>> what are you saying when you yell out loud for
>>> peace? You are saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question to put to those extropes that were
>> alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
>> What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
>> civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
>> this country while much bigger record setting protests
>> on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
>> ineffectual.
>>
>
> Because there isn't as much money being funnelled in from the
> non-existent eastern bloc countries, and Saddams credit ran out. The
> Iraqi insurgency is accurately being shown to the american people as a
> disaffected minority of former baathists in cahoots with islamist
> fanatics. Being as the agenda of both groups is obviously not liberal,
> only the hardcore stalinist nutters, other pathologically  
> oppositionist
> mentalities and the easily duped think that the Iraqi people are
> against us.
>

This is beyond any remotely civilized or rational discourse.  Later  
dude.  Good luck finding some sanity or better meds.

- s



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 05:43:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508202325580.18770@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20050821054321.4559.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Nope. The 2030-2050 population crash will cause a corresponding
> crash
> > in real estate prices.
> 
> I'm not convinced.  Household sizes are still shrinking and
> house sizes are still growing.  Unless there is a transportation
> (commuting) breakthrough, there will continue to be a large
> demand for real estate near large economic centers.
> 
> Well, unless the population crash is accompanied by an
> economic crash of course - but if that happens real estate
> may well end up losing less than other investments...

Expect it. Social Security, medicare, medicaid: all bankrupt and
imposing crushing tax burdens totalling 70%+ of average americans
income. The only saving grace will be the baby boomers dying off,
paying massive death taxes, and leaving the younger generation quite
wealthy, personally as well as through control of non-profit
organizations. It will, however, only be SOME of the younger generation
getting their hands on that wealth.

1/3rd-1/4th of the US population is scheduled to die between 2015 and
2035, and most of them will not accept life extension or cryonic
suspension. If we have any real biodisasters, that fraction could be
higher. A good avian flu could kill half the population alone.

> 
> > Government in the US owns about 40% of the land here (not sure of
> stats
> > in other nations, though Canada seems significantly higher).
> Private
> > land trusts and corps own another 30%.
> 
> Most of that land is in the middle of nowhere though, and
> consequently not in high demand.

Actually, a lot of it is very valuable land, with a lot of highly
valuable resources, IF it were available for exploitation. Its in the
middle of nowhere because development there has been restricted. All of
north america was once the middle of nowhere.

Granted, much is in the western US which has severe water problems
right now. That is a technology issue, but also a government issue.
Most western states, the state controls the water, very highly
regulated. Deregulate it and see the west flourish.

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 deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sun Aug 21 15:52:58 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <20050821054321.4559.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821054321.4559.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4308A35A.10908@optusnet.com.au>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> <snip>
>
>1/3rd-1/4th of the US population is scheduled to die between 2015 and
>2035, and most of them will not accept life extension or cryonic
>suspension. 
>  
>
As far as cryonics go, you are almost certainly right that it will not 
be widely
accepted, but I think that if effective anti-aging treatments were 
demonstrated
their use would be extremely widespread, very rapidly.

Vast amounts of money are already spent on just looking younger, the demand
to actually be younger would be huge.

I think that the current attitude of "Oh, I wouldn't use it, it's 
unethical/sinful/
selfish/etc." is prevalent only because of memes presented that way in the
media, and that while the tech  is not available, there is no cost to 
claiming to
be a "moral" person.
So that leaves the question of what progress in anti-aging will be made 
in the
next 10 to 30 years?
My guess is 10 years - not much, 30 years - a lot.   That could impact 
significantly
on your schedule.

-David T.





From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 08:44:26 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821020206.47224.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821084427.24071.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I have a question to put to those extropes that
> were
> > alive during the Civil Rights movements of the
> 60's.
> > What happened to the power of protest? Why were
> the
> > civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> > this country while much bigger record setting
> protests
> > on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> > ineffectual. 
> 
> Because there isn't as much money being funnelled in
> from the
> non-existent eastern bloc countries, and Saddams
> credit ran out. The
> Iraqi insurgency is accurately being shown to the
> american people as a
> disaffected minority of former baathists in cahoots
> with islamist
> fanatics. Being as the agenda of both groups is
> obviously not liberal,
> only the hardcore stalinist nutters, other
> pathologically oppositionist
> mentalities and the easily duped think that the
> Iraqi people are
> against us.

Mike, this does not answer my question. Unless your
answer is that the U.S. Government only listens to
protests that are funded by communist countries. And
THAT would seem oxymoronic.

> 
> In Vietnam, it was easy to portray the poor
> vietnamese people as
> victims of imperialist US oppression, they are
> petite and attractive
> people, neat, and pacifist in their buddhist
> tradition, or so the media
> found it easy to portray. Decades of islamic
> terrorism, bombings,
> hijackings, etc have generated an implicit dislike
> of angry arabs in
> the American landscape. The media has an uphill
> battle in overcoming
> the ingrained first impressions that Americans have
> of angry arabs. As
> far as Americans are concerned, an angry arab is
> even more dislikable
> than a rude Frenchman.

Okay. So now you are saying that the government didn't
listen to protestors this time around because arabs
are not as "cute and fuzzy" as vietcong?

The answers you are giving me are not very informative
in regards to any general trends regarding the overall
utility of non-violent protest. Instead I seem to be
tripping some sort of pro-Bush propaganda circuit
specific to the current administration that is nearly
irrelevant to the question at hand. Please give me a
considered answer and not some canned anti-marxist
diatribe. I know you can do it... pretend that you are
an anthropologist from another planet if you have to.  

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  Sun Aug 21 08:53:44 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <01db01c5a5f5$8d2fae50$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050821085344.7801.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> In short, the technology of databases and polling
> favours
> politicians who care enough to use it more than
> citizens
> that on average don't care enough. 
> 
> This sort of tech wasn't available in the 1960's so
> it seemed
> a lot more dangerous to politicians to disregard
> sentiments
> that could not be so confidently quantified, divided
> and 
> conquered.
> 
> For most party political critters the party machines
> provide
> them with the stats that matter and the real contest
> is not
> for the voters but for influence within their party.

I think you are right, Brett. Thank you for actually
answering my question and not regurgitating partisan
propaganda.
  

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 amara at amara.com  Sun Aug 21 13:24:27 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:24:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Museum exhibit allows visitors to get under the skin
Message-ID: <p06210200bf2e30705181@[23.237.66.13]>


These kinds of exhibits will help with handling the yuck factor.

Amara

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/arts/design/20bodi.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1124629988-7hXXmc6sFi1sFqeX0rOv6w


August 20, 2005
Florida Museumgoers Line Up to See Corpses
By ABBY WEINGARTEN,
New York Times Regional Newspapers

TAMPA, Fla., Aug. 19 - There are skinless cadavers sliced in two,
tarred human lungs in glass cases, dehydrated brains you can
touch. One corpse is posed as a soccer player, balancing on one
foot and exposing the complex connection of bones, tendons and
muscles.

Shrugging off recommendations from a state medical board and the
Florida attorney general, this city's Museum of Science and
Industry opened this educational exhibition of human corpses and
body parts on Thursday, two days earlier than planned. By the
second day, the show, "Bodies: The Exhibition," had drawn about
3,600 visitors.

"Our main reason for opening early was that we've been inundated
with calls and e-mails," said Candace Street, a museum
spokeswoman. But given the opposition of state officials, it was
clear that the museum wanted to admit as many visitors as quickly
as possible - ticket price, $19.95 - in case Florida authorities
moved to close the exhibition.

[read the article for more]
-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Why, you could wake up tomorrow and be dead!"  ---Homer Simpson


From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Aug 21 12:44:26 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:44:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] From soy & lentils to Soylent specials
Message-ID: <4308772A.7050005@sasktel.net>

Where I live the cost of energy to operate sandy loam soil land in an 
environment where water limits production to
about 800-2000 pounds of grains per year is pushing the conversion of 
much land into low energy in hay and livestock
use the difference between alternative uses is climate, specificaly 
water availability and instability of climate.

Melting the polar caps, controlling the variations in and extremes of 
temp and rainfall would be the first steps to
changing the land uses.

With that bioengineered life with high productivity and short life 
cycles might be used to replace large long life cycle
cows , pigs, chickens etc.

One small thing about using "soylent" food sourced  biology should never 
be forgotten.

The feeding of same species biomass back to same species.... rendered 
cows and chickens back to cows and chickens
showed its risks with the emergence of BSE in cattle.   So using human 
biochemistry in food production technology
, while creating biocompatible proteins  runs the risks of making for an 
environment where the viruses, bacteria etc
which could develop to ravage these protein factories could run rampant 
in humans because of the bio-similarity
of the human host.

The species barrier is a good thing in food production from a bio-hazard 
standpoint.





From etcs.ret at verizon.net  Sun Aug 21 14:53:41 2005
From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:53:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick
In-Reply-To: <200508190022.j7J0MbR31574@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508190022.j7J0MbR31574@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <lu4hg1p42quqnpuq8bb0he4ql2ebkt2lni@4ax.com>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:22:37 -0600, 
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 23, Issue 34
Robert Lindauer  wrote:

>
>[ ... ]  it's adequate for me to just ensure that people like you 
>never get your way.
>
>
And therein lies the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Observe
that the emphasis is on the people, not on their policies.


stencil sends


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Aug 21 16:14:18 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:14:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Skeptic) Intellectual history
Message-ID: <4308A85A.3000007@mindspring.com>

I have been reading Dawkins's Ancestor's Tale (although I think the

title should have been in the plural). It is not often that I read a 
popular science book that really stretches my mind; this is one of 
the rare ones. Dawkins's account of plate tectonics (I haven't read 
further than this, not yet) caused me to consider the intellectual 
history through which I have lived (and even, to some extent, taken part).

When I first read about cosmology, in the popular science works of 
Sir James Jeans, the age of the Sun was assumed to be much less than 
we now conclude, because its source of energy was not understood. 
Hans Bethe had just published his conclusion that the Sun was powered 
by hydrogen fusion, but that had not reached beyond physicists to the 
public. I remember reading science-fiction stories and speculations 
about fission energy (before secrecy shut them down), and then, after 
the first use of the nuclear fission bomb, the rest of the story, and 
about Bethe's fusion theory also. I remember reading the first 
popular accounts of Crick's and Watson's discovery of the structure 
of DNA. I remember reading the first popular accounts of the 
acceptance, about 1960, of Wegener's 1912 theory of continental 
drift, now plate tectonics. I was active in the change from vacuum 
tubes to semi-conductors (when a four-transistor integrated package 
was a big deal). I did my part in working out the application of game 
theory and statistics to industrial processes and business decisions. 
I also did my part in working out the early application of the 
computational methods made practical by semiconductors to industrial 
processes.

I have crossed seas and oceans by steamship, and continents behind 
steam locomotives, on journeys that I now make by air (although I 
first flew, from Corsica to Marseilles, in 1930). I used slide rules, 
now saved as curiosities, for tasks that I now do by hand-held 
calculator. Way back when, I stumbled through a high-school course in 
mechanical typewriting, and, later, carefully chose pens and ink with 
which to write (now existing, unused, in a drawer of my desk, more 
curiosities), preferring them to the typewriter. With poor 
typewriting skills and bad handwriting, I jumped aboard the text 
processing revolution as soon as it started, a transformation 
evidenced by this message. My composition started with pen and ink, 
greatly benefited from the easy editing provided by text processing, 
and now I have produced the complete content of books, words, 
indexes, illustrations, leaving to the industry only the mechanical 
work of printing from my files and binding the printed result.

I have probably benefited from the progress in the life sciences and 
medicine, although there have been technical mishaps as well.

All in all, an enormous amount of change in the thoughts and 
activities that have mattered to me.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer



-- 
"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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 17:57:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821084427.24071.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821175716.52565.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I have a question to put to those extropes that
> > were
> > > alive during the Civil Rights movements of the
> > 60's.
> > > What happened to the power of protest? Why were
> > the
> > > civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> > > this country while much bigger record setting
> > protests
> > > on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> > > ineffectual. 
> > 
> > Because there isn't as much money being funnelled in
> > from the
> > non-existent eastern bloc countries, and Saddams
> > credit ran out. The
> > Iraqi insurgency is accurately being shown to the
> > american people as a
> > disaffected minority of former baathists in cahoots
> > with islamist
> > fanatics. Being as the agenda of both groups is
> > obviously not liberal,
> > only the hardcore stalinist nutters, other
> > pathologically oppositionist
> > mentalities and the easily duped think that the
> > Iraqi people are
> > against us.
> 
> Mike, this does not answer my question. Unless your
> answer is that the U.S. Government only listens to
> protests that are funded by communist countries. And
> THAT would seem oxymoronic.

Money is votes, Stuart. Money pays for nationwide anti war protests on
every college campus on every weekend, which is what happened back
then. It pays for the legal defense of students who bomb campus ROTC
buildings and labs doing DoD research.

The media are the only side of the anti-america contingent that is
keeping up its end, they are portraying a one-woman protest as a
nationwide movement without admitting that nationwide movement is the
same radical left wing that was behind the anti-vietnam protests (or
they are, they just arent' admitting exactly who those people are and
what they represent in actuality).

Now, don't go and say that the media is not anti-america. The war in
iraq is not the only issue they are anti-america about. Whether it is a
global warming treaty that will emasculate american economics, our
strategic defense needs against ballistic missiles, or opposition to
American insistence on reform at the UN, as well as the general
anti-white, anti-male, anti-business, anti-straight, anti-technology,
anti-self-defense, and anti-religious stance of the major media
establishment, the main stream media and its cohorts in the radical
left on US college campuses are most distinctly against everything the
US defends and supports.

The problem this time around is that the thugs paying the bills are no
longer as wealthy, and the older baby boomers are not so interested in
doing the work for free anymore.

Finally, the lack of a military draft is the last nail in the coffin of
the anti-war movement. Despite the chicken littling of the leftists and
some fellow libertarians who are trying to invent an issue out of whole
cloth, there is no draft, there will be no draft, not unless some other
country attacks with at least as much success as 9/11. The college
students of today are in no danger of being shanghai'ed off to Iraq
against their will, and thus feel no personal risk. When they see kids
their age dying in Iraq, or friends coming home with injuries and
disabilities, they say, "that happens to other kids, because they
volunteered and I didn't." The American college kid thus has no
personal motivation to get up early on a hung over Sunday to go out and
protest against the war out of fear of being sent themselves. Not
unless they are idiots who let themselves get duped by the political
manipulators who need an anti-war movement for political gain and claim
there will be a draft. 

This much was obvious when every sponsor of the draft bills before
congress during the election was a radical left democrat. Just the sort
of person you'd think would be most against a draft if they actually
represented the interests of their constituents. It was political
theater to manipulate hearts and minds of their constituents to get off
their duffs, pure and simple.

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 natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Aug 21 18:09:00 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:09:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821175716.52565.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821084427.24071.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050821175716.52565.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050821130653.02afdf18@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my head because I don't see 
a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't see how this thread 
ties into any level of proactive discussion.

Anyone agree?


             <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/20050821/4be1e914/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 18:12:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <4308A35A.10908@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20050821181240.16400.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- david <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> >
> >1/3rd-1/4th of the US population is scheduled to die between 2015
> and
> >2035, and most of them will not accept life extension or cryonic
> >suspension. 
> >  
> >
> As far as cryonics go, you are almost certainly right that it will
> not be widely accepted, but I think that if effective anti-aging
> treatments were demonstrated their use would be extremely widespread,
> very rapidly.
> 
> Vast amounts of money are already spent on just looking younger, the
> demand to actually be younger would be huge.

The thing is, the longer people live, the worse the national bankruptcy
will be. Most 90 year olds are not going to want to work their twilight
years, and they will vote that way.

This is to be expected. I recall when I was in USAF basic training, the
military had recently gotten rid of all the beer can vending machines
on bases in the US, and banned smoking in basic training. If you
smoked, they'd give you a prescription to the patch to get you to quit.
They encouraged similar temperance and quitting among the old geezers
nearing retirement, and were confused when, instead of dying an average
of 5 years after retirement, vets started living much longer. The
budget of the Veterans Administration has gone through the roof.

The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
years they receive benefits by 2-3 times. When social security was made
into the primary social safety net for the nation, the average life
expectancy was 62 and the retirement age was 65. Life expectancy is now
above 75 and we have six times larger fraction of the population on
social security as back then.

Unless some drastic steps are taken now to index retirement to life
expectancy, there will not only be extremely high risk of total
economic meltdown (the DoD is expecting a global Depression in 2017),
but increased political pressure for alternative solutions: euthanasia,
and groups creating and releasing bioweapons into the population. The
best thing that could happen for the economy would be a widespread
avian flu, or perhaps a virulent mutation of EEE. They generally kill
malnourished kids and the old, for the most part. This is gruesome to
speak of, but it is economic truth.

I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in limbo
by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the baby
boom is mostly dead and buried.

I also believe that cryonic suspension should be promoted not as a key
to longevity, but as a means of warehousing people, taking them out of
the resource consumption stream until after the population boom is
gone, to be revived during the population crash when there will be a
severe labor shortage. A sort of rainy day fund of people. If you don't
want to live through the inevitable chaos of the 2015-2040 period,
sleep it away in a bunker somewhere.

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 emerson at singinst.org  Sun Aug 21 21:13:19 2005
From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:13:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI - Singularity Update - August 2005
Message-ID: <20050821210445.D992F99D9@mailrelay.t-mobile.com>

The Singularity Institute's August Update is now online: 

 http://www.singinst.org/newsletter/2005.2/ 

Feedback is always appreciated. 
	
~~
Tyler Emerson
Executive Director
Singularity Institute
PO Box 50182
Palo Alto, CA 94303
T-F: 866.667.2524
emerson at singinst.org
http://www.singinst.org 




From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 21:17:54 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050821130653.02afdf18@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050821211754.60734.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

okay. agreed. i started it, i apologize. but i'd like to do comedy pieces-- if, again, no one objects.

Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my head because I don't see a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't see how this thread ties into any level of proactive discussion. 

Anyone agree?


            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


		
---------------------------------
 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/20050821/93ba6f9b/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 21:43:33 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] last post of the day
In-Reply-To: <20050821002355.70191.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050821214333.54776.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Since Natasha has complained this will be my second and last post of the day, only as a reply to Mike's relevant post.
I personally don't know if the war is wrong or not-- but after listening (and it is excruciating) to the desperate agitprop of the war's opponents I'm more likely to approve of the war effort.  After one gets a good look at the numerous serious militants on the left one gets more than a strong sense they want to use people as cannon fodder in various ways. Sure it goes without saying most are not all Commies (such as WWP), but so many want to use the war as a wedge issue against America-- and some are merely faddists. I saw it all (and wish to learn from the mistakes) in the Vietnam era. Many back then weren't antiwar and anticonscription, they were anticapitalist & antiAmerican. They wanted to replace the war with a "Peoples' " war. We must distinguish between genuine antiwar activists and prowar agitators
-- some of them crypto-prowar agitators.

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
Worse yet, she complains she wants her meeting with Bush. Well, she had
her meeting with Bush months ago after Casey died. The problem was, she
wanted a special meeting with Bush, separate from the rest of her
family, because she is a radical leftist friend of Michael Moore, not
some average American mom like the media is making out. She has said
she looks on radical stalinist (and convicted terrorist coconspirator)
lawyer Lynn Stewart as her personal "Atticus Finch" (the lawyer in "To
Kill A Mockingbird". She is tromping on the grave of her son for
personal political gain. Shame on her. 

Her cohorts are putting up crosses for every soldier killed in Iraq,
and ignoring the requests of thousands of relatives of said dead
soldiers to not include their family members name in their pathetic
publicity stunt. Where is the shame?

She also repeats the false claim put out by Michael Moore that no
politicians kids are serving in the military or in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There are in fact 20-30 children of congressmen on active duty in the
gulf or in afghanistan, 20 times higher rate than the general
population. She is a liar as well as a shameless propagandizer of the
radical left.

--- Al Brooks wrote:

> The Cindy Sheehan Show outside of Crawford Texas displayed an
> exhibitionist streak in America, in this case Grieving Angry Mommy
> Sobbing On TV. It wasn't Cindy's deceased son Casey who starred in
> the show-- it was his very alive and kicking mother: "How could Bush
> do this to my son Casey?", not Casey Sheehan but rather "my SON Casey
> Sheehan". 
> In Tom Wolfe's 'The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test' Ken Kesey leads a
> few of his friends to an antiwar protest preceding a march and then
> goes on a platform to the microphone in front of a large crowd:
> "You're playing their game by marching, people have been marching for
> thousands of years and still there is war", says kesey to audience,
> "And what are you saying when you yell out loud for peace? You are
> saying, Me! ME! look at ME!".
> Cindy Sheehan fits this like a glove, she is saying 'look at me! I
> was just another grieving mother before, and now I'm a celebrity
> grieving mother! Look at me! ME! Look at ME!' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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 

_______________________________________________
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/20050821/bbaf2883/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Aug 21 23:02:57 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:02:57 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
References: <20050821211754.60734.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00ba01c5a6a4$786eecb0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Al, if your comedy peices involve doing parodies of people who you 
really think are acting like morons, I think that the risk you run in 
trying to carry that sort of humor off over an internet mailing list 
especially when your topic of choice seems to be politics should
be pretty obvious. 

There is very little upside to acting like a moron if people can't tell
that your acting.  I don't know you. I have seen you ask at least
some non moronic questions that seemed genuinely oriented towards
increasing your own and perhaps others understanding of opposing
views.  

That might, in my opinion, have been extropic from your standpoint,
but your questions *seem* to be coming off a pretty low base of 
understanding. 

Natasha asks how about taking this off list? I know of at least two 
intelligent people other than Natasha that would like to see many
topics taken off list not because they are averse to the topics but
because they are averse to the quality of the postings that those
topics usually of a loosely political nature tend to attract. 

The temptation to censor or to try to silence idiots must be almost
overwhelming. 

And yet there is a danger in doing so. 

The strongest challenges to transhuman worldviews is that they are
unrealistic, idealistic and show a want of understanding of how politics
actually works as a retardant on the possible rates of progress. There
is a price that has to be paid for having democratic institutions in
which the ignorant vote too. (For the most part that price is worth 
paying, for most people). 

The strongest challenge that could be made of transhumanists as
a class is that they are massively politically naive and this causes
them to see the world through rosy coloured glasses where what is
technologically possible (as they understand it to widely varying
degrees of sophistication) is expected to be politically realisable. 

More than the average, transhumans are aspirational about the future
and so more than most, the transhuman agenda, personally and 
collectively, is subject to political frustration, when others in the world
hold the power to shape the common future. 

Optimism combined with political naivette makes many transhumanists
look like right dills, not when they are considered one at a time, or one
conversation at a time, but when their aspirations over years and 
decades (and many transhumans have been in the field that long) don't
seem to get any closer to being realised or realisable. 

The re-election of the Bush administration after the Bush administration
pursued an illegal and unconstitutional policy of going into Iraq is a signal
event of the level of intellectual sophistication in the US.  That is the level
of intellectual sophistication, that is the level of human comprehension,
transhuman aspirations are up against. 

The Bush administration if frittering away the hard won gains of previous 
generations of American's and doing more harm to America and its
interests through incompetence than any existing enemy (of which their
are actually very few) could do it. 

I have two areas of interest. Improving human health and politics. Either
of these areas could take more of my time than I have to spend and both
could benefit for more intelligent input.  The health problems are tractable
but get slowed down by monkey politics at every turn. The political 
problems are tractable too but some more monkeys have to get smarter
first and the only way this is likely to happen that I can see is they need
to be let to learn the lessons of their mistakes before they will understand
and be receptive to solutions. 

The Bush administration is gone by Jan 2009. If they don't fuck things up
beyond all recognition by then then the next administration of either
flavour, republican or democrat will have the opportunity of learning from
the lexicon of mistakes the Bush administration is building up and 
ingraining in recent human history. 

I don't know if I should post this or not, but now that I've spent the time
to write it that could have been spent doing other things, I am going
to. 

Brett Paatsch


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)


  okay. agreed. i started it, i apologize. but i'd like to do comedy pieces-- if, again, no one objects.

  Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote: 
    How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my head because I don't see a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't see how this thread ties into any level of proactive discussion. 

    Anyone agree?


                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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/ee6bdde3/attachment.html>

From riel at surriel.com  Sun Aug 21 23:10:57 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050821175716.52565.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821175716.52565.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508211910110.18770@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Now, don't go and say that the media is not anti-america.

The only anti-american media is the media that advocates the
killing of american youth in military campaigns abroad.

-- 
"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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 23:14:13 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <00ba01c5a6a4$786eecb0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050821231413.17478.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>

Your logic is absolutely impeccable, Bret. No more comedy posts. Just one more observation though: if this war goes on to a worst case conclusion, then we'll have no extropian future-- this is a platitude but it is a relevant platitude. Saying 'give it time' or 'it will work out' is no longer reassuring.
Optimism is only justified if it is not baseless optimism.

Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Al, if your comedy peices involve doing parodies of people who you 
really think are acting like morons, I think that the risk you run in 
trying to carry that sort of humor off over an internet mailing list 
especially when your topic of choice seems to be politics should
be pretty obvious. 
 
There is very little upside to acting like a moron if people can't tell
that your acting.  I don't know you. I have seen you ask at least
some non moronic questions that seemed genuinely oriented towards
increasing your own and perhaps others understanding of opposing
views.  
 
That might, in my opinion, have been extropic from your standpoint,
but your questions *seem* to be coming off a pretty low base of 
understanding. 
 
Natasha asks how about taking this off list? I know of at least two 
intelligent people other than Natasha that would like to see many
topics taken off list not because they are averse to the topics but
because they are averse to the quality of the postings that those
topics usually of a loosely political nature tend to attract. 
 
The temptation to censor or to try to silence idiots must be almost
overwhelming. 
 
And yet there is a danger in doing so. 
 
The strongest challenges to transhuman worldviews is that they are
unrealistic, idealistic and show a want of understanding of how politics
actually works as a retardant on the possible rates of progress. There
is a price that has to be paid for having democratic institutions in
which the ignorant vote too. (For the most part that price is worth 
paying, for most people). 
 
The strongest challenge that could be made of transhumanists as
a class is that they are massively politically naive and this causes
them to see the world through rosy coloured glasses where what is
technologically possible (as they understand it to widely varying
degrees of sophistication) is expected to be politically realisable. 
 
More than the average, transhumans are aspirational about the future
and so more than most, the transhuman agenda, personally and 
collectively, is subject to political frustration, when others in the world
hold the power to shape the common future. 
 
Optimism combined with political naivette makes many transhumanists
look like right dills, not when they are considered one at a time, or one
conversation at a time, but when their aspirations over years and 
decades (and many transhumans have been in the field that long) don't
seem to get any closer to being realised or realisable. 
 
The re-election of the Bush administration after the Bush administration
pursued an illegal and unconstitutional policy of going into Iraq is a signal
event of the level of intellectual sophistication in the US.  That is the level
of intellectual sophistication, that is the level of human comprehension,
transhuman aspirations are up against. 
 
The Bush administration if frittering away the hard won gains of previous 
generations of American's and doing more harm to America and its
interests through incompetence than any existing enemy (of which their
are actually very few) could do it. 
 
I have two areas of interest. Improving human health and politics. Either
of these areas could take more of my time than I have to spend and both
could benefit for more intelligent input.  The health problems are tractable
but get slowed down by monkey politics at every turn. The political 
problems are tractable too but some more monkeys have to get smarter
first and the only way this is likely to happen that I can see is they need
to be let to learn the lessons of their mistakes before they will understand
and be receptive to solutions. 
 
The Bush administration is gone by Jan 2009. If they don't fuck things up
beyond all recognition by then then the next administration of either
flavour, republican or democrat will have the opportunity of learning from
the lexicon of mistakes the Bush administration is building up and 
ingraining in recent human history. 
 
I don't know if I should post this or not, but now that I've spent the time
to write it that could have been spent doing other things, I am going
to. 
 
Brett Paatsch
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Al Brooks 
To: ExI chat list 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)


okay. agreed. i started it, i apologize. but i'd like to do comedy pieces-- if, again, no one objects.

Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote: How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my head because I don't see a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't see how this thread ties into any level of proactive discussion. 

Anyone agree?


            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



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


"you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" -- Leon Trotsky

__________________________________________________
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/20050821/26bc4a90/attachment.html>

From riel at surriel.com  Sun Aug 21 23:15:44 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:15:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <20050821181240.16400.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050821181240.16400.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508211914370.18770@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.

> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in limbo
> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the baby
> boom is mostly dead and buried.

How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?

You get to choose between longevity and retirement...

-- 
"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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 21 23:28:09 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Strong Transparent Carbon Nanotube Sheets
In-Reply-To: <006701c5a5af$32081ee0$5aee4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <20050821232809.12800.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

If anyone has access to the original Science article,
currently available only to subscribers, I'd like to
take a look at it.  You could post it to the list, or
if you don't feel comfortable with that, email it to
me P2P.  Thanks.

Best, Jeff Davis  

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Interesting article in the August 19 Science:
> 
> "Rarely is a processing advance so elegantly simple
> that rapid
> commercialization seems possible, and rarely does
> such an advance so quickly
> enable diverse application demonstrations"
> 
> More at:
> 
>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050819131626.htm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 00:05:57 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:05:57 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was:Exhibitionism(no,
	not THAT kind)
References: <20050821231413.17478.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c5a6ad$459e9160$0d98e03c@homepc>

I live in Australia. I don't know any intelligent people that are not
interested in and that don't have an opinion on the Iraq war and
the Bush administration's and our Prime Minister John Howard
and the UK Prime Minister Tony Blairs part in bringing it about.

I don't know anybody that doesn't want reassurance about it,
and I suspect that that comment could also be levelled at George
W Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair. 

But let's be realistic. If you are American over 50 you are more 
likely to die of a heart attack or cancer than you are of any 
terrorist attack or indeed of anything the Bush administration may
or may not do in time between now and 20 Jan 2009 when the
next US President will be sworn in.

A series of dirty bombs on the mainland of the US let off in the
cities would not change the existential risk for you in that cancer 
and heart disease would still be statistically more likely to kill you.  

The header of this post is about politics and the utility of protest.

Yes, some protesters have egos and indulge in things that are 
partly exhibitionism. Yes most forms of protest are inept in terms
of their statistical chances of actually achieving what the protesters
want them to achieve. 

But I prefer that even silly people protest, that they feel they can,
that they are free too. Because the humanity of silly people is 
humanity too. 

I haven't watched Cindy Sheehan, I know of her only as a stereotype,
but I have heard of her protest here in Australia through snippets of 
media when I wasn't looking for it. 

I have heard other people, less publicly and in quiet conversation
with a few others or maybe just myself, anguish about the shooting
of the guy in the UK that did not in fact turn out to be a terrorist, and
I know that people are concerned about the loss of civil liberties and
I am glad that they are concerned. I *like* them the better for their
concerns and for their protests however inept their protests may be.

I think that when we stop protesting we stop appealing to the humanity
of others. I don't want people to stop appealing to my humanity, I find
the reminders of my sociable nature useful and encouraging toward
the desire to solve certain sorts of problems.

We can, I hope, empathise even when we cannot cure.
 
Brett Paatsch


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)


  Your logic is absolutely impeccable, Bret. No more comedy posts. Just one more observation though: if this war goes on to a worst case conclusion, then we'll have no extropian future-- this is a platitude but it is a relevant platitude. Saying 'give it time' or 'it will work out' is no longer reassuring.
  Optimism is only justified if it is not baseless optimism.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/dc9f2769/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 00:11:42 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the SPP (comedy)
In-Reply-To: <20050820231240.51674.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050822001142.80513.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:

> No wonder Casey Sheehan volunteered for the Service.
> He wanted to get away from a certain somebody in his
> life.

Yo, Al.  How about given me your mother's email
address.  I'd like to forward this to her and see what
she has to say.  

Someday you may get married.  Someday the woman you
love may bear you children.  For love of and service
to country, those kids you love, those kids of the
woman you love, may join the military.  What will you
say to their mother, when some brain-damaged ex-drunk
underachiever murders her/your child in a vain effort
to prove himself better than (or at least as good as)
his father and not the superloser sack of shit that he
clearly is.

One other little suggestion.  A thought experiment. 
Get a big sharp pair of scissors.  Drop your pants. 
If you can find it, grab the distinguishing mark of
you sex, and snip it off.  Now hold it up in front of
your face, and ask yourself the following: Is this
funny?  Is this comedy?  Or is this mayhap serious
business?

(Hint: serious business.  Leave comedy to spike, and
other qualified persons.)

Best, Jeff Davis

           "I thought I was taller."*
                           Milton Berle

* Uncle Milty raises his stogey as if to take a puff,
then jabs his forehead with the chewed-on end.  And
says,...

 

> The uniform of choice is Birkenstocks & T-shirts.
> And signboards: "US OUT OF IRAQ"; "Down With The
> War"; "Stop Globalization"; "Protect Family Farms,
> Oppose Big Agribusiness"; "No More Food!".  
> Onward environmentalist peace activists, marching as
> to war, with a pair of Birkenstocks marching on
> before. These rallies have been episodic for forty
> years, they have become hypostasized, enough to set
> your watch by, "the protest is at 2.00, right after
> lunch". When modern protests first began they were
> exciting, edgy, enough to make the blood of
> policemen boil sometimes, now the cops just reach
> for a donut, wave & smile at the protesters. Cop:
> "Hi Abbie, hi Jerry, how are the wives?". And now we
> see Cindy Sheehan is the wave of the future
> -- the Single Person Protest member. 
> The only clubbing the Single Protester risks is a
> microphone accidentally bouncing off her skull while
> she is being interviewed by a half dozen networks.
> During & after WWII Audie Murphy was celebrated for
> being a war hero, but times have changed. Now Cindy
> Sheehan is celebrated for being the MOMMY of a war
> hero; headline in the paper, 'Grieving Angry Mama
> Whines On TV'. By the look on her face you might
> expect her to think Bush ought to have exited his
> ranch, marched up to her and pinned a medal on her
> breast. And after all the insults Sheehan dumped on
> Bush, she expects Bush to schedule an audience with
> her so she can ask him why he killed her son? If you
> insult someone you consider to be Idi Amin, do you
> think Amin is going to invite you for dinner? 
> No wonder Casey Sheehan volunteered for the Service.
> He wanted to get away from a certain somebody in his
> life.

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 00:53:25 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:53:25 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protest and Prayer
Message-ID: <011401c5a6b3$e753c1f0$0d98e03c@homepc>

I think these two, protest and prayer are alike.

Both and carried out by people whose aims, superficially, to get direct
personal intervention are almost certainly statistically destined to fail. 
But both carried out by people in the presence of other people can serve
a purpose. 

To the extent that human feelings and frustrations and aspirations are
verbalised and creditable although perhaps unrealisable they tell others
that they are not alone in having the same feelings.

People rarely publicly pray for stuff that isn't worthy of more generally
being an aspiration goal, perhaps because if they fear they did, their
prayer for the suffering of their enemy would diminsh them in the eyes
of their friends. 

Protesters rarely put policy on their placards. Full blown policy doesn't
fit. 

Peace is not the natural, inheritance of man, man is naturally a fighter
and competitor against other men, peace must be hard won against
prejudice and pettiness and conservatism of thought. 

When protests ask publicly for peace it is easy to see them as naive
and to characterise them as naive but the aspiration for peace has to
be there and has to be articulated for peace to even be known to be
a shared object.

Humans need no encouragement for war or pettiness. Its natural for
us as animals that have no other significant predators apart from others
of our species.  We do war and innovate around violence as though we
have evolved to do it because we have. 
 
But we can aspire for peace and sometimes achieve it. And it is through
our protests and our public prayers that many of us express our aspiration
that tomorrow be better than today. That amongst the afflictions that 
hit us, the afflictions from each other, from other humans might be reduced
so that we might better, more rationally, more effectively, address the 
afflictions that don't come from each other, but are the vagaries of a
careless evolutionary process. 

Brett Paatsch

(one who is not G/god but hears the prayers and protests)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/7a89a043/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 01:48:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050821130653.02afdf18@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050822014845.59980.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my
> head because I don't see 
> a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't
> see how this thread 
> ties into any level of proactive discussion.
> 
> Anyone agree?

My apologies, Natasha, if you don't see the relevance
of this topic to transhumanism. I tried to phrase my
question as a general question of whether there is any
political value to protesting, other than the simple
catharsis of publicly voicing ones discontent.

As it seems that a major obstacle to the realization
of the goals and aspirations of ExI and transhumanism
in general are the inherently restrictive policies
issued by the U.S. government in regards to many
promising technologies. As such, it is IMHO, important
that transhumanists figure out what actions can and
cannot influence government policy.

Historically protests HAVE been successful in this
regard, however recently they seem to be much less
effective. Brett thinks this because politicans have
learned to use opinion polls and demographics, to
precisely quantify and maximize the public discontent
they can get away with and still retain their power
base. Mike on the other hand seems to think it mostly
has to do with money.

If we extropes and transhumanists want to actually
implement our ideas, learning what methods CAN sway
public policy would be an important first step.
Judging from the answers I recieved to my question, it
would seem a safe bet that public protests against the
ban on therapeutic cloning for example, would NOT be
the way to go. Unless perhaps such an endeavor had a
fairly large bankroll and was targeted to the swing
states for example. If by asking the simple question I
did, I prevent myself and fellow transhumanists from
wasting their time walking around with pro-cloning
placards chanting slogans, then the exercise was worth
it.

The same technologies that politicans use to stifle
our freedoms can and should be used to reclaim it. In
order to do so however, we have to put as much effort
into figuring out how to use the technology to our
benefit as the politicians have into using it to our
detriment.



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 fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Aug 22 03:11:22 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:11:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
References: <20050821012030.13961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011401c5a6c7$2d168340$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> I have a question to put to those extropes that were
> alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
> What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
> civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> this country while much bigger record setting protests
> on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> ineffectual. 

Speaking of the '60s, ooooooooooh ... Joanie has joined the chorus:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8C4IN8O0.html

Olga



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon Aug 22 04:55:59 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:55:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
Message-ID: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>

Forwarding from another list...

Terry


I agree spomething has to be done.  What was a robust economy will 
soon be in recession or at least diminished growth.  I'm not as bent 
out of shape over the oil companies as they don't set the price of 
oil, they simply drill and refine. I think the commodity traders are 
out of control at the moment.  They drive up the price of oil for 
almost any reason and NONE of them ever happen. So, here are my 
thoughts grounded in the simple fact that for the short term, WE HAVE 
NO CHOICE BUT TO USE OIL.

1) Conservation - I too would like to see a sizable reduction in 
consumption.  I would offer huge tax incentives for fuel efficient 
vehicles. Deduct 10% of the vehicle cost for each 1 mpg over 20 the 
car gets.  This would not hurt Detroit because they now produce many 
vehicles that get milage in this range. And many people who own large 
SUVs and pickups would migrate to more fuel effcient cars.  Those who 
love large vehicle would pay extra as they do not get the tax write-
off.  (this doe interfere with my flat tax idea but I can only save 
the world one step at a time ;^))

2) Drill dammit just drill - there is oil out there and can be 
processed with today's technology.  Be environmentally friendly but 
drill - for the short term we must have oil. I don't know how many 
studies Congress needs but drill for the oil.  If a few bugs, bears, 
snakes or moose are unhappy so be it. 

3) Standardize the fuel grades - for heavens sake how many different 
fuel formulas do we need in this country? There are far too many - 
have a winter and summer national standard and let the refineries 
optimize for these formulas and reduce the cost of processing.

4) More refineries - none in 30 or so years? Why? EPA regulations?

5) Nuke em - hell electricity in France comes from nuke power why not 
us?

6) Start the future now. - Start a program similar to NASA to define 
and build the infrastructure for the next generation of fuels - 
hydrogen or whatever.  Set a goal to use 50% less oil by 2030.

Oh well I guess I can dream

Cheers,

Larry

 --- In U-Tapao at yahoogroups.com, "Lou Georgieff" <lou.g at s...> wrote:
OPEC, the oil companies and refinery's are having a field day at 
your expense. They are all making massive profits while some 
Americans are required to cut back on food and medicine.The gas 
station owners isn't responsible for the gouging because a large 
percentage of his profits go to the credit card companies. The 
refinery's don't have any comp editors because we have made it 
impossible to comply with the EPA standards so no new units are 
built. Stupidity is rampant. We listen to a few minority groups  and 
pay the price. 
> I think the answer is in congress.We should look seriously at 
rationing fuel and use a 20% reduction as a guide.The price of oil 
would drop at least $25 dollars a barrel because the hedge funds 
would bail out and leave no one to buy the $66 dollar oil the very 
minute the proposal is made.
> There is no shortage of oil  but there is a shortage of courage by 
our congress to  do what is right for the citizens they represent. In 
the mean time I buy five gallon of fuel at a time and if we all did 
that the refinery would be over run with fuel and have to drop their 
price because there is no where to store it.
> There is fool born every day and nine men to take him and I think 
it is clear we have been taken.
> The next time a candidate is running for office and has taken a 
dime from oil or car manufacturers think twice before you vote for 
them, and please vote.
> Don't you think we should stop talking about  the alternatives to 
gasoline and do something about it? The problem with America is 5% of 
the people squeal and 95% pay for their mistakes.



-- 
"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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 05:38:25 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:38:25 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>

"Terry W. Colvin" wrote:

> Forwarding from another list...
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
> I agree spomething has to be done.  What was a robust economy will 
> soon be in recession or at least diminished growth.  I'm not as bent 
> out of shape over the oil companies as they don't set the price of 
> oil, they simply drill and refine. I think the commodity traders are 
> out of control at the moment.  They drive up the price of oil for 
> almost any reason and NONE of them ever happen. So, here are my 
> thoughts grounded in the simple fact that for the short term, WE HAVE 
> NO CHOICE BUT TO USE OIL.

That we have "No choice but to use oil" seems like arrant economic 
nonsense to me.  It doesn't parse even economics 101 level of thinking.

Who the heck is "we" in that sentence?  Price affects demand. 

There ARE substitutes to using oil.  Personally we can reduce our demand
for it if its price becomes prohibitive vis a vis alternatives and ditto
macroeconomically.

Another manufactured crisis from the ever expanding bureau of when
in trouble when in doubt run in circles scream and shout !

The oil companies really ought to pay some of these "we are running
out of oil guys" for the free product promotion ;-)

Or perhaps they are trying to spark a run on the 'oil stocks' so they can
short them to the "yes, by golly, thanks for telling me, now I see that we
ARE running out folks" ?

Brett Paatsch
 



 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 06:14:52 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:14:52 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
References: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org>
Message-ID: <015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>

Thanks for posting the update here Hal.

I liked the caption on James blog "If I have seen further than
others it is by stepping on the toes of giants".

James sounds like my stereotype of a New Yorker. 

It is interesting to see idea futures type ideas getting a run,
and in Robin's lifetime.  I'm not much of a fan of creditting 
the dead and impoverising the living myself. 

I was curious about the legal situation, I've been, loosely,
tracking developments here in Australia, I noticed that James
is apparently in Japan. 

Interesting idea using a blog to offer contingency bets. That
might even be legal here in Victoria, Australia. Legal for
the Australian side anyway, not so sure about how it would
be for say a person betting with me publicly from say the
US side. 

I think they'd be running the risk of prosecution, however
great that risk is in practice, I don't know. 

Brett Paatsch



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug 22 06:40:11 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:40:11 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org>
	<015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <5a5c6b990f8ff4b9bd6597edecbc9ab4@aol.com>

Federal offense under the wire laws:

"Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly 
uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate 
or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the 
placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the 
transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to 
receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for 
information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined 
under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

With an actual conviction in the case of Jay Cohen.

For information, see:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cohen.htm


It's not clear how this would affect someone making a casual wager 
since they're not "in the business of betting or wagering..."

Robbie


On Aug 21, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Thanks for posting the update here Hal.
>
> I liked the caption on James blog "If I have seen further than
> others it is by stepping on the toes of giants".
>
> James sounds like my stereotype of a New Yorker.
> It is interesting to see idea futures type ideas getting a run,
> and in Robin's lifetime.  I'm not much of a fan of creditting the dead 
> and impoverising the living myself.
> I was curious about the legal situation, I've been, loosely,
> tracking developments here in Australia, I noticed that James
> is apparently in Japan.
> Interesting idea using a blog to offer contingency bets. That
> might even be legal here in Victoria, Australia. Legal for
> the Australian side anyway, not so sure about how it would
> be for say a person betting with me publicly from say the
> US side.
> I think they'd be running the risk of prosecution, however
> great that risk is in practice, I don't know.
> Brett Paatsch
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 22 05:58:56 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:58:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
Message-ID: <430969A0.7030306@sasktel.net>

The answer is to lure some of the options/futures/derivatives profits 
away and into the tech
area to renew the drive to reduce energy use by  expanding the virtual 
technologies.

Smart energy management technologies become highly cost effective and 
there is a strong incentive
to develop and purchase them.

High energy industries like travel, physical product distribution and 
agriculture are skewered initially.

High fuel will force annual agriculture with brute force machines to 
convert to perennial agriculture,
pharmaceutical agriculture and fuel biomass agriculture in which food is 
an incidental by-product
and thus food supply will dwindle and prices will increase but food 
quality and nutraceuticalization
will be increase in order to justify the price.

So long as debt remains high I hope interest rates will stay down so 
that actual risk taking is
favored instead of  banking of money in banks instead of direct 
investment into risk capital.

Crisis causes change or rather muffles  the excuses to forego 
undertaking  change.

In Agriculture I'd like to see novel food sources become more acceptable 
as traditional
food escalates in value.

Worms, beetles, mice, rats, and other small , efficient , short 
production cycle food sources
might be just around the corner.

Instead of 500 cows how about a rat ranch with 500,000 rats or 3,000,000 
mice and 300,000,000 dung  beetles
to scavange and convert the waste into useable food and medicinal products?

A rat farm raising double muscled, white meat CLA, GLA, antioxidant and 
nutraceutical loaded GMO livestock?

Implanting RFID, GPS and biocontrol chips in each rat might make 
management more efficient as well.

Far better than the "soylent vat" stuff.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
Date: 	Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:55:59 -0700
From: 	Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
Reply-To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
To: 	ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>, 
skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu



Forwarding from another list...

Terry


I agree spomething has to be done.  What was a robust economy will 
soon be in recession or at least diminished growth.  I'm not as bent 
out of shape over the oil companies as they don't set the price of 
oil, they simply drill and refine. I think the commodity traders are 
out of control at the moment.  They drive up the price of oil for 
almost any reason and NONE of them ever happen. So, here are my 
thoughts grounded in the simple fact that for the short term, WE HAVE 
NO CHOICE BUT TO USE OIL.

1) Conservation - I too would like to see a sizable reduction in 
consumption.  I would offer huge tax incentives for fuel efficient 
vehicles. Deduct 10% of the vehicle cost for each 1 mpg over 20 the 
car gets.  This would not hurt Detroit because they now produce many 
vehicles that get milage in this range. And many people who own large 
SUVs and pickups would migrate to more fuel effcient cars.  Those who 
love large vehicle would pay extra as they do not get the tax write-
off.  (this doe interfere with my flat tax idea but I can only save 
the world one step at a time ;^))

2) Drill dammit just drill - there is oil out there and can be 
processed with today's technology.  Be environmentally friendly but 
drill - for the short term we must have oil. I don't know how many 
studies Congress needs but drill for the oil.  If a few bugs, bears, 
snakes or moose are unhappy so be it. 

3) Standardize the fuel grades - for heavens sake how many different 
fuel formulas do we need in this country? There are far too many - 
have a winter and summer national standard and let the refineries 
optimize for these formulas and reduce the cost of processing.

4) More refineries - none in 30 or so years? Why? EPA regulations?

5) Nuke em - hell electricity in France comes from nuke power why not 
us?

6) Start the future now. - Start a program similar to NASA to define 
and build the infrastructure for the next generation of fuels - 
hydrogen or whatever.  Set a goal to use 50% less oil by 2030.

Oh well I guess I can dream

Cheers,

Larry

--- In U-Tapao at yahoogroups.com, "Lou Georgieff" <lou.g at s...> wrote:
OPEC, the oil companies and refinery's are having a field day at 
your expense. They are all making massive profits while some 
Americans are required to cut back on food and medicine.The gas 
station owners isn't responsible for the gouging because a large 
percentage of his profits go to the credit card companies. The 
refinery's don't have any comp editors because we have made it 
impossible to comply with the EPA standards so no new units are 
built. Stupidity is rampant. We listen to a few minority groups  and 
pay the price. 
> I think the answer is in congress.We should look seriously at 
rationing fuel and use a 20% reduction as a guide.The price of oil 
would drop at least $25 dollars a barrel because the hedge funds 
would bail out and leave no one to buy the $66 dollar oil the very 
minute the proposal is made.
> There is no shortage of oil  but there is a shortage of courage by 
our congress to  do what is right for the citizens they represent. In 
the mean time I buy five gallon of fuel at a time and if we all did 
that the refinery would be over run with fuel and have to drop their 
price because there is no where to store it.
> There is fool born every day and nine men to take him and I think 
it is clear we have been taken.
> The next time a candidate is running for office and has taken a 
dime from oil or car manufacturers think twice before you vote for 
them, and please vote.
> Don't you think we should stop talking about  the alternatives to 
gasoline and do something about it? The problem with America is 5% of 
the people squeal and 95% pay for their mistakes.



-- 
"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.]

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


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/99321b36/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 07:12:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <5a5c6b990f8ff4b9bd6597edecbc9ab4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Federal offense under the wire laws:
> 
> "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or
> wagering knowingly 
> uses a wire communication facility for the
> transmission in interstate 
> or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information
> assisting in the 
> placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or
> contest, or for the 
> transmission of a wire communication which entitles
> the recipient to 
> receive money or credit as a result of bets or
> wagers, or for 
> information assisting in the placing of bets or
> wagers, shall be fined 
> under this title or imprisoned not more than two
> years, or both."
> 
> With an actual conviction in the case of Jay Cohen.
> 
> For information, see:
> 
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cohen.htm

I am not an attorney, but I see a lot wiggle room in
the wording of that law. For one thing it seems to
apply specifically to betting on sporting events over
the wire. Yet clearly there are web-based sport
bookies out there so it may be a problematic law to
enforce. But really I don't think a futures type
market would be illegal under the law as it is stated.
A strict interpretation would mean that you could bet
on anything EXCEPT a sporting event or contest. A
loose interpretation would make the likes of E*Trade
illegal. But clearly the government isn't going after
online brokerages so it may actually be just a
prohibition against betting on sporting events.  

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 22 07:50:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:50:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: confirm 0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
Message-ID: <b7fe4c3a646f6d8e6cffb0b38942ea3b@aol.com>

Now this is interesting, why does this happen?

Robbie

Begin forwarded message:

> From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
> Date: August 21, 2005 9:17:00 PM HST
> To: robgobblin at aol.com
> Subject: confirm 0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
>
> Your membership in the mailing list extropy-chat has been disabled due
> to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated
> 22-Aug-2005.  You will not get any more messages from this list until
> you re-enable your membership.  You will receive 3 more reminders like
> this before your membership in the list is deleted.
>
> To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message
> (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at
>
>      
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/confirm/extropy-chat/ 
> 0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
>
>
> You can also visit your membership page at
>
>      
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/options/extropy-chat/ 
> robgobblin%40aol.com
>
>
> On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such
> as your email address and whether you get digests or not.  As a
> reminder, your membership password is
>
>     darling1
>
> If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner
> at
>
>     extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 09:17:35 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:17:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
	<015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> That we have "No choice but to use oil" seems like arrant economic
> nonsense to me.  It doesn't parse even economics 101 level of thinking.
> 
> Who the heck is "we" in that sentence?  Price affects demand.
> 
> There ARE substitutes to using oil.  Personally we can reduce our demand
> for it if its price becomes prohibitive vis a vis alternatives and ditto
> macroeconomically.
> 

In Europe the gas price at the pumps is still around 2.5 times higher
than US. So I would think the US has a long way to go before panic
measures should be sought.

Europe still has traffic jams full of cars burning that expensive petrol.

True, the cars are generally smaller than in  the US and more public
transportation is available and used by Europeans. But Europeans won't
give up their cars any more than Americans will. Cars are still
marketed here on performance. 'Be more powerful - overtake the weaker
guy in front!'
As though it mattered in the slightest when you are both in the same
traffic jam. :)

Fairly trivial lifestyle changes will easily enable the US to cope
with higher gas prices for many years yet.

BillK


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 09:58:38 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:58:38 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com><015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>

BillK wrote:

> On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>> That we have "No choice but to use oil" seems like arrant economic
>> nonsense to me.  It doesn't parse even economics 101 level of thinking.
>>
>> Who the heck is "we" in that sentence?  Price affects demand.
>>
>> There ARE substitutes to using oil.  Personally we can reduce our demand
>> for it if its price becomes prohibitive vis a vis alternatives and ditto
>> macroeconomically.
>>
>
> In Europe the gas price at the pumps is still around 2.5 times higher
> than US.

That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit 
weight
seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed or befuddled
somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how
specifically true it is. If we could get someone on the list to look out
their window in say some specific town and street in Texas and read off
the bowser price of fuel and have someone else do the same in some
town and street in Europe we could play ourselves a nice little game of
trace the value chain.

Gas, or petrol or whatever you happen to call your dead tree juice
of hydrocarbons is very much a commodity and the brands on the
petrol stations in that town in Europe and Texas would be conspicuous
also. Obviously the exchange rates for the relevant currencies would be
too. The conversions wouldn't be too hard even for a relative maths
retard like myself to figure I suspect.

Chances are the petrol/gas at the two retail outlets would also come
from identifiable sources and if the companies were public (or even
if they weren't but had a public competitor selling the same dead
tree juice more could be deduced from that.

>So I would think the US has a long way to go before panic
> measures should be sought.
>
> Europe still has traffic jams full of cars burning that expensive petrol.
>
> True, the cars are generally smaller than in  the US and more public
> transportation is available and used by Europeans. But Europeans won't
> give up their cars any more than Americans will. Cars are still
> marketed here on performance. 'Be more powerful - overtake the weaker
> guy in front!'
> As though it mattered in the slightest when you are both in the same
> traffic jam. :)
>
> Fairly trivial lifestyle changes will easily enable the US to cope
> with higher gas prices for many years yet.

I reckon. But then you and I probably aren't specifically invested in
the petroleum infrastructure or its existant supporting industries or we
likely wouldn't be having this conversation in quite the same free and
easy way.

Brett Paatsch 




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Aug 22 10:18:49 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:18:49 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050822101849.GL2259@leitl.org>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:58:38PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit 
> weight
> seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed or befuddled
> somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how

Fossil prices have only very little to do with production costs, but
everything with taxation or subsidies.

The most I paid for 98 lead-free super seems to have been 1.39 EUR/l yesterday,
and day before.  (1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters, according to Google).

It is interesting whether this level of taxation is sustainable.
End consumers are one thing, but transportation costs alre already causing
company bancruptcy on a rising scale.

As jobs jobs jobs are the new mantra, anything that is hurting the
companies (state deficits be damned) is increasingly becoming a hard
and harder sell politically. 

-- 
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/20050822/7b42fa43/attachment.bin>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 10:25:43 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:25:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
	<015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050822032518a3e89b@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit
> weight
> seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed or befuddled
> somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how
> specifically true it is. If we could get someone on the list to look out
> their window in say some specific town and street in Texas and read off
> the bowser price of fuel and have someone else do the same in some
> town and street in Europe we could play ourselves a nice little game of
> trace the value chain.
> 

The difference is mostly high taxation in Europe to get money for the
government without obviously high taxes. And also to try and reduce
oil consumption.

Here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.90 UKP per litre.
Now for the technical bit.
UKP = 1.80 USD,  1 US gallon = 3.785 litres
So the current UK gas price is about 0.90 x 3.785 x 1.80 = 6.132 USD per gallon.
The current price in Pittsburg is around 2.50 USD per US gallon.


> Gas, or petrol or whatever you happen to call your dead tree juice
> of hydrocarbons is very much a commodity and the brands on the
> petrol stations in that town in Europe and Texas would be conspicuous
> also. Obviously the exchange rates for the relevant currencies would be
> too. The conversions wouldn't be too hard even for a relative maths
> retard like myself to figure I suspect.
> 

> 
> I reckon. But then you and I probably aren't specifically invested in
> the petroleum infrastructure or its existant supporting industries or we
> likely wouldn't be having this conversation in quite the same free and
> easy way.
> 

The petroleum companies do report large profits when the price goes
up, but some of this is due to stocks bought at cheaper prices. In
theory they need more money for oil exploration and getting oil from
places that are more difficult to extract from.

But here in Euroland we can blame the government for higher petrol prices. 
The libertarians should like that! ;)

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 22 10:28:07 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:28:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508211914370.18770@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <20050821181240.16400.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508211914370.18770@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <0E71B044-7E48-4DE5-980A-7D6192F7EEC6@mac.com>


On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>
>
>
>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in  
>> limbo
>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the  
>> baby
>> boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>
>
> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>
> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>

Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from  
needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if  
they are not so active many are not active because their bodies don't  
easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes  
some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir  
physically most need it?

- s


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Aug 22 11:00:24 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:00:24 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com><015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0508221257480.3752@zeus>

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>BillK wrote:
>
>> In Europe the gas price at the pumps is still around 2.5 times higher
>> than US.
>
>That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit
>weight
>seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed or befuddled
>somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how
>specifically true it is. If we could get someone on the list to look out
>their window in say some specific town and street in Texas and read off
>the bowser price of fuel and have someone else do the same in some
>town and street in Europe we could play ourselves a nice little game of
>trace the value chain.

Here in Italy the current price is arount EUR 1.25/liter, that according
to Google comes out as 5.79 USD per gallon.

Most of that price is taxes of course. The current price is seen as very
high, but in reality it has hovered around an inflation-adjusted value of
about 1 Euro per liter, or $4.6 per gallon for the last twenty years or
so.

Alfio


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 11:09:40 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:09:40 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Value chain tracing was FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT
	TIME TO RATION FUEL?
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com><015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc><ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com><007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822032518a3e89b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b001c5a709$fe0127c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:58:38PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit
> > weight seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed
> > or befuddled somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how
>
> Fossil prices have only very little to do with production costs, but
> everything with taxation or subsidies.

I reckon your probably pretty right Eugen but getting at the purer truth
of it might be fun, but bearing in mind I'm in not in either Europe or
the US I think we need to get specific because the variatious in taxes
and charges and profit margins etc are very likely to exist within such
big geographic areas, thats why I want to hone in one particular petrol
station one in each of two particular places. (And it makes sense that
each of these be stations that are of least some interest to someone
involved in the conversation.

Heck pick stations in built up areas and the internet could possibly
give us the tech to look at satelight photos in real time. I doubt we'll
get satelight photos of bowser prices that sort of resolution is likely
asking a bit much.

> The most I paid for 98 lead-free super seems to have been 1.39 EUR/l
> yesterday, and day before.  (1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters, according
> to Google).

> It is interesting whether this level of taxation is sustainable.

That's the spirit Eugen we'll make a political economist of you yet!

> End consumers are one thing, but transportation costs alre already
> causing company bancruptcy on a rising scale.

Okay, sure, but thats too general an observation for us to play with.
If you tell me that petrol station Eugens-regular-retailer located at
the corner of x and y streets in put-Eugen's hometown here. Then we
can start to do some net research into the value chains that puts
the petrol into your car there at a different price to Bill (well Bill's
also in Europe we need an American to play, but dang they are
all so shy. Hey, where IS Mike Lorrey he will know the price
of petrol any square ten centremetres of new hampshire and exactly
which particulary gummint critters at which level state and federal are
actually aiming to put their hands on it or he is not the real Mike
Lorrey.

> As jobs jobs jobs are the new mantra, anything that is hurting
> the companies (state deficits be damned) is increasingly becoming
> a hard and harder sell politically.

That new mantra is global your local pollies aren't picking on you.




BillK wrote: <pharos at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?


> On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>> That is interesting if its specifically true. 2.5 times equivalent unit
>> weight
>> seems like quite a transportation premium being enjoyed or befuddled
>> somewhere. I'm not doubting your honesty just wondering how
>> specifically true it is. If we could get someone on the list to look out
>> their window in say some specific town and street in Texas and read off
>> the bowser price of fuel and have someone else do the same in some
>> town and street in Europe we could play ourselves a nice little game of
>> trace the value chain.
>>
>
> The difference is mostly high taxation in Europe to get money for the
> government without obviously high taxes. And also to try and reduce
> oil consumption.
>
> Here in the UK the current gas price is around 0.90 UKP per litre.
> Now for the technical bit.
> UKP = 1.80 USD,  1 US gallon = 3.785 litres
> So the current UK gas price is about 0.90 x 3.785 x 1.80 = 6.132 USD per 
> gallon.
> The current price in Pittsburg is around 2.50 USD per US gallon.
>
>
>> Gas, or petrol or whatever you happen to call your dead tree juice
>> of hydrocarbons is very much a commodity and the brands on the
>> petrol stations in that town in Europe and Texas would be conspicuous
>> also. Obviously the exchange rates for the relevant currencies would be
>> too. The conversions wouldn't be too hard even for a relative maths
>> retard like myself to figure I suspect.
>>
>
>>
>> I reckon. But then you and I probably aren't specifically invested in
>> the petroleum infrastructure or its existant supporting industries or we
>> likely wouldn't be having this conversation in quite the same free and
>> easy way.
>>
>
> The petroleum companies do report large profits when the price goes
> up, but some of this is due to stocks bought at cheaper prices. In
> theory they need more money for oil exploration and getting oil from
> places that are more difficult to extract from.
>
> But here in Euroland we can blame the government for higher petrol prices.
> The libertarians should like that! ;)

I'm sure they do. And the public ones will place their reports on the 
internet
quite often. And the reports will often contain summaries on the industry
factors affecting profitablity.

My point is that we could probably work out pretty damn closely why
a litre of petrol costs X for Gene, Y for yourself, and Z for some USian
in a specific state with a specific tax regime. And using that baseline
analysis we could probably work out who is making how much money
where.

I think.

The notion that someone somewhere is getting filthy sneakily rich on oil
(and even going to war over it) sure as heck seems to be making some
folks at least a little antsy so lets turn on the light on the problem in a
practical and analytical way and see what the facts tell us.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 11:28:28 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:28:28 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
References: <20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00c301c5a70c$9e09b690$0d98e03c@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> Federal offense under the wire laws:
>> 
>> "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or
>> wagering knowingly 
>> uses a wire communication facility for the
>> transmission in interstate 
>> or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information
>> assisting in the 
>> placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or
>> contest, or for the 
>> transmission of a wire communication which entitles
>> the recipient to 
>> receive money or credit as a result of bets or
>> wagers, or for 
>> information assisting in the placing of bets or
>> wagers, shall be fined 
>> under this title or imprisoned not more than two
>> years, or both."
>> 
>> With an actual conviction in the case of Jay Cohen.
>> 
>> For information, see:
>> 
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cohen.htm
> 
> I am not an attorney, but I see a lot wiggle room in
> the wording of that law. For one thing it seems to
> apply specifically to betting on sporting events over
> the wire. Yet clearly there are web-based sport
> bookies out there so it may be a problematic law to
> enforce. But really I don't think a futures type
> market would be illegal under the law as it is stated.
> A strict interpretation would mean that you could bet
> on anything EXCEPT a sporting event or contest. A
> loose interpretation would make the likes of E*Trade
> illegal. But clearly the government isn't going after
> online brokerages so it may actually be just a
> prohibition against betting on sporting events.  

You know Stu the wiggle room factor in such laws
has occurred to me and it seems it might be possible
to create just the right sort of token bet that would
blast a blitzcreig sized marketing hole on which a 
number of others bets might follow after the publicity.

For instance what if I were to offer to bet you ten
US dollars that the IQ of George W Bush, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney WAS in fact higher than
the IQ of their equivalent weight of genuine organically
grown vegetables. 

Frankly I wouldn't much care about losing the 10 bucks
if you offered to bet the contrary and it was proven alas
you were right and I was wrong.  

This is a poor example put together in haste, but the 
point I am trying to make is that when the time is right
one can perhaps design a bet that will blaze open a
new market because of the people who don't want it
to get publicity, yet it would be easy to make it get
publicity by increasing the stakes of the bet on both
sides. 

If 10 billion dollars is ridding on each side of the bet
it would be damned hard not to report about it. 

Maybe ;-)

I'm being a little silly now I admit. But politics can
be used to change silly laws in such ways.

Brett Paatsch





From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Aug 22 12:03:21 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:03:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism (no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050822014845.59980.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050821130653.02afdf18@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050822014845.59980.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822065708.047d2850@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

You are correct.  The depths that Brett took this thread are noted and the 
issues important, not belittling a woman whose son was killed and who is 
suffering, regardless of the fact that I do not support the way she is 
displaying her angst and public performances. Yet she is a symbol for the 
bigger issue - the problem of this war and the fact that the US government 
is not listening to all its citizens.

So, in sum, the thread which I would support, would have been an extropic 
approach to addressing how to proactively get the ear of governments for 
actively attracting a wider audience for understanding and supporting 
transhumanist goals.

Natasha



At 08:48 PM 8/21/2005, you wrote:


>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
> > How about taking this off list?  I'm scratching my
> > head because I don't see
> > a relationship to Extropy or transhumanism and don't
> > see how this thread
> > ties into any level of proactive discussion.
> >
> > Anyone agree?
>
>My apologies, Natasha, if you don't see the relevance
>of this topic to transhumanism. I tried to phrase my
>question as a general question of whether there is any
>political value to protesting, other than the simple
>catharsis of publicly voicing ones discontent.
>
>As it seems that a major obstacle to the realization
>of the goals and aspirations of ExI and transhumanism
>in general are the inherently restrictive policies
>issued by the U.S. government in regards to many
>promising technologies. As such, it is IMHO, important
>that transhumanists figure out what actions can and
>cannot influence government policy.
>
>Historically protests HAVE been successful in this
>regard, however recently they seem to be much less
>effective. Brett thinks this because politicans have
>learned to use opinion polls and demographics, to
>precisely quantify and maximize the public discontent
>they can get away with and still retain their power
>base. Mike on the other hand seems to think it mostly
>has to do with money.
>
>If we extropes and transhumanists want to actually
>implement our ideas, learning what methods CAN sway
>public policy would be an important first step.
>Judging from the answers I recieved to my question, it
>would seem a safe bet that public protests against the
>ban on therapeutic cloning for example, would NOT be
>the way to go. Unless perhaps such an endeavor had a
>fairly large bankroll and was targeted to the swing
>states for example. If by asking the simple question I
>did, I prevent myself and fellow transhumanists from
>wasting their time walking around with pro-cloning
>placards chanting slogans, then the exercise was worth
>it.
>
>The same technologies that politicans use to stifle
>our freedoms can and should be used to reclaim it. In
>order to do so however, we have to put as much effort
>into figuring out how to use the technology to our
>benefit as the politicians have into using it to our
>detriment.
>
>
>
>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

<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/20050822/5efe0fb3/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 12:21:46 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:21:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Value chain tracing was FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT
	TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <00b001c5a709$fe0127c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
	<015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
	<007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050822032518a3e89b@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b001c5a709$fe0127c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508220521133c30be@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> I reckon your probably pretty right Eugen but getting at the purer truth
> of it might be fun, but bearing in mind I'm in not in either Europe or
> the US I think we need to get specific because the variatious in taxes
> and charges and profit margins etc are very likely to exist within such
> big geographic areas, thats why I want to hone in one particular petrol
> station one in each of two particular places. (And it makes sense that
> each of these be stations that are of least some interest to someone
> involved in the conversation.
> 
> The notion that someone somewhere is getting filthy sneakily rich on oil
> (and even going to war over it) sure as heck seems to be making some
> folks at least a little antsy so lets turn on the light on the problem in a
> practical and analytical way and see what the facts tell us.
> 


I think you might be leaping in where angels fear to tread. :)
The oil distribution industry must be about the most analysed industry
in the world. I doubt if there is anything new that we can discover.

Here is a report from ExxonMobil defending the UK price. (June 2004).
http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/Newsroom/UK_NR_VP_Viewpoint_FuelsPricing_june2004.asp

Quote:
Petrol prices in the UK are high because over 75 per cent of the pump
price is excise duty and VAT. This is the highest level of tax in
Europe. When taxes are excluded, not only are UK petrol prices among
the lowest in Europe but they are lower even than those in the USA
(OPAL/IEA data).

The UK petrol retailing business remains extremely competitive and
margins are very tight. For example, the average industry price of
unleaded petrol in 2003 was 76.3p per litre. When taxes and the cost
of producing the fuel are excluded, just over 5p per litre is left for
the retailer and the oil company.

This 5p has to cover the cost of getting the product from the refinery
to the distribution terminal, storing it, putting in additives to
improve performance and trucking it to the retailer, the retailer's
staff and other costs of running the site including credit card
charges (themselves over 1p per litre), promotions and marketing
costs, as well as generating an income for the retailer and a return
on investment for both the retailer and the oil company.

The margins earned by the petrol retailing industry have been falling
in real terms since the1960s. With little incentive to remain in the
retail business, some petrol retailers have left the industry, whilst
some oil companies have chosen to focus only on upstream activities.


BillK


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Aug 22 12:59:14 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:59:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
In-Reply-To: <015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org>
	<015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050822085748.032c4288@mail.gmu.edu>

At 02:14 AM 8/22/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>I liked the caption on James blog "If I have seen further than
>others it is by stepping on the toes of giants".

 From "The Newtonian Moment Arrives for Caltech Historian", Caltech News
39(2):2,8,9, 2005, arrived in my mail Saturday:

   [Newton] had a running conflict with another eminent British
   scientist, Robert Hooke, ... Hooke wanted to make peace.  Newton
   responded to his overture with a letter, in which he credited
   Descartes's contribution to optics, acknowledged Hooke's own, valuable
   contribution, and confessed that if he, Newton saw further than others
   into Nature's mysteries, "it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

   For centuries people have interpreted this as evidence of Newton's
   humility, says [Caltech's Mordechai] Feingold.  "Only problem is," he
   says, "Hooke was somewhat deformed.  So if you tell a hunchback you
   stood on the shoulders of giants, it's not a compliment.  It's a dig."

   "Newton was arrogant," says Feingold, "but it was because he new he
   was the purveyor of the truth in so many domains that he was unwilling
   to unable to listen to any objections or criticism.  And he was
   willing to defend his ideas nearly to the end.  He lived a long time
   and was basically able to bury his opposition."



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 rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Aug 22 13:08:08 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:08:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5a5c6b990f8ff4b9bd6597edecbc9ab4@aol.com>
	<20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050822090355.032b8a30@mail.gmu.edu>

Several of you have speculated on legal loopholes.  The biggest one
at the moment is that corporations have a lot of discretion to base
bonuses on whatever they like.  So internal corporate markets are being
pursued by a dozen or two companies at the moment.  The other possible
loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.  If the charity helps
match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of cut or fee for helping
those bettors, it seems possible that the charity itself would not
be prosecuted.


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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 22 13:50:58 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:50:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: confirm
	0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
In-Reply-To: <b7fe4c3a646f6d8e6cffb0b38942ea3b@aol.com>
References: <b7fe4c3a646f6d8e6cffb0b38942ea3b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <748E9F0A-4859-4F99-8924-C2A2BF79A947@bonfireproductions.com>


The part about the bounce, or the part about sending your mailinglist  
password so that people can carry out what you suspect? =)

heh. Sorry - couldn't resist.

Seriously though - My ISP's domain name server had a hickup a couple  
of months ago and I was offlisted for 3 or 4 days.

No conspiracy to be had I'm afraid - though I'd change your list  
password now that the entire internet will know it when this hits the  
archive.


]3ret


On Aug 22, 2005, at 3:50 AM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Now this is interesting, why does this happen?
>
> Robbie
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>> From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
>> Date: August 21, 2005 9:17:00 PM HST
>> To: robgobblin at aol.com
>> Subject: confirm 0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
>>
>> Your membership in the mailing list extropy-chat has been disabled  
>> due
>> to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated
>> 22-Aug-2005.  You will not get any more messages from this list until
>> you re-enable your membership.  You will receive 3 more reminders  
>> like
>> this before your membership in the list is deleted.
>>
>> To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message
>> (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at
>>
>>     http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/confirm/extropy-chat/ 
>> 0783778f56dcc3ad665e6d03a852437553770508
>>
>>
>> You can also visit your membership page at
>>
>>     http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/options/extropy-chat/ 
>> robgobblin%40aol.com
>>
>>
>> On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such
>> as your email address and whether you get digests or not.  As a
>> reminder, your membership password is
>>
>>     darling1
>>
>> If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner
>> at
>>
>>     extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug 22 13:52:03 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:52:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
Message-ID: <380-22005812213523423@M2W103.mail2web.com>

From: Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu

>At 02:14 AM 8/22/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>>I liked the caption on James blog "If I have seen further than
>>others it is by stepping on the toes of giants".

>From "The Newtonian Moment Arrives for Caltech Historian", Caltech News
>39(2):2,8,9, 2005, arrived in my mail Saturday:

>   For centuries people have interpreted this as evidence of Newton's
>   humility, says [Caltech's Mordechai] Feingold.  "Only problem is," he
>   says, "Hooke was somewhat deformed.  So if you tell a hunchback you
>   stood on the shoulders of giants, it's not a compliment.  It's a dig.

>   "Newton was arrogant," says Feingold, "but it was because he new he
>   was the purveyor of the truth in so many domains that he was unwilling
>   to unable to listen to any objections or criticism.  And he was
>   willing to defend his ideas nearly to the end.  He lived a long time
>   and was basically able to bury his opposition."


This says it all. 

Natasha

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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 14:03:29 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was :Exhibitionism
	(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <011401c5a6c7$2d168340$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050822140329.84216.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> > I have a question to put to those extropes that were
> > alive during the Civil Rights movements of the 60's.
> > What happened to the power of protest? Why were the
> > civil rights rallies and protests so successful in
> > this country while much bigger record setting protests
> > on both coasts against the War in Iraq completely
> > ineffectual. 
> 
> Speaking of the '60s, ooooooooooh ... Joanie has joined the chorus:
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8C4IN8O0.html
> 

"Page cannot be found...."

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 fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Aug 22 14:16:33 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:16:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
References: <20050822140329.84216.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002801c5a724$19c131c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> --- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

>> Speaking of the '60s, ooooooooooh ... Joanie has joined the chorus:
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8C4IN8O0.html
>
> "Page cannot be found...."

Weird, you're right.  It was there yesterday, and now they've completely 
taken it off the site at The Seattle Times (doesn't show up in archives, 
even).

But here's somewhat the same article:

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2961955 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 14:25:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <0E71B044-7E48-4DE5-980A-7D6192F7EEC6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
> >> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
> >> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
> >> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in 
> >> limbo
> >> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the
> >> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
> >>
> >
> > How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
> > for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
> > You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
> >
> 
> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from  
> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if 
> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies don't
> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes  
> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir  
> physically most need it?

The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to deal
with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
now because too many people are living longer than the system intended
or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits, not
both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the 90's,
when it was upped to 67.

Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take longevity
treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement age, so
you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
security. The result of this would be that the luddites work themselves
to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
coersion.

If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the sort of
rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)



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 spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Aug 22 15:00:58 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:00:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508221501.j7MF16u03550@tick.javien.com>

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

...
> 
> In Europe the gas price at the pumps is still around 2.5 times higher
> than US. So I would think the US has a long way to go before panic
> measures should be sought.
...
> 
> Fairly trivial lifestyle changes will easily enable the US to cope
> with higher gas prices for many years yet.
> 
> BillK

So true!  Don't be afraid to look at it closely.  Imagine
the highest price you can imagine gasoline equivalents:
corn producing alcohol at 8 bucks a gallon for instance.

How would your life be different?

The dark side might not be as dark as you imagined.

spike






From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Aug 22 16:03:33 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:03:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Shuttle costs
Message-ID: <00ab01c5a733$0c7063b0$0100a8c0@kevin>


Does anyone here have an idea of how much money has been spent since Columbia to "repair" the shuttle? What about the money spent maintaining a shuttle program while we are unable to fly the shuttle? 
I'm sure everyone here knows that despite 2 1/2 years and a ton of money, the shuttle has been grounded again until at least next March because of the same problems. I am tired of seeing good money thrown at this thing while it continues to dog us.
The orbiter is a miracle of modern engineering (or at least it was in the 1970s). It is perhaps the most complex machine ever built by human hands. The question is, should we be putting human beings into such a complex device when a less complex device could be made safer, more reliable, and less expensive? I think not. We've already gone 2 1/2 years without a manned space program and are looking at another 7 months. ANother few years wouldn't hurt us either if we just killed the orbiter program and began development of something else now. We already know that something else needs to be developed soon. Why do we keep putting it off in favor of this unreliable old jaloppy?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/26427228/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 16:07:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <200508221501.j7MF16u03550@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050822160712.23306.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> 
> ...
> > 
> > In Europe the gas price at the pumps is still around 2.5 times
> higher
> > than US. So I would think the US has a long way to go before panic
> > measures should be sought.
> ...
> > 
> > Fairly trivial lifestyle changes will easily enable the US to cope
> > with higher gas prices for many years yet.
> > 
> > BillK
> 
> So true!  Don't be afraid to look at it closely.  Imagine
> the highest price you can imagine gasoline equivalents:
> corn producing alcohol at 8 bucks a gallon for instance.
> 
> How would your life be different?
> 
> The dark side might not be as dark as you imagined.

Quite true. The inflation adjusted all time high price of gasoline was
$3.11 in 1979. That time was, however a time when gas was being
rationed. Carters stupendously stupid policies at that time were a
primary contributor to those historic highs, over and above the iranian
oil embargo.

Today the problem is refining. Most oil in the world is sour crude.
Most refineries in the US can only refine sweet crude, and no
refineries have been built in the US in over 20 years. While the price
of sweet crude (what you see in the news) is over $60/bbl, the price of
sour crude is in the low $30's.

Another solution would be to use nanotech to refine the athabascan tar
sands of Alberta. A technique for this I'm thinking of would be nanites
that take sulphur out of the tar and deposit it in crystalline form on
the surfaces of the grains of sand, slowly building the grains into
larger sulphur nuggets. The nanites would catalyse the thicker, less
useful constituents of the oil for energy, leaving a light sweet crude
as the output.

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  Mon Aug 22 16:16:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Shuttle costs
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c5a733$0c7063b0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050822161616.29032.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> 
> Does anyone here have an idea of how much money has been spent since
> Columbia to "repair" the shuttle? What about the money spent
> maintaining a shuttle program while we are unable to fly the shuttle?
> 
> I'm sure everyone here knows that despite 2 1/2 years and a ton of
> money, the shuttle has been grounded again until at least next March
> because of the same problems. I am tired of seeing good money thrown
> at this thing while it continues to dog us.
> The orbiter is a miracle of modern engineering (or at least it was in
> the 1970s). It is perhaps the most complex machine ever built by
> human hands. The question is, should we be putting human beings into
> such a complex device when a less complex device could be made safer,
> more reliable, and less expensive? I think not. We've already gone 2
> 1/2 years without a manned space program and are looking at another 7
> months. ANother few years wouldn't hurt us either if we just killed
> the orbiter program and began development of something else now. We
> already know that something else needs to be developed soon. Why do
> we keep putting it off in favor of this unreliable old jaloppy

I think even most NASA supporters have realized what a pig the shuttle
is. The problem is we have obligations to build the ISS (it needs
something like 10-20 more shuttle flights to complete) without an
alternate launch system for the largest components.

I am highly impressed by the shuttle derived launchers being proposed
by Thiokol. A medium launcher using one SRB and a liquid fueled upper
stage for small to medium payloads and the Crew Exploration Vehicle is
a smart design with a much safer total risk than the shuttle system,
and the EELV unmanned launcher using two SRBs with a lengthened liquid
fuel tank with four SMEs below it to boost 170,000 lb payloads is an
excellent concept.

It appears that both concepts will be very affordable, building on
established and reliable shuttle technology, while eliminating many
shuttle risk factors, and shortening the development phase. In the
mean-time, we need to work with the system we have, as bad as it is.

It is typically a truism of technology that by the time all the kinks
are worked out of a particular technology, it is obsolete. With the
proposed shuttle derived systems, by the time they work out all the
kings of the fuel tank insulation, they'll be able to use it on the EELV.

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  Mon Aug 22 18:06:25 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <002801c5a724$19c131c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050822180626.5815.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> > --- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Speaking of the '60s, ooooooooooh ... Joanie has joined the
> chorus:
> >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8C4IN8O0.html
> >
> > "Page cannot be found...."
> 
> Weird, you're right.  It was there yesterday, and now they've
> completely 
> taken it off the site at The Seattle Times (doesn't show up in
> archives, 
> even).
> 
> But here's somewhat the same article:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2961955 

It is evident to the reporters left wing bias that s/he barely
mentioned the pro-Bush/pro-troops rally this weekend in Crawford, which
attracted just as many people:
http://www.tomeaker.com/FReep/R4A/Americans06.jpg

BTW, for those of you who think Cindy speaks for her familye, here's a
letter from the REST of Casey Sheehan's family:
>From tonight's Drudge Report (8/11/05): 

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY! 
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET 

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on
April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother
Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the
president's Crawford, Texas ranch. 

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt
and godmother: 

"Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we
are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement
for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. 

Thanks, Cherie 

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas
issue: Sheehan Family Statement: 

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have
been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the
political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now
appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the
the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the
Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President,
silently, with prayer and respect. 

Sincerely, 

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "




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 robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug 22 18:10:58 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:10:58 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest
	was	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <20050822180626.5815.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050822180626.5815.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <430A1532.1060401@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas
>issue: Sheehan Family Statement: 
>
>The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have
>been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the
>political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now
>appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the
>the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the
>Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President,
>silently, with prayer and respect. 
>
>Sincerely, 
>
>Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "
>  
>

I think there's just one question, Mike, why do you provide publicity 
and appologetics services for the Republican Party?

Aren't you a member of an opposition party?

Robbie Lindauer
former Libertarian



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 22 18:14:03 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:14:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>


I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.

This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you voting  
franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.

]=)



]3ret


On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>
>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>> limbo
>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the
>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if
>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies don't
>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>> physically most need it?
>>
>
> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to deal
> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
> now because too many people are living longer than the system intended
> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits, not
> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the 90's,
> when it was upped to 67.
>
> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
> longevity
> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement age, so
> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
> themselves
> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
> coersion.
>
> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the sort of
> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>
>
>
> 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 robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug 22 18:24:08 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:24:08 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <430A1848.2020206@aol.com>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.

Communism?


>
> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you voting  
> franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
>

Militarism?


It's a brave new world.

Robbie Lindauer



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 19:00:12 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:00:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <0E71B044-7E48-4DE5-980A-7D6192F7EEC6@mac.com>
	<20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05082212002aab08a8@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/22/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to deal
> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
> now because too many people are living longer than the system intended
> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits, not
> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the 90's,
> when it was upped to 67.
> 

See: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4172960.stm>

Young people are in a worse economic position than their parents were
at their age, according to a new study.

They are paying for the welfare state "without being able to expect
many of the benefits", Reform says.

They must now pay for their own higher education and save for their
retirement, while supporting an aging population, the think-tank says.

Government policies are "mortgaging the future of a generation," warns
Mr Bosanquet.
"This is a really big issue for the country," he said. 

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

While this report is specific to the UK, it probably applies equally
well to all developed countries with an aging population.

Increasing the retirement age means that young people will have to
keep paying for longer before getting any benefits. Politicians are
finding that this is a very unpopular option.

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 22 19:18:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:18:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Re: IS IT TIME TO RATION FUEL?
In-Reply-To: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <8D71E3D8-8438-445A-A1E0-8D6FE6BF909A@mac.com>


On Aug 21, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote:

> Forwarding from another list...
>
> Terry
>
>
> I agree spomething has to be done.  What was a robust economy will  
> soon be in recession or at least diminished growth.  I'm not as  
> bent out of shape over the oil companies as they don't set the  
> price of oil, they simply drill and refine. I think the commodity  
> traders are out of control at the moment.  They drive up the price  
> of oil for almost any reason and NONE of them ever happen. So, here  
> are my thoughts grounded in the simple fact that for the short  
> term, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE OIL.
>

We had a stock bubble, especially in tech, driven by "irrational  
exuberance", something for near nothing thinking, and mass fear of  
Y2K.  In the midst of that we were already shedding manufacturing  
jobs in the US and turning from a production to a consumption  
economy.  Post Y2K the bubble burst.  9/11 added more economic  
pressure.   The Fed kept the money and credit pumping.  It had to go  
somewhere.  Instead of going into productive activity it mostly went  
into high consumption at all levels and to the rapid expansion of the  
housing bubble.  The housing bubble gave homeowners another way to  
gain more money in the "jobless recovery" and consume and pile up  
debt even faster.  Nothing in this is or many other characteristics  
of the world's largest economy is what I would call "robust".  The  
quesiton is when will the various props and tools of denial fail and  
how catastrophically.  More importantly what can be done to cure the  
many ills and how quickly.

> 1) Conservation - I too would like to see a sizable reduction in  
> consumption.  I would offer huge tax incentives for fuel efficient  
> vehicles. Deduct 10% of the vehicle cost for each 1 mpg over 20 the  
> car gets.  This would not hurt Detroit because they now produce  
> many vehicles that get milage in this range. And many people who  
> own large SUVs and pickups would migrate to more fuel effcient  
> cars.  Those who love large vehicle would pay extra as they do not  
> get the tax write-
> off.  (this doe interfere with my flat tax idea but I can only save  
> the world one step at a time ;^))

Continuing to drive fuel inefficient vehicles does add a small burden  
that accumulates over all such drivers into something that may not be  
negligible.

>
> 2) Drill dammit just drill - there is oil out there and can be  
> processed with today's technology.  Be environmentally friendly but  
> drill - for the short term we must have oil. I don't know how many  
> studies Congress needs but drill for the oil.  If a few bugs,  
> bears, snakes or moose are unhappy so be it.

This misses the point that the oil companies don't have a lot of   
large oil bearing targets that they believe are viable to drill.

> 3) Standardize the fuel grades - for heavens sake how many  
> different fuel formulas do we need in this country? There are far  
> too many - have a winter and summer national standard and let the  
> refineries optimize for these formulas and reduce the cost of  
> processing.

It would have to be rather high grade unless you are going to wreck a  
lot of engines.  Why should those with cars taking the lower grades  
pay the higher price?  The problem as I understand it is not the  
grades of gas as much as the different types of plants required to  
process the different grades of crude that come out of the ground.   
Most of our existing refineries are geared only for the relatively  
easy to process light sweet crude.

>
> 4) More refineries - none in 30 or so years? Why? EPA regulations?

Nope.  Cost versus supply of crude and expected ROI.  Refineries take  
years to come online BTW.  So do oil wells.

>
> 5) Nuke em - hell electricity in France comes from nuke power why  
> not us?
>

I couldn't agree more.  It is high time we got over our irrational  
level of fear of nuclear power.

> 6) Start the future now. - Start a program similar to NASA to  
> define and build the infrastructure for the next generation of  
> fuels - hydrogen or whatever.  Set a goal to use 50% less oil by 2030.

2030? Too little too late.

- samantha


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Aug 22 19:28:12 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:28:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05082212002aab08a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E71B044-7E48-4DE5-980A-7D6192F7EEC6@mac.com>
	<20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e05082212002aab08a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050822192811.GL2259@leitl.org>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:00:12PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Increasing the retirement age means that young people will have to
> keep paying for longer before getting any benefits. Politicians are
> finding that this is a very unpopular option.

Demographics favors the crafty old critters, and power games
those adept at lobbying.

The youth are few, preoccupied with pretty baubles, and apolitical.
A politician needs only survive one legislation period to cover his
own retirement, very nicely.

It's going to be quite interesting to find out what today's
youth will do, once they find out.</beberg> 

-- 
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/20050822/7433f4a6/attachment.bin>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 22 19:25:13 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:25:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <B293D122-B053-4FB1-B231-DC7E017E5ED6@mac.com>

Thanks for the empty frivolous response.

-s

On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>
> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you  
> voting franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
>
> ]=)
>
>
>
> ]3ret
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
>>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>>> limbo
>>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the
>>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if
>>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies  
>>> don't
>>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>>> physically most need it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to  
>> deal
>> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
>> now because too many people are living longer than the system  
>> intended
>> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
>> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
>> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits,  
>> not
>> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
>> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
>> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the  
>> 90's,
>> when it was upped to 67.
>>
>> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
>> longevity
>> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement  
>> age, so
>> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
>> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
>> themselves
>> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
>> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
>> coersion.
>>
>> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the  
>> sort of
>> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
>> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
>> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 22 19:31:46 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:31:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <430A1848.2020206@aol.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
	<430A1848.2020206@aol.com>
Message-ID: <D613431A-951B-4A00-AE8D-6EA4C6785246@bonfireproductions.com>


You forgot the horns: ]=)

My point is : If you are passing up Social Security/Pensioning for a  
longevity process, is not said system then paying for that process,  
costing the system money anyhow? Or did I miss something?

And no, of course that's not Communism, per se. Or, if what I wrote  
was, than what I read was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism



]3ret


On Aug 22, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise  
>> you  'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>>
>
> Communism?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/d61e9146/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 22 19:35:03 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:35:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05082212002aab08a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E71B044-7E48-4DE5-980A-7D6192F7EEC6@mac.com>
	<20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e05082212002aab08a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64421116-A409-4FF8-8AF1-EC135493ABEB@mac.com>


On Aug 22, 2005, at 12:00 PM, BillK wrote:

> On 8/22/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>
>> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to  
>> deal
>> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
>> now because too many people are living longer than the system  
>> intended
>> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
>> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
>> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits,  
>> not
>> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
>> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
>> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the  
>> 90's,
>> when it was upped to 67.
>>
>>

The above is only relevant if the retired are living of off  
government taxpayer $$.  It misses that most of the retired among  
boomers have paid a small fortune in Social (hah!) Security that got  
expropriated by the government.  It misses that many of the aged with  
some rejuvenation would be able and interested in pursuing careers  
and thus decrease any net drain.   Since the SS money is my money I  
believ I should receive every penny plus interes that I have paid  
into the system in a just world regardless of whether I "need it" or  
not and certainly regardless of whether I receive longevity  
benefits.  This conversation also seems less than extropic in that in] 
t assumes a continuing scarcity economy rather than reaching for more  
of an abundance economy.

>
> See: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4172960.stm>
>
> Young people are in a worse economic position than their parents were
> at their age, according to a new study.
>

Yes, we are starting to admit obliquely some of the real economic  
indicators.  But it is not because more people are old.

> They are paying for the welfare state "without being able to expect
> many of the benefits", Reform says.
>
> They must now pay for their own higher education and save for their
> retirement, while supporting an aging population, the think-tank says.
>

Not if you get real rejuvenation and longevity treatments any time soon.

> Government policies are "mortgaging the future of a generation," warns
> Mr Bosanquet.
> "This is a really big issue for the country," he said.

Government policies are and have been mortgaging all aspects of the  
economy and the future for decades now.  It is still accelerating.    
I don't know if it can be stopped and the damage healed before a  
quite massive crash.

- samantha



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 22 20:04:05 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:04:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <B293D122-B053-4FB1-B231-DC7E017E5ED6@mac.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
	<B293D122-B053-4FB1-B231-DC7E017E5ED6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <1F851B56-C34E-4725-A855-53082D71B52C@bonfireproductions.com>



well, not if it illustrates that the chain of expense doesn't/ 
shouldn't fall back onto the same group supporting the retirees. Rob  
got it.

Rik and Mike both continued in the notion that this system would  
provide a choice to those about to retire - but what choice do those  
have that are supporting the system? If a discovery is made this  
year, and this system implemented next - would you want _your taxes_  
paying for the rejuvenation of the elderly? If they are  
'contributing' - then this is a problem indeed, because they should  
and could provide this themselves. And how could we guarantee that if  
we were doing this in 2006, that I would still 'get my social  
security' in 30 years and be rejuvenated as well?

As for my franchise quip - it's one of Heinlein's ideas, and if  
anyone wrote a lot about longevity and rejuvenation processes, it was  
RAH.

Sorry to disturb you I guess!


]3



On Aug 22, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Thanks for the empty frivolous response.
>
> -s
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
>> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>>
>> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you  
>> voting franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
>>
>> ]=)
>>
>>
>>
>> ]3ret
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>>>> limbo
>>>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>>>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.   
>>>> Even if
>>>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies  
>>>> don't
>>>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>>>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>>>> physically most need it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to  
>>> deal
>>> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken  
>>> right
>>> now because too many people are living longer than the system  
>>> intended
>>> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
>>> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
>>> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity  
>>> benefits, not
>>> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
>>> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
>>> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the  
>>> 90's,
>>> when it was upped to 67.
>>>
>>> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
>>> longevity
>>> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement  
>>> age, so
>>> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
>>> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
>>> themselves
>>> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
>>> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
>>> coersion.
>>>
>>> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the  
>>> sort of
>>> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
>>> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
>>> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon Aug 22 20:47:01 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:47:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) STEYN: 'Peace Mom's' marraige a metaphor
	for Dems
Message-ID: <430A39C5.8060600@mindspring.com>

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html

'Peace Mom's' marriage a metaphor for Dems

August 21, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died in Sadr City last year, and that fact 
is supposed to put her beyond reproach. For as the New York Times' 
Maureen Dowd informed us: ''The moral authority of parents who bury 
children killed in Iraq is absolute."

Really? Well, what about those other parents who've buried children 
killed in Iraq? There are, sadly, hundreds of them: They honor their 
loved ones' service to the nation, and so they don't make the news. 
There's one Cindy Sheehan, and she's on TV 'round the clock. Because, 
if you're as heavily invested as Dowd in the notion that those 
"killed in Iraq" are "children," then Sheehan's status as grieving 
matriarch is a bonanza.

They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own 
decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the 
left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army 
went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to 
characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an 
abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a 
look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill 
Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she 
wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country 
overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what 
he's doing.

I get many e-mails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more 
grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen 
Dowd, who writes like she's auditioning for a minor supporting role 
in ''Sex And The City.''

The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply 
insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's 
purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they 
"support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused 
moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.

I resisted writing about "Mother Sheehan" (as one leftie has proposed 
designating her), as it seemed obvious that she was at best a little 
unhinged by grief and at worst mentally ill. It's one thing to mourn 
a son's death and even to question the cause for which he died, but 
quite another to roar that he was "murdered by the Bush crime family."

Also: "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. 
You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me 
my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana . . . You get 
America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine."

And how about this? "America has been killing people on this 
continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for." 
That was part of her warm-up act for a speech by Lynne Stewart, the 
"activist" lawyer convicted of conspiracy for aiding the terrorists 
convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

You can see why Lynne's grateful to Sheehan. But why is Elizabeth 
Edwards sending out imploring letters headlined "Support Cindy 
Sheehan's Right To Be Heard"? The politics of this isn't difficult: 
The more Cindy Sheehan is heard the more obvious it is she's thrown 
her lot in with kooks most Americans would give a wide berth to.

Don't take my word for it, ask her family. Casey Sheehan's 
grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins put out the following 
statement:

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we 
have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the 
political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now 
appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the 
expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the 
Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, 
silently, with prayer and respect."

Ah, well, they're not immediate family, so they lack Cindy's "moral 
authority." But how about Casey's father, Pat Sheehan? Last Friday, 
in Solano County Court, Casey's father Pat Sheehan filed for divorce. 
As the New York Times explained Cindy's "separation," "Although she 
and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more 
liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized."

Toppling Saddam and the Taliban (Mrs. Sheehan opposes U.S. 
intervention in Afghanistan, too), destroying al-Qaida's training 
camps and helping 50 million Muslims on the first steps to free 
societies aren't worth the death of a single soldier. But Cindy 
Sheehan's hatred of Bush is worth the death of her marriage. Watching 
her and her advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on TV, I feel 
the way I felt about that mentally impaired Aussie concert pianist 
they got to play at the Oscars a few years.

Yet in the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is 
surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both 
Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are 
a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're 
soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so 
forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, 
they have family in the military, and they don't believe in 
dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem 
for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest 
voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the 
flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own 
financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to 
do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes 
she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., 
to desert.

On unwatched Sunday talk shows, you can still stumble across the 
occasional sane, responsible Dem. But, in the absence of any serious 
intellectual attempt to confront their long-term decline, all the 
energy on the left is with the fringe. The Democratic Party is a 
coalition of Pat Sheehans and Cindy Sheehans, and the noisier the 
Cindys get the more estranged the Pats are likely to feel.

Sorry about that, but, if Mrs. Sheehan can insist her son's corpse be 
the determining factor in American policy on Iraq, I don't see why 
her marriage can't be a metaphor for the state of the Democratic 
Party.

Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He 
re-enlisted for a second tour, and he died after volunteering for a 
rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd 
driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, 
and it was his decision.

His mother has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has 
had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep 
down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a 
narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's 
gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, 
anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey 
Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say 
the same about his mom's new friends.



-- 
"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 robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Aug 22 20:48:49 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:48:49 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <D613431A-951B-4A00-AE8D-6EA4C6785246@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822142518.97060.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>	<430A1848.2020206@aol.com>
	<D613431A-951B-4A00-AE8D-6EA4C6785246@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <430A3A31.8020004@aol.com>

I guess I think that social security along with other forms of top-down 
social engineering are doomed to failure -effectively implementing them 
is nearly impossible even with the assumed goodwill and competence of 
the administrators.  When you intimately involve government in the 
decision process of how long someone is going to live, you're asking for 
trouble.  Next thing you know, there's a life-tax on top of the 
retirement tax and school tax and tea tax, all controlled by people who, 
as americans, we -should- fundamentally mistrust following the "absolute 
power corrupts absolutely" maxim.  If -someone else- then decides how we 
are to invest in our own futures, yes, that's socialism at least.  
"Communism" was just a propaganda word, sorry for using it.

The notion of "contributing to society and GNP" is so, well, 
controlling.  I hate thinking that my life -depends- on the GNP.  I like 
to think that my life depends on me being able to make/save enough 
resources to survive - that that depends on the goodwill of my neigbors 
is nearly self-evident.   With neighbors, that's okay - I like my 
neighbors, they know that they depend on me just like I depend on them.  
But with politicians, the power-balance is too skewed and depending on 
them for basic survival issues is foolish - like gambling your life that 
some politician will get some legislation passed for you, an absurd idea.

Robbie


Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> You forgot the horns: ]=)
>
> My point is : If you are passing up Social Security/Pensioning for a 
> longevity process, is not said system then paying for that process, 
> costing the system money anyhow? Or did I miss something?
>
> And no, of course that's not Communism, per se. Or, if what I wrote 
> was, than what I read was.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>
>
>
> ]3ret
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
>>> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Communism?
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 22 22:11:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (POLITICS) Utility of Protest was
	:Exhibitionism(no, not THAT kind)
In-Reply-To: <430A1532.1060401@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050822221106.84127.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas
> >issue: Sheehan Family Statement: 
> >
> >The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we
> have
> >been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the
> >political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She
> now
> >appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the
> >the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the
> >Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President,
> >silently, with prayer and respect. 
> >
> >Sincerely, 
> >
> >Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "
> >  
> I think there's just one question, Mike, why do you provide publicity
> and appologetics services for the Republican Party?
> Aren't you a member of an opposition party?

A loyal opposition party, and a member of that party who believes it is
dishonest and corrupt to either invent issues out of whole cloth (i.e.
the draft issue) or to ally and work with those who are most against
real individual liberty and property rights (radical leftists, WWP,
stalinists and other socialists, etc who are the leadership of the
anti-war movement), (not just their phony "social justice" (i.e. give
us your property or we'll shoot you)), or to propound conspiracy
theories that do not stand up to critical examination.

As such I am ethically bound to state the truth, no matter who it
skewers. If you can't put out an honest message based on facts you can
support with refs, then it is you who are the liar, the propagandist,
and the apologist.

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  Mon Aug 22 22:22:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <7E40F099-2113-473B-8D22-0812AA912EAB@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050822222228.79657.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

As I've been thinking about it, the more libertarian thing to do would
be to buy out potential retirees who want longevity: if you take
longevity treatment, you get the equivalent of 3 years of SS benefits,
as a lump sum, or an adjusted amount based on your contributions over
the years, as is used to determine your SS benefits. You can use that
buyout money to pay for your longevity if you want, invest it, etc. but
you are out of the SS system, unless you keep working, and must work,
to start, 4 more years for every 5 years of added life expectancy. I
can see a LOT of libertarians who would jump at that opportunity.

As for pensions outside the SS system, those are up to the individual
pension systems and their stakeholders. Were I in a decision making
position in a pension system, anyone who got longevity treatment would
have to accept a benefit scheme that never drew down on their vested
principal, all they receive would be the annual interest minus the
inflation rate (to keep their stake at a level year to year), or else
they'd have to accept a term limit on their benefits.

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

> 
> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
> 
> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you voting 
> 
> franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
> 
> ]=)
> 
> 
> 
> ]3ret
> 
> 
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
> >>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing
> the
> >>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
> >>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held
> in
> >>>> limbo
> >>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after
> the
> >>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
> >>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
> >>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
> >> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even
> if
> >> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies
> don't
> >> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity
> includes
> >> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
> >> physically most need it?
> >>
> >
> > The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to
> deal
> > with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken
> right
> > now because too many people are living longer than the system
> intended
> > or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
> > average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential
> retirees
> > the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits,
> not
> > both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
> > retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
> > float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the
> 90's,
> > when it was upped to 67.
> >
> > Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
> > longevity
> > treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement age,
> so
> > you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
> > security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
> > themselves
> > to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
> > survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
> > coersion.
> >
> > If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the sort
> of
> > rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
> > longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for
> primitivism
> > into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 22:26:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <64421116-A409-4FF8-8AF1-EC135493ABEB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050822222645.31628.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote: 
> The above is only relevant if the retired are living of off  
> government taxpayer $$.  It misses that most of the retired among  
> boomers have paid a small fortune in Social (hah!) Security that got 
> expropriated by the government.  

This is not accurate, Samantha. The average American worker only
contributes enough to social security over their lives for about 3.5
years of benefits. The problem is they live over a decade, on average,
beyond the start of their benefits, i.e. they are taking three dollars
out of the system for every one they put into it. None of their money
went into any interest bearing investments (other than when they
shifted SS trust funds into T-Bills in the late 80's, if you count
those as reliable or contributing to economic growth).

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  Mon Aug 22 22:45:11 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment
In-Reply-To: <430A3A31.8020004@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050822224511.72689.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I guess I think that social security along with other forms of
> top-down social engineering are doomed to failure -effectively
> implementing them is nearly impossible even with the assumed
> goodwill and competence of the administrators.  When you intimately
> involve government in the decision process of how long someone is
> going to live, you're asking for trouble.  Next thing you know,
> there's a life-tax on top of the retirement tax and school tax and
> tea tax, all controlled by people who, as americans, we -should-
> fundamentally mistrust following the "absolute power corrupts
> absolutely" maxim.  If -someone else- then decides how we are to
> invest in our own futures, yes, that's socialism at least.  
> "Communism" was just a propaganda word, sorry for using it.

You have some excellent points here. Problem is, the govt is already
'intimately involved', and its position is reinforced by an entrenched
and powerful constituency, the AARP. Getting them to accept any reform
is neigh on impossible. Arguing against a system that is already
entrenched does nothing to further discussion or solve future problems.
So the question is, what can we do in incremental steps to reform the
system, what can we do to give people an option out of the system, and
what can we do to either delay people's entry into the system, or get
them out early, if they intend on living longer than the system is
structured to deal with.

Paraphrasing a bit from "Methuselah's Children", the 'people' could
accept that some enjoyed more years of retirement than others because
for the most part, life expectancy was a crapshoot, random, so in a way
it is as fair as a draft lottery, or the odds of being born into wealth
or poverty: you take your chances and you deal with the hand you are
dealt by life.

Now however, those who can afford it, or who can accept the lifestyle
changes, etc. can cheat or game that system. It isn't considered
sporting. It's not 'fair'. If it is available to everybody, those who
accept the treatment when near retirement age will pillage the social
security system before the younger generation, who will be contributing
even more of their income than their elders to the system, will never
see a dime of their contributions.

Now, as the government says, SS benefits are really not 'entitlements'.
The gov't can revise the benefits at any time or end it entirely. You
didn't invest anything into SS, you gifted money to it, and you will be
gifted money back when you retire, if you do so early enough. That you
volunteered (or your parents volunteered you) without giving you an
option to disenroll, is an injustice, but not germaine to the
discussion. "Government is force", remember?

If you chose to get more life than 'random chance' allows, you are
cheating their system, and like the pit bosses at any casino, they can
choose to stop doing business with you if they catch you counting
cards.
You either play the game like everybody else or its take your winnings
and down the road Charlie.

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 22 22:48:46 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
Message-ID: <20050822224846.58666.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

I apologize for starting the posts on Cindy Sheehan.
 However I have consulted the licensed & bonded FBNF corporation concerning the next three and one half years and their prediction is: 
"the inauguration of January 20th 2008 will see a new administration inheriting the Iraq occupation from the outgoing Bush administration. This futuristic prediction comes with an unexpiring warrantee from the Fly By Night Futurist (FBNF) corporation". 
Donations: 
send unmarked dollar bills to--
FBNF
P.O. box 54
Kampala, Uganda
0841-39

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
 Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050822/149fe091/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 23:00:19 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:00:19 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
References: <20050822224846.58666.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01a601c5a76d$44f35a00$0d98e03c@homepc>

I'd be inclined to bet to the contrary Al. I could be wrong but here's my
reasoning.

The January inauguration will have to follow the election which would 
take place on 2 November 2008. 4 years after 2 November 2004. 

Brett Paatsch

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:48 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction


  I apologize for starting the posts on Cindy Sheehan.
   However I have consulted the licensed & bonded FBNF corporation concerning the next three and one half years and their prediction is: 
  "the inauguration of January 20th 2008 will see a new administration inheriting the Iraq occupation from the outgoing Bush administration. This futuristic prediction comes with an unexpiring warrantee from the Fly By Night Futurist (FBNF) corporation". 
  Donations: 
  send unmarked dollar bills to--
  FBNF
  P.O. box 54
  Kampala, Uganda
  0841-39
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050823/6ee1274a/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 22 23:35:59 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <01a601c5a76d$44f35a00$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

good gravy! Did mean in fact to write January 20th 2009, the date the FBNF informed me of-- a simple clerical error. But Bret, now that you've taken the bait, would you care to wager an unmarked futurist-extropian-transhumanist three dollar bill that the administration sworn in on January 20th Two Thousand Nine inherits the Iraq occupation from its predecessor the Bush administration? All wagers are tax deductible.

Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:I'd be inclined to bet to the contrary Al. I could be wrong but here's my
reasoning.
 
The January inauguration will have to follow the election which would 
take place on 2 November 2008. 4 years after 2 November 2004. 
 
Brett Paatsch


__________________________________________________
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/20050822/8de73c04/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 22 23:57:12 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:57:12 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Value chain tracing 
References: <43095ADF.3090301@mindspring.com><015201c5a6db$b79c0030$0d98e03c@homepc><ee50357e050822021753aa17d@mail.gmail.com><007c01c5a700$11bd1490$0d98e03c@homepc><ee50357e050822032518a3e89b@mail.gmail.com><00b001c5a709$fe0127c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e0508220521133c30be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ab01c5a775$37468d70$0d98e03c@homepc>

BillK wrote:

> On 8/22/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>> I reckon your probably pretty right Eugen but getting at the purer truth
>> of it might be fun, but bearing in mind I'm in not in either Europe or
>> the US I think we need to get specific because the variatious in taxes
>> and charges and profit margins etc are very likely to exist within such
>> big geographic areas, thats why I want to hone in one particular petrol
>> station one in each of two particular places. (And it makes sense that
>> each of these be stations that are of least some interest to someone
>> involved in the conversation.
>>
>> The notion that someone somewhere is getting filthy sneakily rich on oil
>> (and even going to war over it) sure as heck seems to be making some
>> folks at least a little antsy so lets turn on the light on the problem in 
>> a
>> practical and analytical way and see what the facts tell us.
>>
>
>
> I think you might be leaping in where angels fear to tread. :)

Well that's why I was figuring on a sort of group leap :) But international,
inter-timezone group leaps carried out over internet lists are a tad hard
to organise. People tend to need to go to bed.

> The oil distribution industry must be about the most analysed industry
> in the world. I doubt if there is anything new that we can discover.

Good reports and analysis done by others represents just the first
part of understanding something. A person still has to read them
to personalise their implications and develop a personal investment
plan or business plan, or a to work out how to. Data isn't
information unless we want to make use of it.

> Here is a report from ExxonMobil defending the UK price. (June 2004).
> http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/Newsroom/UK_NR_VP_Viewpoint_FuelsPricing_june2004.asp
>
> Quote:
> Petrol prices in the UK are high because over 75 per cent of the pump
> price is excise duty and VAT. This is the highest level of tax in
> Europe. When taxes are excluded, not only are UK petrol prices among
> the lowest in Europe but they are lower even than those in the USA
> (OPAL/IEA data).

Ok. But excise duty paid to whom, and value added tax (VAT) paid to
whom? Which levels of government are taking the slices and how much?

Is the UK a homogeneous market in terms of government taxes and
excise duty? ie. Is tax taken out in only two places, two levels of 
government
or in some cases one or three, and if there is differences why?

I don't really care about the answers specifically, personally, and if I did
care I could find them out myself, but its the sort of questioning that 
needs
to be done to understand why fuel costs X in location XL and Y in location
YL.

And that sort of questioning is a part of finding ways to make money in
a global economy, and understand policy, and see where bloat is getting
in. And that sort of questioning is not the sort that the average voter
bothers to do (on the average) and the politicians know it.

I don't mean to get preachy on you, you may well know this. But
perhaps some others reading don't.

> The UK petrol retailing business remains extremely competitive and
> margins are very tight. For example, the average industry price of
> unleaded petrol in 2003 was 76.3p per litre. When taxes and the cost
> of producing the fuel are excluded, just over 5p per litre is left for
> the retailer and the oil company.

Ok. So the UK government(s), (at one or more levels), have an
interest in petrol that per se has nothing to do with its power to
expode in an internal combustion engine producing energy or to be
converted into plastics.

They (the levels of government) have set up systems to specifically
tax not just any old thing, but oil, and those systems (the systems by
which tax is extracted by the levels of government from not just
any old thing but oil specifically) would *themselves* take some
work by those same levels of government to substitute for other
systems that would tax something else.

And of course for elected representatives to do or cause the public
service to do that work, they'd have to understand it, and they'd
have to see that work that policy change as worth while not just
in its own terms but in comparative terms when measured against
the other things that the vagaries of democratic electorates are
clamouring that they attend to.

A bottle neck on changing anything at any stage thus turns out to
be the ability of those they would have to implement the changes
capacity to both understand the changes and advocate for those
particular changes to be enough of a priority of the business of
the government for them to happen.

Little wonder political stuff takes time :-).

> This 5p has to cover the cost of getting the product from the refinery
> to the distribution terminal, storing it, putting in additives to
> improve performance and trucking it to the retailer, the retailer's
> staff and other costs of running the site including credit card
> charges (themselves over 1p per litre), promotions and marketing
> costs, as well as generating an income for the retailer and a return
> on investment for both the retailer and the oil company.
>
> The margins earned by the petrol retailing industry have been falling
> in real terms since the1960s. With little incentive to remain in the
> retail business, some petrol retailers have left the industry, whilst
> some oil companies have chosen to focus only on upstream activities.

Yup but is the petrol retailing industry always separate from the petrol
wholesaling industry (this I sincerely doubt) or in some cases are they
more vertically integrated than others. This can affect the differential
prices of petrol in locations XL (where say Eugen buys his petrol)
and YL (where you buy yours) too.

You don't have to know it to buy the petrol but you, or rather, one,
does have to know it to know who is making or taking money at
different spots in the different value chains that put petrol at locations
XL and YL.

Anyway, without *specifics* like a particular petrol station at a particular
location and date in each of two locations within Europe and the US
as real points of comparison this isn't really interesting enough for me to
spend time on.

Its only interesting to *me* if someone I like is going to learn something
useful to them out of it. If the people I like already know it, I'll find
something else to do.

The pity is that sometimes such really smart and likeable people stay
trapped in stagnant little knowledge domains or overspecialisations.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Aug 23 01:53:42 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:53:42 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>

No thanks, Al. The bet you propose isn't well formed enough to interest me.

There is a non zero probability that George W Bush might die, resign or 
be impeached before 20 January 2009. And any of those outcomes 
*might* be to the net good. That's net American or United States'ian 
good (leaving the rest of the world out of it except in so far as the US is
going to have to continue to be part of the world after its 43rd President
is long gone). I'm still mulling that over.  His absence prior to 20 January
2009 could constitute a real opportunity for improvement but could also 
introduce new areas of risk. 

My current reading of George W Bush is that he genuinely wants to finish
what he started with respect to Iraq. He wants to keep his promises to 
those Iraqis that voted in the election. He also wants to avoid impeachment.
And the shame and historical approbium of having taken decisions that did
more harm than good.  I think he really *wants* to do some good on his 
watch. 

Brett Paatsch


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction


  good gravy! Did mean in fact to write January 20th 2009, the date the FBNF informed me of-- a simple clerical error. But Bret, now that you've taken the bait, would you care to wager an unmarked futurist-extropian-transhumanist three dollar bill that the administration sworn in on January 20th Two Thousand Nine inherits the Iraq occupation from its predecessor the Bush administration? All wagers are tax deductible.

  Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: 
    I'd be inclined to bet to the contrary Al. I could be wrong but here's my
    reasoning.

    The January inauguration will have to follow the election which would 
    take place on 2 November 2008. 4 years after 2 November 2004. 

    Brett Paatsch
  __________________________________________________
  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/20050823/f02a3e64/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 23 02:01:14 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050823020114.66445.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

What you mean to say here, Bret, is you don't want to risk losing the three dollar bill in a wager because you know Bush is a survivor and the odds are strongly in favor of the president finishing his current term and the Iraqi insurgency continuing into the term of Bush's successor. Your answer means I wont be gaining a three dollar bill in 2009 :-{

>Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: No thanks, Al. The bet you propose isn't >well formed enough to interest me.There is a non zero probability that George W Bush might >die, resign or be impeached before 20 January 2009.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please send your unmarked cash donations in plain brown envelopes to--
ACME Fly-By-Night Futurist Corporation
PO Box 41
Kampala, Uganda
0846-29







__________________________________________________
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/20050822/c64cb03e/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Aug 23 02:31:33 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:31:33 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
References: <20050823020114.66445.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <027001c5a78a$c6f900a0$0d98e03c@homepc>

No. I said what I meant to say, and its on record and timestamped. How or if you read what I said is up to you.

Brett Paatsch

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Al Brooks 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction


  What you mean to say here, Bret, is you don't want to risk losing the three dollar bill in a wager because you know Bush is a survivor and the odds are strongly in favor of the president finishing his current term and the Iraqi insurgency continuing into the term of Bush's successor. Your answer means I wont be gaining a three dollar bill in 2009 :-{

  >Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: No thanks, Al. The bet you propose isn't >well formed enough to interest me.There is a non zero probability that George W Bush might >die, resign or be impeached before 20 January 2009.



  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  please send your unmarked cash donations in plain brown envelopes to--
  ACME Fly-By-Night Futurist Corporation
  PO Box 41
  Kampala, Uganda
  0846-29
  __________________________________________________
  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/20050823/53ed55e4/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Aug 23 02:56:29 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:56:29 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
References: <5a5c6b990f8ff4b9bd6597edecbc9ab4@aol.com><20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050822090355.032b8a30@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <029c01c5a78e$42ad5ea0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> Several of you have speculated on legal loopholes.  The biggest one
> at the moment is that corporations have a lot of discretion to base
> bonuses on whatever they like.  So internal corporate markets are being
> pursued by a dozen or two companies at the moment.  The other possible
> loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.  If the charity helps
> match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of cut or fee for helping
> those bettors, it seems possible that the charity itself would not
> be prosecuted.

Are you using charity as a synonym for not-for-profit? Reason I ask is
that I'm not currently across the legal distinctions, if any between 
charity and not-for-profit, in the US, but in strictly economic terms,
it seems to me that even a charity is going to want something to 
offset the costs of hosting such a service. 

I think of a charity as slightly different to a not-for-profit perhaps
because charity has positive connotations to most people whereas
not-for-profit may not.  A successful charity is likely to be protective
of its brand-image whereas a not-for-profit set up for the specific
purpose of providing cover, would provide some cover, but not the
same level of cover.  I don't know of anyone calling their kid 
not-for-profit. 


It would be analogous to a structure set up purely for the purposes
of avoiding tax. The public through the media would be able to 
relate to the sentiment of wanting to avoid tax but not necessarily 
care if a shell structure established primarily to do just that that
happened to be a not-for-profit took a full on media and political
hit. 

Brett Paatsch 






From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Aug 23 02:59:55 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:59:55 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
> watch.
>  



That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean 
"real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.

Robbie




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Aug 23 03:35:48 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:35:48 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
References: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org><015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050822085748.032c4288@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <02bc01c5a793$c0979d80$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 02:14 AM 8/22/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>I liked the caption on James blog "If I have seen further than
>>others it is by stepping on the toes of giants".
>
> From "The Newtonian Moment Arrives for Caltech Historian", Caltech News
> 39(2):2,8,9, 2005, arrived in my mail Saturday:
>
>   [Newton] had a running conflict with another eminent British
>   scientist, Robert Hooke, ... Hooke wanted to make peace.  Newton
>   responded to his overture with a letter, in which he credited
>   Descartes's contribution to optics, acknowledged Hooke's own, valuable
>   contribution, and confessed that if he, Newton saw further than others
>   into Nature's mysteries, "it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
>
>   For centuries people have interpreted this as evidence of Newton's
>   humility, says [Caltech's Mordechai] Feingold.  "Only problem is," he
>   says, "Hooke was somewhat deformed.  So if you tell a hunchback you
>   stood on the shoulders of giants, it's not a compliment.  It's a dig."
>
>   "Newton was arrogant," says Feingold, "but it was because he new he
>   was the purveyor of the truth in so many domains that he was unwilling
>   to unable to listen to any objections or criticism.  And he was
>   willing to defend his ideas nearly to the end.  He lived a long time
>   and was basically able to bury his opposition."

A good story.

Wasn't it also Newton that said: Aristotle is my friend, Plato is my friend
but my greatest friend is truth?

Newton may have been lived a long, and useful, but lonely life. Shame
about the last, if so.

Brett Paatsch 




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 23 03:58:58 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <029c01c5a78e$42ad5ea0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050823035858.38684.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Robin Hanson wrote:
> 
>  The other possible
> > loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.  If
> the charity helps
> > match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of cut or
> fee for helping
> > those bettors, it seems possible that the charity
> itself would not
> > be prosecuted.
> 
> Are you using charity as a synonym for
> not-for-profit? Reason I ask is
> that I'm not currently across the legal
> distinctions, if any between 
> charity and not-for-profit, in the US, but in
> strictly economic terms,
> it seems to me that even a charity is going to want
> something to 
> offset the costs of hosting such a service. 

I don't see why it would have to be a "charity", an
NPO, or even any kind of dedicated service. What is
there to stop me from drawing up a contract that says,
"I, Stuart LaForge, will pay the Holder and Signee of
this *original* contract $500, IF by 12am January 1,
2010 there is not yet a verifiable... {Palestinian
state, human clone, manned moon base, etc.} Then
simply auctioning it off to the highest bidder on
E-bay. Maybe with some minimum bid or what not. Who
would get prosecuted? Me? Ebay? The guy who buys my
contract?       

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 amara at amara.com  Tue Aug 23 04:16:11 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:16:11 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
Message-ID: <p06210200bf3051cba938@[23.237.66.13]>

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au :
>Newton may have been lived a long, and useful, but lonely life. Shame
>about the last, if so.

one can be smart and still act like a jerk ...


Amara


From user at dhp.com  Tue Aug 23 04:20:31 2005
From: user at dhp.com (user)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>


I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
as far and as wide and as varied as possible.

This information suggest that I am a winner in this game/race in as much
as i spread my own genes, and a loser inasmuch as I do not.  In fact, JD
suggests in that book that the ultimate loser is the individual who spends
energy raising the offspring of an non-relation instead of its own
offspring.

So my question is:

- in a post-technology, but pre-singularity world, should I be thinking,
on any level, about this particular progeny contest ?  Or is it, even now
in a pre-singularity world, a hopeless anachronism ?

- I feel as if I have a duty to reproduce, and further, to reproduce well,
which is based on a belief that the existence of the human race is a good,
and I want it to continue.  Should I also be examining my own self as an
individual, and deciding if my own lineage is also a "good" and should
continue, independently of my duty to the race as a whole ?

- Is it incorrect to think that perhaps the continued evolution of mankind
is currently being retarded by the de facto situation of monogamous
male/female interaction followed by 1 to 2.5 children ?  It seems to me
that if we were competing in a free market, so to speak, the number of
offspring would correlate to the fittest of individuals, which on a macro
scale would be positive for the race.

On the other hand:

- could it be argued that, at least for human beings, the benefits of a
two parent, nuclear family outweigh a greater number of semi-anonymously
raised children?  That over the long term, 2-4 well raised and nurtured
children will carry ones genes farther than 30 randomly sprouted ?

- Is the current prevalance of the nuclear family around the world proof
that my immediately previous question is in fact true ?


Let me boil it down to this:

Any reasonably successful american male could very easily travel the world
producing offspring with willing and grateful women, and arranging for its
reasonable (anonymous or not) support.  In this manner one could not only
spread ones genes quite far geographically, but one could also hedge ones
bets both individually and racially.  Current wealth disparities make this
easy and inexpensive (and probably not very time consuming
either).  Intercourse itself need not even be involved.

So my question is, why aren't people doing this ?  Why aren't _you_ doing
this ?  Why shouldn't or should I do this ?

Why should I care specifically about my own genes, and why should I
attempt to maxmize their distribution, in this, the post-technological but
pre-singularity age ?  And if the answer is "I shouldn't", then why is it
different now than it was when this _was_ important ?

Finally, what can I read to learn more about current thought on this
subject ?  I read JDs 3rd chimpanzee, and have "the selfish gene" on order
... what else should I read ?  what concepts and definitions should I be
familiar with ?



From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Aug 23 05:15:58 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:15:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] diversification of the food supply
Message-ID: <430AB10E.6070008@sasktel.net>

Keeping the foodsupply safe in the future may mean discontinuing use of 
species who might serve as vectors for or
sources of new biohazardous organisms.

The "Soylent Green in a vat" discussion tweaked me to respond.

The list of species jumps from such food supply orignated disease 
organisms  includes BSE, swine flu, avian
flu and perhaps AIDS.

The advantage of developing rabbit, Iguana, mouse, rat, and worm and 
insect food sources is numerous.
The animal rights people will be happy too.

The  R&D possible if billions of rats or such are used includes RFID and 
biochip tracking of novel genetics for
medical purposes on an organization and scale of an unprecedented scale.
Epigenomics and epigenetics would boom if thousands of dietary input 
scenarios could be played out in a cost effective manner
where the test subjects could always have a cost recovery feature 
through the human and pet food chain.

Just think of the australian scenario of rat, rabbit and other plagues 
in the context of secure land areas remotely managed
with intensive crop and feeding inputs.  Use of pheromones and biochips 
to monitor and manage a livestock with
a reproductive capacity far beyond the chicken or pig, an annual 
production cycle measured in days and weeks instead of months and years 
would allow major commercialization of  cutting edge technology.

Nutritional tweaking with numerous nutraceuticals is more resource 
efficient if the amounts required are fed for say 72 hours
to a mouse than if voluminous amounts are fed to a cow or pig for days 
to weeks.

Save the pigs for transplant tissue and organ sourcing.  With fewer more 
managed medical livestock production,
biohazard can be more measured, monitored and contained than if there is 
a vast food supply bound bio-pool from which
biohazards can arise.

Save the cows for bioproduction of novel fermentation products.

Conversion of grains by insects  allows more diversity in bioproducts.

Mines, caves and other novel production areas mightbe used.

Prairie Plant Systems has for example the equivalent of 10,000 acres of 
farmland in 2 spent mines.
There might be the equivalent of millions of acres in like this available.

Replacing high cost pharma plants with intensive Pharming is already 
calculated to reduce pharma production costs by
60-95%.

This technology will someday be useful on the first extraterrestrial 
colonies and long duration space voyages as well.
Bossie is not food material for the trip to Alpha Centauri or pre 
terraformed Mars.

This commentary if you can believe it comes from  someone raised as  
grain and livestock farmer from
marginal agriculture Canadian Prairies.   Most of my neighbours would 
lock me up in the looonie bin  and throw away the key or
worse if they heard these comments.

Of course I am not your average farmer these days as I go about my way 
commercializing trees and hemp and pot
for people and pets  and god knows what else  next door to normal wheat, 
flax, peas and canola  and cow farmers.

"Pharmer Mo"

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
http://bio-era.net/events/add_event_13.html

Avian Flu:

Situation Update and Bio-era Scenarios Review

The widening geographic scope of H5N1 outbreaks in recent weeks has 
heightened concerns that the disease will continue to spread in the 
months ahead along with autumn bird migrations in Asia. This news, 
together with recent announcements concerning vaccine development, 
stockpiles of anti-viral drugs, and possible intervention strategies to 
contain outbreaks of human-transmissible H5N1, provides critical new 
information for analyzing avian flu risks using scenarios.   

In this call, we will review and analyze recent developments and update 
the scenario framework created by bio era in March 2005. The latest 
information allows better elaboration of the critical junctures and 
possible outcomes outlined in bio era's original "scenarios roadmap."

Speakers and Commentators Include:

Mr. James Newcomb, Managing Director, bio-era, is an accomplished 
economic and strategic analyst, and an experienced authority on the 
application of scenario planning to business planning and 
decision-making. He is the principal author of the bio-era reports, 
"SARS and the New Economics of BioSecurity", and "Avian Flu: New 
Responses to Emerging Disease".  Jim studied scenario planning under Ted 
Newland in the 1980s, the co-inventor of scenario planning at Royal 
Dutch Shell.

Mr. Robert Carlson, Senior Associate, bio-era. is a leading analyst of 
enabling biotechnologies, including emerging new vaccine production 
technologies.  At the broadest level, Rob is interested in the future 
role of biology as a human technology. His current research focuses on 
the application of advancing biotechnologies in response to emerging 
infectious diseases, including avian influenza.  As a practicing 
scientist, he is currently working on microfluidic devices to quantify 
properties of single cells, and on new fabrication techniques to produce 
those devices. Dr. Carlson earned a doctorate in Physics from Princeton 
University in 1997.

Mr. William Karesh, Director of Field Veterinary Service, Wildlife 
Conservation Society.  Billy Karesh is a leading wildlife veterinarian, 
who directs the activities in the field of over 5,000 veterinarians who 
make up the global WCS wildlife field vet network.  Dr. Karesh is 
actively engaged in the issue of avian influenza as an emerging 
zoonotic disease, and has pioneered the WCS "One World, One Health" 
initiative.

Key questions to be answered:

    * What is the significance of the widening geographical scope of
      avian influenza outbreaks in terms of the risk of pandemic emergence?
    * What developments are possible in the months ahead and what are
      the signposts to watch?
    * What are the implications of the recently completed tests of an
      H5N1 vaccine and what are the next steps toward producing and
      stockpiling a vaccine?
    * What is the likelihood that the existing vaccine will be effective
      against a pandemic strain?
    * How soon could DNA vaccines and alternative vaccine production
      technologies play a role?
    * What do recently published computer model analyses tell us about
      the possibility of containing an outbreak of a human transmissible
      H5N1 virus?
    * Do these findings suggest new scenarios for consideration? What
      are the implications for business of planning and preparedness?
    * How should pandemic planning and preparedness efforts consider
      trade-offs between "upstream" and "downstream" strategies? For
      example, in the event of a pandemic outbreak, how the trade-off
      between contributing toward the collective effort to prevent or
      contain the outbreak of a pandemic strain at its source, be
      evaluated against stockpiling anti-virals and vaccines?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050823/0177acd9/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Aug 23 07:06:48 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 02:06:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] rat meat... the other red meat?
Message-ID: <430ACB08.2050201@sasktel.net>

http://forums.keeptouch.net/showthread.php?t=19588

seems it has been discussed ....
one comment did mention clean country  feed =  clean food rats included
another.. what if all other foods are contaminated....

Rats can be bred superimmune, hairless, double muscled, and perhaps with 
a myriad of nutritional  traits

...am searching for other content just to see what else might be said

There is a definite aversion to non-traditional foods...but less so in 
the far east and africa.

The "beetle bread" as I said made the Canadian National news several 
years ago but only as a research project.




From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Aug 23 12:41:52 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:41:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <029c01c5a78e$42ad5ea0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <5a5c6b990f8ff4b9bd6597edecbc9ab4@aol.com>
	<20050822071231.44651.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050822090355.032b8a30@mail.gmu.edu>
	<029c01c5a78e$42ad5ea0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050823083844.02fad520@mail.gmu.edu>

At 10:56 PM 8/22/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>... The other possible loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.
>>If the charity helps match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of
>>cut or fee for helping those bettors, it seems possible that the
>>charity itself would not be prosecuted.
>
>Are you using charity as a synonym for not-for-profit? Reason I ask is
>that I'm not currently across the legal distinctions, if any between
>charity and not-for-profit, in the US, but in strictly economic terms,
>it seems to me that even a charity is going to want something to
>offset the costs of hosting such a service.  I think of a charity as
>slightly different to a not-for-profit perhaps because charity has
>positive connotations to most people whereas not-for-profit may not.

I had in mind the positive altruistic connotations.


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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Aug 23 13:07:28 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:07:28 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
In-Reply-To: <02bc01c5a793$c0979d80$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050820192212.8B7DE57EF5@finney.org><015d01c5a6e0$cf48b160$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050822085748.032c4288@mail.gmu.edu>
	<02bc01c5a793$c0979d80$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0508230900510.-244589@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:


> Wasn't it also Newton that said: Aristotle is my friend, Plato is my friend
> but my greatest friend is truth?
>
> Newton may have been lived a long, and useful, but lonely life. Shame
> about the last, if so.
>
>

Everything I've read about Newton's personal life (admittedly not
much) implies that he was an unpleasant person - that he used other
people, was rude/mean, held grudges and did not forgive.  His early
life apparently was pretty sad, although given the death rates of the
times was probably not unusual - except that he was so very very
smart. That alone must have made him feel extremely isolated.

When one is mean or rude or uses other people, one tends to be short
of friends.

Regards,
MB


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Aug 23 12:47:56 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:47:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <20050823035858.38684.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <029c01c5a78e$42ad5ea0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050823035858.38684.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050823084625.02ef5f48@mail.gmu.edu>

At 11:58 PM 8/22/2005, Stuart LaForge wrote:
>I don't see why it would have to be a "charity", an
>NPO, or even any kind of dedicated service. What is
>there to stop me from drawing up a contract that says,
>"I, Stuart LaForge, will pay the Holder and Signee of
>this *original* contract $500, IF by 12am January 1,
>2010 there is not yet a verifiable... {Palestinian
>state, human clone, manned moon base, etc.} Then
>simply auctioning it off to the highest bidder on
>E-bay. Maybe with some minimum bid or what not. Who
>would get prosecuted? Me? Ebay? The guy who buys my
>contract?

Ebay.  Which is why they won't let you.  Go ahead, try.


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 megao at sasktel.net  Tue Aug 23 14:30:40 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:30:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] petri-meat - managed biosystems
Message-ID: <430B3310.7080500@sasktel.net>

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2005/471.html

I am amazed that the discussion is this far along.
Deconstucting the organism to produce one single food item at a time 
still does strike me as simplifying the process.

The feed back loops of tissue and organ systems all work for cheap as 
compared to the  factory/lab
biomass production plant as I understand it anyway.

Instead of separating out the meat from the organism I would concentrate 
on implantable wireless systems to remotely monitor and override 
biological systems.  I would ruggedize the biosystems of food producing 
species to make their growth self sustaining without any more 
outsideinputs than absolutely necessary.

I would accelerate their growth and reproductive processes  and decrease 
their neurological development to
complement the biochip overrides.

As well the digestive  organism symbiosis can be manipulated to increase 
the efficiency of conversion of
raw materials to biomass.

The term factory or lab does not seem as appropriate as "containment 
facility".

We might indeed be creating giant nematodes which reproduce asexually 
upon chemical stimulus only for example.

This system would draw from all forms of agriculture to converge into 
managed biosystems.
A combination of a fish farm, plant-based biopharmaceutical farm, 
feedlot and free range technologies all applicable to
some part of the process.

Some of these biotypes might be animal-plant hybrid-like and combine 
photosynthesis, with fermentation
and designer-switched/on off pathways for various biochemical production 
traits.

Not agriculture the way we out here ever conceived of it for sure.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 23 15:56:27 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
In-Reply-To: <02bc01c5a793$c0979d80$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050823155627.74740.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> A good story.
> 
> Wasn't it also Newton that said: Aristotle is my friend, Plato is my
> friend but my greatest friend is truth?
> 
> Newton may have been lived a long, and useful, but lonely life. Shame
> about the last, if so.

Not really. He was quite sociable, once he got into politics, and kept
a neice, Catherine Barton, as a sort of house keeper/social secretary.
Catherine in turn, was an intelligent, witty, and beautiful woman who
had a long term affair with Newton's benefactor and boss at the Mint,
Charles Montague, 1st Earl of Halifax. She was a close friend of
Jonathan Swift and the toast of the Kit-Kat Club, a london social club
that all the powerful whigs of the age belonged to, including Newton.
She had a nickname, even: "The Body".  Newton's dinner parties were
famous for their brilliant and witty conversation, and, unlike his
Puritan heritage, his home was festooned in crimson and other bright
colors.

Newton's comments about (hunchbacked) shoulders to stand on reflects
the long term scientific rivalry he had with Hooke, who was famous not
just for his taxonomical work, his physiological work, and Hooke's Law,
but for rebuilding of London after the Great Fire, particularly Bedlam
and a number of other landmark buildings.

Newton's comments were a dig at the fact that folks like Hooke seemed,
to Newton, to put as much energy into PR as into science, where Newton
rarely published his work. It took constant badgering and an offer of
subsidy from Halley before he would publish his Principia, and similar
badgering by others tended to be required for much of his other work,
such as optics, etc.

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  Tue Aug 23 16:20:52 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <20050823035858.38684.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050823162052.92244.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > Robin Hanson wrote:
> > 
> >  The other possible
> > > loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.  If
> > the charity helps
> > > match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of cut or
> > fee for helping
> > > those bettors, it seems possible that the charity
> > itself would not
> > > be prosecuted.
> > 
> > Are you using charity as a synonym for
> > not-for-profit? Reason I ask is
> > that I'm not currently across the legal
> > distinctions, if any between 
> > charity and not-for-profit, in the US, but in
> > strictly economic terms,
> > it seems to me that even a charity is going to want
> > something to 
> > offset the costs of hosting such a service. 
> 
> I don't see why it would have to be a "charity", an
> NPO, or even any kind of dedicated service. What is
> there to stop me from drawing up a contract that says,
> "I, Stuart LaForge, will pay the Holder and Signee of
> this *original* contract $500, IF by 12am January 1,
> 2010 there is not yet a verifiable... {Palestinian
> state, human clone, manned moon base, etc.} Then
> simply auctioning it off to the highest bidder on
> E-bay. Maybe with some minimum bid or what not. Who
> would get prosecuted? Me? Ebay? The guy who buys my
> contract?       

A performance based offering is a more legitimate future, one that
expects performance of some sort by one of the parties to the contract,
such as delivering hogs heads at a certain price on a certain day, or
launching a suborbital rocket capable of carrying three people into
space twice in two weeks. 

A contract to exchange money if some event happens that no contracted
party has any influence on, or that happen by chance, is a bit hinkier.
A hogs head contract always starts with a hog farmer or slaughterer
somewhere, no matter whether it, or parts of it, ultimately are traded
among people who've never seen a hog in person in their lives.
Derivatives also depend upon real legitimate contracts existing
somewhere.

Now, non-profits can have games of chance for their benefit. I've
helped run raffles for various non-profits over the years, as an
example. Most such activities, though, operate at the state law level
because they happen in one state. Internet futures trading, however,
happens interstate and even internationally, both of which fall under
federal jurisdiction, and it appears from the federal regs Robbie
quoted that it only restricts betting on sports events.

One might look at the sorts of contracts that the x-prize foundation
entered into. Did XPF receive pledges from certain people to donate x
money to the foundation if someone launched a 3 person rocket into
space twice in two weeks? Isn't that a form of sports betting? If
people were to receive their donation pledges back if the challenge
wasn't fulfilled in a certain time frame, that is a form of winning a
bet on a sports event (if one defines riding a vehicle at significant
personal risk of injury or death, expenditure of significant calories
in the physical strain of g-loads, and exhileration at
surviving/succeeding or "agony of defeat", as characteristics of
'sports', such as car racing, boat racing, bobsled/luge racing, ski
racing, airplane racing, submarine racing, and horse racing).

There may be some distinction in that the XPF, being the body that
issued the challenge that contestants obliged themselves to meet, could
legitimately form a syndicate of pledgers, as would investors in a
baseball club, etc. versus two schmoes on the street betting on the
same even neither of whome had any involvement in.

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 amara at amara.com  Tue Aug 23 17:55:59 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:55:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Standing on Giants
Message-ID: <p06210202bf3113155642@[150.146.134.133]>


Here is one article (with references) about Isaac Newton's life.

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm

And here are some interesting side stories about his alchemical work

http://www.indiana.edu/~college/WilliamNewmanProject.shtml

by the same researcher, William Newman, who wrote _Promothean Ambitions_,
which I've discussed here a few times:

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013649.html

_Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature_
Nonfiction. By William R. Newman. University of Chicago Press, 2004.

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/
********************************************************************
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems
is just as dumb as the next guy."  -- Richard Feynman


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 23 18:39:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] China/Iran developing mutual defense deal.
Message-ID: <20050823183958.58334.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aFAFgtkElY7Y&refer=top_world_news

Iran, China Eye Military Cooperation After Oil Deals (Update1) 
Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Iran received a military delegation from China,
paving the way for cooperation in the defense field, Iran's Mehr News
agency reported, citing Brigadier General Nasser Mohammadi Far, the
commander of the Iranian army's ground forces. 

The Chinese delegation is in Iran for talks on ``developing military
relations, deepening bilateral ties and paving the way for military
cooperation,'' the state-run Iranian news agency said. The press office
of China's Ministry of Defense in Beijing declined to comment on the
delegation's visit. 

``Our mutual enemies possess advanced military technology, and
undoubtedly they would rely on this technology in any possible future
wars,'' Mehr News quoted Mohammadi Far as saying. ``Therefore, it seems
necessary that both Iran and China upgrade their defense and military
technology.'' 

China is Iran's third-largest export market for crude oil, and ties
between the two countries have strengthened in recent years as Iran
started granting stakes in the development of its oil and gas fields.
Iran, under U.S. economic sanctions and at odds with both the U.S. and
the Europe Union over its nuclear program, is increasingly turning to
the East for new markets, opening its economy in return. 

Energy Contracts 

Iran, holder of the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, has
given Chinese state oil company Sinopec a 50 percent stake for the
development of the Yadavaran oil field, one of the Iran's largest
undeveloped field. 

In March, China agreed to buy more than 110 million metric tons of
Iranian liquefied natural gas over 25 years in a contract which may be
worth more than $20 billion. The two countries said a month earlier
they may set up a tanker venture to carry liquefied natural gas to help
Iran ensure deliveries of its gas to the world's second-largest energy
consumer. 

China is also involved in the construction of the Iranian capital's
metro and plans to invest $220 million to help finance a new highway
linking Tehran with its Caspian Sea coast. 

Chinese President Hu Jintao was among the first to congratulate Iran's
new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his election victory in June, and
said Chinese leaders looked forward to working with him, Foreign
Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao reported at the time. 

The Asia country also took a softer stance than the U.S. and EU on
Iran's nuclear ambitions. ``We support resolution of this issue through
dialog,'' Liu said on June 28. 

UN Resolution 

Iran last week rejected a resolution from the United Nations nuclear
watchdog agency urging it to freeze a uranium processing program, and
vowed to become a nuclear fuel exporter within the next decade. Iranian
officials on Aug. 10 removed UN seals on equipment used in uranium
enrichment at a facility in Isfahan, the site of Iran's largest nuclear
research center. 

In response to the Iranian decision, U.S. President George W. Bush told
Israeli television he wouldn't rule out a military response against
Iran, saying ``all options are on the table.'' 

The EU has been negotiating with Iran to limit the program, and Iran
implemented a voluntary freeze on its uranium processing in November. 

The U.S., in contrast, severed ties with Iran in 1979 after radical
students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, holding 52 people hostage
for 444 days. The U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism and has
imposed unilateral economic sanctions on the country of 70 million,
forbidding U.S. companies to invest or sell goods such as drilling
equipment, computers or aircraft. 
 


To contact the reporter on this story:
Marc Wolfensberger in Tehran at  mwolfens at bloomberg.net
 


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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Aug 23 20:20:44 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:20:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b405082313204f1273e8@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/23/05, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> 
> I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
> tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
> Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
> as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
> 
> This information suggest that I am a winner in this game/race in as much
> as i spread my own genes, and a loser inasmuch as I do not.  In fact, JD
> suggests in that book that the ultimate loser is the individual who spends
> energy raising the offspring of an non-relation instead of its own
> offspring.
> 
> So my question is:
> 
> - in a post-technology, but pre-singularity world, should I be thinking,
> on any level, about this particular progeny contest ?  Or is it, even now
> in a pre-singularity world, a hopeless anachronism ?
 
Post singularity, genes=memes.
Fail in either pre-singularity and you are still a loser.

As for why people want to breed themselves out of existence, think
'short term stupidity'.
As for what you should read, allow me to make a thoroughly
objectionable suggestion - seek out intelligently written racist
viewpoints and consider them without the conditioned kneejerk
response.

Dirk


From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Aug 23 20:28:34 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:28:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,	or just
	an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
Message-ID: <430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>

user wrote:
> I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
> tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
> Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
> as far and as wide and as varied as possible.

No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to have fun, 
to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to increase your status, 
to find a good long-term mate, to raise children together, etc. etc.  Natural 
selection has no mind, you do.  Natural selection constructs a mind that wants 
things that would have helped you reproduce in the ancestral environment, 
whether or not that helps you reproduce now.  Individual organisms are best 
thought of as adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers (Cosmides and Tooby 
1992).

I recommend that you read "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright.  You appear to 
be confused on some basic points about evolutionary psychology, and Wright is 
an excellent introduction.

Please ignore Dirk Bruere, he doesn't speak for the list.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Aug 23 20:33:44 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:33:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robertson's statements
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
	<c0a791b405082313204f1273e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007201c5a821$f8aef590$0400a8c0@Nano>

I couldn't help myself -
http://nanogirl.com/images/robertson.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
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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050823/e41d518c/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 23 21:11:39 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
Message-ID: <20050823211140.4279.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- user <user at dhp.com> wrote:

> So my question is:
> 
> - in a post-technology, but pre-singularity world,
> should I be thinking,
> on any level, about this particular progeny contest
> ?  Or is it, even now
> in a pre-singularity world, a hopeless anachronism ?

Well speaking as a biologist, my advice to you is to
stop thinking about it as a "contest". Although at a
certain level one can model the propagation of genes
as a competition, it is in all truth a contest between
genes that you yourself have no stake in. For one
thing genes compete with one another at all levels so
even your own genes are "competing" with one another.
While you are technically a primate and an animal, the
part of you that actually answers to your name is your
MIND. This means the actual YOU that realizes that it
thinks and therefore exists, is irrelevant to your
genes. And conversely, your genes are irrelevant to
YOU except in so far as they place limitations on YOU.
For example you might want to live forever or run as
fast as a cheetah, but your genes, as they are, do not
allow this. 

> 
> - I feel as if I have a duty to reproduce, and
> further, to reproduce well,
> which is based on a belief that the existence of the
> human race is a good,
> and I want it to continue.  Should I also be
> examining my own self as an
> individual, and deciding if my own lineage is also a
> "good" and should
> continue, independently of my duty to the race as a
> whole ?

While I agree with you that humanity is a good
(subjectively of course as I am sure that the giant
panda would beg to differ if it knew how to), human
beings are an example of a good that more of does not
necessarily make better. In this way the economic law
of supply and demand somewhat applies to us. The more
humans there are, the less each additional person
matters to the whole and sadly to one another. I think
this, in part, explains why big city dwellers can be
rather cold and unfriendly toward one another whereas
the denizens of small towns are much more amiable to
one another in general. Think of it this way: if you
have one child that child will be cherished by you.
But if you have 100 children, you probably won't even
bother to keep track of them all. 


> 
> - Is it incorrect to think that perhaps the
> continued evolution of mankind
> is currently being retarded by the de facto
> situation of monogamous
> male/female interaction followed by 1 to 2.5
> children ?  It seems to me
> that if we were competing in a free market, so to
> speak, the number of
> offspring would correlate to the fittest of
> individuals, which on a macro
> scale would be positive for the race.

Not necessarily. For one thing, even for lesser
lifeforms, fitness is a moving target that is purely
relative to a given environment. Secondly, the
PERCEPTION of fitness by a potential mate is often as
important or in some cases more important than fitness
itself. This is called sexual selection and explains
such oddities as the peacock's tail and Colin Farrell.

In humans this is further compounded by the fact that
we have come to CONTROL our environment to such an
extent that fitness is no longer a prerequisite for
survival, at least not until we have had ample
opportunity to breed. Because we value EVERY human
life regardless of their fitness level, we allow and
even aid the survival of the sick, the injured, the
slow, the weak, the poor, and the stupid because we
CAN. And this, while not necessarily good for the
evolutionary "improvement" of the species, is a MORAL
good. If you ponder that the invention of eyeglasses
has actually WORSENED the average visual acuity of the
human race but ALSO kept Issaac Asimov from tripping
and falling to his untimely death, you will understand
what I mean by moral good versus overall fitness.

Moreover these examples certainly constitutes
proof-of-principle that we alone, amongst the
creatures of the earth, are capable of superceding
nature in regards to control of our own evolution.    
  

 
> On the other hand:
> 
> - could it be argued that, at least for human
> beings, the benefits of a
> two parent, nuclear family outweigh a greater number
> of semi-anonymously
> raised children?  That over the long term, 2-4 well
> raised and nurtured
> children will carry ones genes farther than 30
> randomly sprouted ?

In the western world, 30 randomly sprouted children
would probably survive to breeding age all the same,
but they might not necessarily be happy. So it depends
entirely on how you define "benefits". In regards to
whether 30 children or 2 will carry ones genes
further, the number of one's children does not matter.
No matter how many children you have, they will at
most carry exactly half your genes exactly the same
distance: one generation. 

> 
> 
> Let me boil it down to this:
> 
> Any reasonably successful american male could very
> easily travel the world
> producing offspring with willing and grateful women,
> and arranging for its
> reasonable (anonymous or not) support.  In this
> manner one could not only
> spread ones genes quite far geographically, but one
> could also hedge ones
> bets both individually and racially.  Current wealth
> disparities make this
> easy and inexpensive (and probably not very time
> consuming
> either).  Intercourse itself need not even be
> involved.
> So my question is, why aren't people doing this ? 
> Why aren't _you_ doing
> this ?  Why shouldn't or should I do this ?

I think you overestimate the value of American sperm
and underestimate foreign women. Especially since in
many cultures having a child out of wedlock lowers a
woman's chances of finding happiness with a REAL
partner. Remember that to most humans, relationships
have value above and beyond simple procreation. 

> 
> Why should I care specifically about my own genes,
> and why should I
> attempt to maxmize their distribution, in this, the
> post-technological but
> pre-singularity age ?  And if the answer is "I
> shouldn't", then why is it
> different now than it was when this _was_ important
> ?

Well the biggest difference between then and now is
that back then very few of your children could be
expected to live to adulthood.  Most children live to
adulthood these days, even if they are morons, and
sometimes become jerks in the process. So my advice to
you is to have no more kids than you would care to
love and nurture. Don't rule out adoption either. I
know lots of people that dislike their parents. None
of them are adopted. The adopted ones are for the most
part grateful. 
 
Furthermore you shouldn't be overly concerned about
your genes because they sure don't give a damn about
you. Once you pass them on, the half that are in your
child aren't even technically yours anymore, they are
your childs. In fact, the best way to look at it is
that both you and your child actually belong to your
genes. The genes use you and everyone else to
propagate themselves and have no loyalty at all to the
YOU that answers to your name. Don't be a slave to
your genes, like a simple worm or germ.

There is more to YOU, after all, than the monkey that
carries your wallet. 
 


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  Tue Aug 23 21:15:02 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robertson's statements
In-Reply-To: <007201c5a821$f8aef590$0400a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050823211502.29892.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>

There you go making me smile again. :)

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

> I couldn't help myself -
> http://nanogirl.com/images/robertson.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
> 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.">
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


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 kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Aug 23 21:36:19 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:36:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
	<c0a791b405082313204f1273e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02a201c5a82a$b3cb5ff0$0100a8c0@kevin>

> >
> > I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
> > tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
> > Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or
progeny,
> > as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
> >
> > This information suggest that I am a winner in this game/race in as much
> > as i spread my own genes, and a loser inasmuch as I do not.  In fact, JD
> > suggests in that book that the ultimate loser is the individual who
spends
> > energy raising the offspring of an non-relation instead of its own
> > offspring.
> >
> > So my question is:
> >
> > - in a post-technology, but pre-singularity world, should I be thinking,
> > on any level, about this particular progeny contest ?  Or is it, even
now
> > in a pre-singularity world, a hopeless anachronism ?


When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Aug 23 21:42:57 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:42:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or  just	an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
	<430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050823173738.01ee93c8@mail.gmu.edu>

At 04:28 PM 8/23/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>>I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
>>tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
>>Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
>>as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
>
>No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to 
>have fun, to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to 
>increase your status, to find a good long-term mate, to raise 
>children together, etc. etc.

Genes gave most people goals like these in an attempt to achieve the 
genes' goals.  So you may well find that you have goals like 
these.  But in a sense you can choose your goals.  If you want to 
identify with your genes, or your memes, or your nation, well then 
helping those things can be what you want.  Of course it is easy to 
fool yourself into thinking you want something unusual, when in fact 
you really want what most everyone else wants.


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 robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Aug 24 21:58:48 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:58:48 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,	or  just
	an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050823173738.01ee93c8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>	<430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050823173738.01ee93c8@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <430CED98.8020408@aol.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 04:28 PM 8/23/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
>>> I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
>>> tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
>>> Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or 
>>> progeny,
>>> as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
>>
>>
>> No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to 
>> have fun, to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to 
>> increase your status, to find a good long-term mate, to raise 
>> children together, etc. etc.
>
>
> Genes gave most people goals like these in an attempt to achieve the 
> genes' goals.


How useful is this metaphor, really?  It certainly gives one a way of 
understanding why -some- people do -some- of the things they do, but it 
creates just as many anomolies (homosexuality, cigarette smoking, 
self-sacrifice, male monogamy, etc.) in need of explanation.  One has to 
remember that while our in our physique there is a "normalcy" standard 
of health, in our behaviour, any such normalcy standard looks contrived 
in the context of the broader range of human behaviour. 

Also, when we talk about "having goals", we don't think of genes as 
mental entities with their own agenda, we think of them as mechanical 
things that simply do whatever they do.  They have no "desire to 
survive" even in evolutionary terms, they simply survive because nothing 
kills them.  They, consequently, can not pass their agenda on to 
anyone.  If you really wanted to express something like a genetic 
disposition to behave, it would be the genetic disposition to stick 
around until killed.

>   Of course it is easy to fool yourself into thinking you want 
> something unusual, when in fact you really want what most everyone 
> else wants.


You see, here the "anomolies" come out explicitly in your language.  You 
have to "fool yourself" to want something that someone else doesn't.  
But it's not so.  Some people want different things; in fact lots of 
people want different things.  One then tries to differentiate between 
what someone 'really wants' and what they say they want and what they 
actually pursue, creating the need for a metaphorical super-ego and id 
which, functionally or consciously speaking, have no real interest and 
in fact tend to allow people to see themselves as self-alienated, unable 
to control their behavior, when in fact most people are significantly in 
control of their behaviour and choose what they do (when they make 
choices of signficance) consciously.


Robbie Lindauer
.


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 24 00:58:20 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:58:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] China/Iran developing mutual defense deal.
In-Reply-To: <20050823183958.58334.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050823183958.58334.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <34A99DEE-5FD9-4809-A54F-535DFB23B139@bonfireproductions.com>


Well it is easy to see that this is quid-pro-quo over Taiwan, given  
the plans of the US.

Next up: Opec dissolves.



On Aug 23, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? 
> pid=10000087&sid=aFAFgtkElY7Y&refer=top_world_news
>
> Iran, China Eye Military Cooperation After Oil Deals (Update1)
> Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Iran received a military delegation from China,
> paving the way for cooperation in the defense field, Iran's Mehr News
> agency reported, citing Brigadier General Nasser Mohammadi Far, the
> commander of the Iranian army's ground forces.
>
> The Chinese delegation is in Iran for talks on ``developing military
> relations, deepening bilateral ties and paving the way for military
> cooperation,'' the state-run Iranian news agency said. The press  
> office
> of China's Ministry of Defense in Beijing declined to comment on the
> delegation's visit.
>
> ``Our mutual enemies possess advanced military technology, and
> undoubtedly they would rely on this technology in any possible future
> wars,'' Mehr News quoted Mohammadi Far as saying. ``Therefore, it  
> seems
> necessary that both Iran and China upgrade their defense and military
> technology.''
>
> China is Iran's third-largest export market for crude oil, and ties
> between the two countries have strengthened in recent years as Iran
> started granting stakes in the development of its oil and gas fields.
> Iran, under U.S. economic sanctions and at odds with both the U.S. and
> the Europe Union over its nuclear program, is increasingly turning to
> the East for new markets, opening its economy in return.
>
> Energy Contracts
>
> Iran, holder of the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, has
> given Chinese state oil company Sinopec a 50 percent stake for the
> development of the Yadavaran oil field, one of the Iran's largest
> undeveloped field.
>
> In March, China agreed to buy more than 110 million metric tons of
> Iranian liquefied natural gas over 25 years in a contract which may be
> worth more than $20 billion. The two countries said a month earlier
> they may set up a tanker venture to carry liquefied natural gas to  
> help
> Iran ensure deliveries of its gas to the world's second-largest energy
> consumer.
>
> China is also involved in the construction of the Iranian capital's
> metro and plans to invest $220 million to help finance a new highway
> linking Tehran with its Caspian Sea coast.
>
> Chinese President Hu Jintao was among the first to congratulate Iran's
> new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his election victory in June, and
> said Chinese leaders looked forward to working with him, Foreign
> Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao reported at the time.
>
> The Asia country also took a softer stance than the U.S. and EU on
> Iran's nuclear ambitions. ``We support resolution of this issue  
> through
> dialog,'' Liu said on June 28.
>
> UN Resolution
>
> Iran last week rejected a resolution from the United Nations nuclear
> watchdog agency urging it to freeze a uranium processing program, and
> vowed to become a nuclear fuel exporter within the next decade.  
> Iranian
> officials on Aug. 10 removed UN seals on equipment used in uranium
> enrichment at a facility in Isfahan, the site of Iran's largest  
> nuclear
> research center.
>
> In response to the Iranian decision, U.S. President George W. Bush  
> told
> Israeli television he wouldn't rule out a military response against
> Iran, saying ``all options are on the table.''
>
> The EU has been negotiating with Iran to limit the program, and Iran
> implemented a voluntary freeze on its uranium processing in November.
>
> The U.S., in contrast, severed ties with Iran in 1979 after radical
> students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, holding 52 people hostage
> for 444 days. The U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism and has
> imposed unilateral economic sanctions on the country of 70 million,
> forbidding U.S. companies to invest or sell goods such as drilling
> equipment, computers or aircraft.
>
>
>
> To contact the reporter on this story:
> Marc Wolfensberger in Tehran at  mwolfens at bloomberg.net
>
>
>
> 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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Aug 24 01:13:45 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:13:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
Message-ID: <D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>



Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have This  
Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !


-or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !


/begs
/pleads


]3


On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>
>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
>> watch.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean  
> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
>
> Robbie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 04:51:48 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:51:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot submission: SpaceShipThree to be Orbital
	Spacecraft
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050823215119d46c67@mail.gmail.com>

(I haven't actually submitted the story yet, so feedback is welcome)

Without html:

The president of space tourism company Virgin Galactic has recently
stated that if the upcoming suborbital service with SpaceShipTwo is
successful, the follow-up SpaceShipThree will be an orbital craft.
Although orbital spaceflights would be much longer and could
potentially dock with orbital space stations, they are also
considerably more difficult than suborbital spaceflights. Other
private firms working on orbital spaceflight (and potentially in the
running for Robert Bigelow's $50 million orbital America's Space
Prize) include t/Space and former PayPal CEO Elon Musk's SpaceX.

With html:

The president of space tourism company Virgin Galactic has <a
href=http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/08/23/Navigation/200/201097/SpaceShipThree+poised+to+follow+if+SS2+succeeds.html>recently
stated</a> that if the upcoming suborbital service with <a
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipTwo>SpaceShipTwo</a>
is successful, the follow-up SpaceShipThree will be an orbital craft.
Although orbital spaceflights would be much longer and could
potentially dock with  <a
href=http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027551,00.html>orbital
space stations</a>, they are also considerably more difficult than
suborbital spaceflights. Other private firms working on orbital
spaceflight (and potentially in the running for Robert Bigelow's $50
million orbital America's Space Prize) include <a
href=http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68528,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1>t/Space</a>
and former PayPal CEO Elon Musk's <a
href=http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050812_spacex_island.html>SpaceX</a>.


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Aug 24 08:18:58 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:18:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leroy Hood Says We Will Live Longer
Message-ID: <000c01c5a884$7bd9ade0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

" ... What this digitization of medicine will do is democratize medicine. If 
you think of the three major problems in the world, they are education, 
poverty and health. This, in a very fundamental way, will attack one of 
those three problems...."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/237750_hoodqa24.html
















From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Aug 24 08:48:29 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:48:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robertson's statements
References: <20050823211502.29892.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007001c5a888$9a022e60$0400a8c0@uservqwsr60ljh>

Goal achieved then!

Gina`


> There you go making me smile again. :)
>
> --- Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't help myself -
>> http://nanogirl.com/images/robertson.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
>> 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.">
> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 24 09:35:11 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leroy Hood Says We Will Live Longer
In-Reply-To: <000c01c5a884$7bd9ade0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050824093511.56528.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>


Wow... in scientific circles that is a pretty huge
endorsement of transhumanism. Hood is a big dog
amongst molecular biologists, immunologists, and
bioinformaticians.


--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> " ... What this digitization of medicine will do is
> democratize medicine. If 
> you think of the three major problems in the world,
> they are education, 
> poverty and health. This, in a very fundamental way,
> will attack one of 
> those three problems...."
> 
>
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/237750_hoodqa24.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


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 pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 09:42:32 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:42:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Talk: IM and VoIP
Message-ID: <470a3c52050824024271551ce1@mail.gmail.com>

On more step... search, mail, IM, VoIP, maps, blogs, videos - is Google 
going to become this global datasphere that modern SF writers use in their 
fiction situated a few decades in the future? Google
Talk<http://www.google.com/talk/>is a simple
and free way to talk with and send instant messages to your friends. Like 
Gmail <http://mail.google.com>, Google Talk uses Google's innovative 
technologies to help people communicate more effectively and efficiently. 
Think of it as Google's approach to communications. Google Talk is easy and 
intuitive to use. All you need to make free calls is an Internet connection, 
a microphone, and a speaker. After you download Google Talk, sign in with 
your Gmail username and password. Invite your friends to download Google 
Talk, and once they do, you'll be able to talk or IM with them instantly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050824/6eb8877b/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 09:45:53 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:45:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
	<430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b4050824024519096115@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/23/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> user wrote:
> > I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
> > tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
> > Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
> > as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
> 
> No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to have fun,
> to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to increase your status,
> to find a good long-term mate, to raise children together, etc. etc.  Natural
> selection has no mind, you do.  Natural selection constructs a mind that wants
> things that would have helped you reproduce in the ancestral environment,
> whether or not that helps you reproduce now.  Individual organisms are best
> thought of as adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers (Cosmides and Tooby
> 1992).
> 
> I recommend that you read "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright.  You appear to
> be confused on some basic points about evolutionary psychology, and Wright is
> an excellent introduction.
> 
> Please ignore Dirk Bruere, he doesn't speak for the list.
 
Wow! Revelation!
Everyone - Listen Carefully...

I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE LIST.

Thanks for correcting the errorneous impression people have of me on
the list. I concur that I do not speak for the list. I have never
spoken for the list. I will not in future speak for the list.

You may return to your normal business now...

Dirk


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 11:36:36 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:36:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050823173738.01ee93c8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508222345460.28603-100000@shell.dhp.com>
	<430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050823173738.01ee93c8@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <c0a791b4050824043674d23669@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/23/05, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> At 04:28 PM 8/23/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >>I am informed by both my own (very powerful) instinctual urges and
> >>tendencies, and by works of authors (such as Jared Diamond in The 3rd
> >>Chimpanzee) that it is my goal to spread my genetic material, or progeny,
> >>as far and as wide and as varied as possible.
> >
> >No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to
> >have fun, to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to
> >increase your status, to find a good long-term mate, to raise
> >children together, etc. etc.
> 
> Genes gave most people goals like these in an attempt to achieve the
> genes' goals.  So you may well find that you have goals like
> these.  But in a sense you can choose your goals.  If you want to
> identify with your genes, or your memes, or your nation, well then
> helping those things can be what you want.  Of course it is easy to
> fool yourself into thinking you want something unusual, when in fact
> you really want what most everyone else wants.
 
Maybe Fermi's Paradox is explained by the fact tha PostHumans (or ETs)
will be motivated by nothing, will identify with nothing and will do
nothing. The reductio ad absurdam of motivation analysis.

Dirk


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 12:47:23 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:47:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b405082405475dfaf5d6@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/18/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
> economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*
 
Well, let's deconstruct that and look at what appears to be an
inherent assumption - namely that a 'transhumanist society' is
necessarily a globalist society. I believe that to be virtually
impossible in practice, and not even desirable in principle.

Crucially, a transhumanist society needs to be one that is not subject
to the laws of the Luddites, whether religious or politically
motivated. It is, in fact, a recipe for a *nation*.

Dirk


From user at dhp.com  Wed Aug 24 14:21:39 2005
From: user at dhp.com (user)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
	anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <430B86F2.6030000@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241007160.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>


On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> No, this is your genes' goal.  *Your* goals are to love, to live, to have fun, 
> to have sex, to eat good food rich and sugar in fat, to increase your status, 
> to find a good long-term mate, to raise children together, etc. etc.  Natural 
> selection has no mind, you do.  Natural selection constructs a mind that wants 
> things that would have helped you reproduce in the ancestral environment, 
> whether or not that helps you reproduce now.  Individual organisms are best 
> thought of as adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers (Cosmides and Tooby 
> 1992).

ok.

It would seem, that for me, what I want most (when I really think about
it, and think beyond myself) is for the continuance and improvement (and
enlargement, planetary size constrictions notwithstanding) of the human
race.

It would seem also that the goal of my genes is to spread themselves as
far and wide as possible.

So where do these two goals intersect ?  And I am perfectly willing to
accept "the standard 2.5 child nuclear family" as a plausible answer.  It
seems to have "evolved" as the standard expression across all (large
successful) cultures around the world.

But as I said before, I can't help but think that if every individual
reproduced as much as possible (for them) competition for mates would be
higher, and successive generations would be more fit (granted, more fit to
pursue reproduction in that manner) than the successive generations
wherein CEOs and ditch diggers all have 2-3 children.

If my intellectual goal is what I said it was above, I wonder if there is
a (somewhat distasteful, and certainly deviant in current
society) eventual conclusion that I should produce as many offspring as I
can possibly support, with as many mates as will consent.

I think the interesting question here, and perhaps the one I would most
like answered, is:

what are the long term (many generations) outcomes of your particular
genes, given 3-5 very carefully, lovingly and personally raised children
in a (recently) traditional family, vs. the outcomes of, say, 20 children
produced and supported semi-anonymously ?  I wonder how many children you
would have to father to get a 50-generations-later more positive outcome
than raising 3-5 children very carefully and conscientiously yourself...


> I recommend that you read "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright.  You appear to 
> be confused on some basic points about evolutionary psychology, and Wright is 
> an excellent introduction.


Thanks - I'll take a look.



From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 14:22:45 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:22:45 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050824072232dddc96@mail.gmail.com>

While I am very much in favor of decentralization (making decisions at
the lowest possible level), I think there are a few things that just
cannot be decentralized efficiently.
"a multi-disciplinary, non-partisian, writing team" sounds good, and
of course its feasibility depends on how we define non-partisan. For
example, I am not-partisan in the sense that I am usually willing to
listen to arguments regardless of the particular political
"affiliation" of whoever is proposing the argument. But when it comes
to choosing between two different and mutually exclusive options, I
usually (not always, but often) choose an option consistent with a
specific, "partisan" worldview.
I think this is the case for everyone. Fact: we do have political
views, and we do have different political views. So, I believe the
challenge is not defining a uniform political view, but finding
workable agreements on a case by case basis. Like a government
coalityion of different parties - each does not like the others' views
at all, but they still have to find some king of agreements on the
practical issues of running the nation.

On 8/18/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
> economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*
> 
> (This would mean a lack centralized control of a forced choice between, for
> example, Twentieth Century free market, capitalist democracy, and state
> capitalism and state socialism.)
> 
> *While a transhumanism is a type of community, is not merely a collection
> of individuals, nor is it static. It is comprised of a changing set of
> relationships, attitudes and behavior of its members. It has many
> dimensions which may vary, they are all interconnected. Like the physical
> dimensions of length and time, if any one dimension of social system of
> transhumanism is missing, by definition, the system is incomplete.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is watering
> transhumanism down.
> 
> Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> non-partisian, writing team.
> 
> Natasha
> 
> Natasha Vita-More


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 14:40:03 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:10:03 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050819042128.19307.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050819002734.65316.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050819042128.19307.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050824074016ebd1ea@mail.gmail.com>

On 19/08/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > In fact, it would be
> > great to find a scientific "model" for economic
> > entities that would lend itself readily to
> > experimentation without violating human rights.
> > Similar to the way that mice are used to "model" human
> > physiology without resorting to Josef Mengele type
> > human experimentation.
> 
> The lack of such is why social sciences are often seen as "soft",
> compared to the "hard" sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics,
> mathematics, and their derivatives.

There is something along these lines in existence now... the various
online worlds. The commercial MMORPGs have there own cultures and
economies. I think there may even be open source equivalents.

It seems to me that if you want to do some experimenting on ways of
organising people and things, an online virtual society would be a
good way to do it. You are expected to tinker in these environments,
people actually enjoy being involved. I believe that people are
beginning to study them more carefully, because they do provide a
social science lab that didn't previously exist.

For anyone doing serious meme work it's time to get in there now. I
think these environments will slowly begin to take on the
characteristics of real polities, and good ones may attract some
serious talent in the years ahead as the internet increasingly becomes
a serious competitor with meatspace for people's alleigences. I think
the friction of dealing with people online will reduce over time, and
as the problems of purely virtual interaction fall away, the benefits
of choosing a cohort from the global pool rather than by geographic
accident will be inescapable.

I'm not sure where you draw the boundary between a social group (like
this list) and a full online interactive world; size of the group, and
whether a group has a currency and economy, are probably a good start.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From user at dhp.com  Wed Aug 24 14:55:11 2005
From: user at dhp.com (user)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
	anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <20050823211140.4279.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241033470.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>



On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:

> While I agree with you that humanity is a good
> (subjectively of course as I am sure that the giant
> panda would beg to differ if it knew how to), human
> beings are an example of a good that more of does not
> necessarily make better. In this way the economic law

Hmmm...I have taken somewhat to heart such statements as Frank Herbert has
made, wherein the capacity that a system has for life increases as more
life is added to it, or more philosophically Joseph Campbells admonitions
that "life must be", etc.

Are these two things junkscience and romanticism, respectively ?  Of
course there are local constraints, like the size of an apartment or
island or planet, but in asmuch as you are not actually using all physical
space...

I am drifting off topic, though.


> In the western world, 30 randomly sprouted children
> would probably survive to breeding age all the same,
> but they might not necessarily be happy. So it depends
> entirely on how you define "benefits". In regards to
> whether 30 children or 2 will carry ones genes
> further, the number of one's children does not matter.
> No matter how many children you have, they will at
> most carry exactly half your genes exactly the same
> distance: one generation. 


Yes, that's true, but consider what my genes have bought for me in the
meantime - namely, the most fit mates that I can possibly acquire with my
level of fitness (the expression of my genes).

So let's say I take stock of myself and decide that I am pretty hot stuff,
as far as human gene expressions go, and decide that, as far as my goal of
the continuation and enlargement and betterment of the human race goes,
the more of me the better.  I then seek out the most fit mates that I can
convince to (willingly) bear my children, as many as possible.

If I am right about myself, I can do the convincing and the reproduction,
and the financial support, etc., etc.  And although the resultant children
only share 50% of my literal genetic code, they are all 100% direct
expressions of my genetic code, since my genes were the ones that willed
this to happen, and were fit enough to acquire and maintain >1 mates.

I wonder if discussing it in terms of genes is just a bad idea, and
instead, if I frame it in terms of accumulated reproductive decisions:  I
may only share 12.5% or 6.25% of a particular great grandparents actual
genetic code, but I am the 100% result of those accumulated
selections.  The fitter I think I am, the more of these positive
selections I think I should be making - and I am simply wondering why the
human contest for mates (not the gene contest for survival) is so bland,
currently - because it seems that if more people had zero offspring, and
more people had 30, we would have fitter humans.

On the other hand, I wonder if the resultant violence from such behavior,
and such a human contest, cancels out the gains.

There has to be some reason we are all doing it the way we do now, and not
the way we used to ...

But on the third hand, in an environment of nuclear families with 2-3
children, the sudden introduction of persons reverting to the old rules of
the game would have much amplified consequences, wouldn't it ?  It would
seem that in the current climate, you could have your cake and eat it too
- propogate your own accumulated reproductive decisions as far as you can,
and avoid the violence precipitated by such actions when done across all
of a society...



From user at dhp.com  Wed Aug 24 15:06:49 2005
From: user at dhp.com (user)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
	anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <02a201c5a82a$b3cb5ff0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241056520.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>



On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote:

> When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.


Eh ... this sounds very selfish.  If my genes contain:

a) fitness
b) the ability to attract other mates of equal or greater fitness

and if my most cherished _intellectual_ goal is the continuation and
enlargement of the human race, then it would seem that I lose if I do not
maximize the tools I have to push that goal along ...

I would think a better definition of losing would refer to losing in terms
of the intellectual goal - which means you lose if your actions produce a
net drag, or loss, on the expansion and betterment of humankind.  Which
seems to suggest that winning would be producing a net gain (above what
you take away from the system by existing within it).

And in the course of this topic, I am trying to hypothetically decide what
is a bigger net gain for humanity - my raising 2-3 kids hands on, or
fighting it out in the mate finding contest (against a fairly strong tide
of tradition, culture, and probably laws and finances) to see if I am
really as fit as I think I am.

My gut reaction this morning is that, if I had a crystal ball, 2-3 kids
raised hands on in a loving nuclear family probably produce more net gain
for mankind than 30 randomly sprouted, all else being equal.



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Aug 24 15:15:50 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:15:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
Message-ID: <380-220058324151550718@M2W126.mail2web.com>

From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 

>While I am very much in favor of decentralization (making decisions at
>the lowest possible level), I think there are a few things that just
>cannot be decentralized efficiently.
>"a multi-disciplinary, non-partisan, writing team" sounds good, and
>of course its feasibility depends on how we define non-partisan. For
>example, I am not-partisan in the sense that I am usually willing to
>listen to arguments regardless of the particular political
>"affiliation" of whoever is proposing the argument. But when it comes
>to choosing between two different and mutually exclusive options, I
>usually (not always, but often) choose an option consistent with a
>specific, "partisan" worldview.

Hi Giulio!

Maybe I am a mutant, but I simply do not sit with any one political view as
entirely positive, workable, and fair-minded.  While I do have a partisan
worldview that is extropic transhumanism, I do not agree with all of
branches of transhumanism. Since transhumanism is basically democratic, we
can go away saying we are democratic.  But this is not the same as the
Democratic Party which, like most parties, sucks terribly.

>I think this is the case for everyone. Fact: we do have political
>views, and we do have different political views. 

Yes absolutely.  

>So, I believe the
>challenge is not defining a uniform political view, but finding
>workable agreements on a case by case basis. 

This has been my suggestion.  Remember, I have stated that I think
transhumanism is non-partisan as a philosophy and cultural movement.  By
non-partisan I mean inclusive of the best means to solve the problem,
regardless of what political party the means is tied to.  (In fact, it
probably would not be tethered to tightly to any one political party if it
has the ability to actually solve a problem :-))


>Like a government
>coalityion of different parties - each does not like the others' views
>at all, but they still have to find some king of agreements on the
>practical issues of running the nation.

Well, yes.  And, again, my point is that I am MOST interested in the
mechanism - the architecture - the means for solving the problem:  a
multi-disciplinary, non-partisan writing team.   In other words, leave the
political positioning badge outside the door and put on the intelligent
thinking cap.

Cheers!
Natasha



On 8/18/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
> economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*
> 
> (This would mean a lack centralized control of a forced choice between,
for
> example, Twentieth Century free market, capitalist democracy, and state
> capitalism and state socialism.)
> 
> *While a transhumanism is a type of community, is not merely a collection
> of individuals, nor is it static. It is comprised of a changing set of
> relationships, attitudes and behavior of its members. It has many
> dimensions which may vary, they are all interconnected. Like the physical
> dimensions of length and time, if any one dimension of social system of
> transhumanism is missing, by definition, the system is incomplete.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is watering
> transhumanism down.
> 
> Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> non-partisian, writing team.
> 
> Natasha
> 
> Natasha Vita-More
_______________________________________________
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 emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 15:30:18 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:00:18 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220058418184328779@M2W031.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050824083052a87426@mail.gmail.com>

On 19/08/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> A transhumanist society needs to be decentralized, with a networked
> economy, and promotion of new social/cultural systems.*
> 
> (This would mean a lack centralized control of a forced choice between, for
> example, Twentieth Century free market, capitalist democracy, and state
> capitalism and state socialism.)

Now *this* is where I'd love to see transhumanism go. There simply are
political implications to an agenda of enhancing ourselves, using
technology to improve on the human condition as each individual sees
fit. The old politics do not fit this, they were framed in a time
where "government" (ie: having someone running the commons) was doomed
to be ham fisted due to low tech, so your choices were to have various
levels of dictatorship (benevolent you hope, but no good guarantees)
and some kind of cared for commons, or no dictator but the commons
goes to ruin (ie: the free market). We've got options now, diverse
ones, some pretty weird. I think the world has barely begun to explore
what the global internet and related communications technologies mean
when you stop mapping pre-internet ideas onto them and start
reinventing with the 'net as a base assumption.

But we've struggled for years in adopting a social (political?) system
for transhumanism, I think because none of them actually fit; we need
something new for these new ideas.

> 
> *While a transhumanism is a type of community, is not merely a collection
> of individuals, nor is it static. It is comprised of a changing set of
> relationships, attitudes and behavior of its members. It has many
> dimensions which may vary, they are all interconnected. Like the physical
> dimensions of length and time, if any one dimension of social system of
> transhumanism is missing, by definition, the system is incomplete.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> Back to Square One:  We need a political agenda and not one that is
> alienating the core views of transhumanism, and not one that is watering
> transhumanism down.
> 

Indeed, there is no reason to water transhumanism down, because
transhumanism is inherently political. I don't think you inspire the
kind of venom coming from Fukuyama if you are apolitical!


Well, here are a couple of suggestions...

I posit that representative democracy is a bit embarrassing in the
21st century to transhumanists. It's a system of government which was
fabulous in times when communication technology was rudimentary or non
existent and travelling was hard, but that's no longer true.
Democracy's great achievement is the carefully balanced institutions
which share power, thus preventing autocracy, but its great
embarrasment is the professional politician. A 21st century democracy
should really be direct, with each citizen having his/her say on
issues as they care to. Note that this does not mean minimal
government necessarily, it could be larger or smaller than now. What
it does mean is no more voting on representatives. Rather, actual
citizens directly debate and exercise power in areas that concern
them, relying completely I think on the internet, and probably on
technologies like sms voting pioneered by reality tv!

Another place to try to expand transhumanism is, imo, the corporation.
The great majority of corporations out there appear to still be
designed along strongly hierarchical military lines. Surely there are
better ways to organise corporations, which would more strongly
reflect the democratic/free ideals we take for granted in public life?

Another one - I posted here recently on the idea of a system of
distributed artistic patronage, where many small time donors could
contribute (and have quite a bit of control over their contributions)
to artists or other creative people who ultimately publish their work
for free. The idea was that not only is it hard to enforce payment for
copies when works become purely digital, but that there are entire new
artforms possible which can only really work as freely available
online resources (eg: Orion's Arm) which at the moment can only be
brought about by voluntary effort and the PayPal begging bowl.

If a culture of patronage of creators could be fostered, if the meme
could be nurtured and grown into something mainstream, the whole
question of how to enforce intellectual property rights might be side
stepped, being replaced by a general acceptance of the need for each
individual to give a little to the commons of artistic creativity, in
balance with one's use of the output.

If you follow that idea far enough, you could an evolution of the
Free/Open Source movement where access to the "free" creations
provided by an organising body, membership of which becomes very high
status, and regular contribution to which is also high status. Does
that starts to look like a voluntary polity with taxation, if you
squint hard enough?

Maybe it can work by memetic success building a convention of payment
strong enough to support it, or maybe you need to require payment, I
don't know (that's a hard question and probably a political one). But
it's not government, and it's not for profit corporate kind of
behaviour either. It's something else, very much like the open source
movement, a kind of enlightened self organisation by people in
recognition of their common interest, not requiring coercion or strong
centralised control or the profit motive.

That's the kind of thing that your post brings to mind for me. Is that
what you mean?

> Forward 2 Steps: To create this we need a multi-disciplinary,
> non-partisian, writing team.
> 

Sounds fun.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 24 15:44:37 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241056520.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>
Message-ID: <20050824154438.60514.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- user <user at dhp.com> wrote: 
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: 
> > When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.
> Eh ... this sounds very selfish.  

Genes are selfish. Why shouldn't you be too?

> If my genes contain:
> 
> a) fitness
> b) the ability to attract other mates of equal or greater fitness
> 
> and if my most cherished _intellectual_ goal is the continuation and
> enlargement of the human race, then it would seem that I lose if I do
> not maximize the tools I have to push that goal along ...
> 
> I would think a better definition of losing would refer to losing in
> terms of the intellectual goal - which means you lose if your actions
> produce a net drag, or loss, on the expansion and betterment of
> humankind. 

Your "intellectual goal" is nothing more than a rationalization for
being a slave to your urges. You are like a house negroe quoting
property law to justify his own enslavement.

> 
> And in the course of this topic, I am trying to hypothetically decide
> what is a bigger net gain for humanity: my raising 2-3 kids hands on,
> or fighting it out in the mate finding contest (against a fairly
> strong tide of tradition, culture, and probably laws and finances)
> to see if I am really as fit as I think I am.

Evolution for humans stopped being darwinian a long time ago, it is now
Lamarckian in the arena of memetic evolution. If you want immortality,
adopt lots of kids, teach them well to become titans in whatever fields
they endeavor in, and your name will be immortalized as the father of
giants. Many know who Erasmus Darwin was. Many can tell you who William
Gates II was, who were the fathers of JFK, George HW Bush, Michael
Douglas, John Quincy Adams, and Emilio Estevez.


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 russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 16:23:31 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant,
	or just an anachronism ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241056520.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>
References: <02a201c5a82a$b3cb5ff0$0100a8c0@kevin>
	<Pine.LNX.4.21.0508241056520.1426-100000@shell.dhp.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05082409233229150a@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/24/05, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> My gut reaction this morning is that, if I had a crystal ball, 2-3 kids
> raised hands on in a loving nuclear family probably produce more net gain
> for mankind than 30 randomly sprouted, all else being equal.

Looked at on the large scale and in the long term, the current custom
of having fewer children than bare numeric replacement (average 1-2,
bare numeric replacement being necessarily more than 2) is certainly
an aberration. On the other hand, it's clear that wandering around
trying to randomly mate with as many women as will consent in the hope
of producing "30 randomly sprouted" children has not usually been a
winning strategy either.

The best strategy for passing on one's genes and contributing to the
human capital of future generations, looking at what has worked in the
past and what still works in the present, seems to be to find an
attractive/fit mate with whom you can fall in love (quite apart from
its intrinsic value, love and commitment are important for maintaining
a stable relationship) and who is willing to have as many children as
reasonably possible; in modern conditions it should be quite feasible
for a couple to have say 7 or 8 children and raise them all to healthy
and happy adulthood.

- Russell


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 24 17:00:38 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050824083052a87426@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050824170038.77460.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Democracy's great achievement is the carefully balanced institutions
> which share power, thus preventing autocracy, but its great
> embarrasment is the professional politician. A 21st century democracy
> should really be direct, with each citizen having his/her say on
> issues as they care to.

While there is perhaps technical for people to represent themselves,
it is also the case that many government issues are complex enough that
few members of the public understand them well enough to effectively
act on them - over and above the vast array of opinions.  It is also
the case that, when a deliberating body gets too large, it essentially
becomes unable to function: the sheer mechanics of allowing thousands
(to say nothing of millions) of different opinions to be voiced about
an issue, with each one seriously listened to, would bring most
legislation to a halt.  (It's a separate issue whether that itself
would be a good thing, but for sake of discussing something we might
actually be able to bring about - small steps at a time, instead of
large steps that would be completely rejected - let's put off bringing
government a halt for some later phase, if that is ultimately desired.)

Thus we have specialist politicians, just like we have specialist
farmers, specialist surgeons, specialist police, et cetera.  But unlike
farming, where if someone takes responsibility for feeding visself,
only that person is harmed upon failure, if we were to allow people to
represent themselves in Congress or similar bodies, enough people would
take up that offer as to flood Congress with a flurry of contradicting
opinions.  The end result would cause "harm" to those people who want
legislation on non-critical things passed or amended, even if those
people are the majority on a given issue: the debate itself would
essentially veto their desires.

However...perhaps there should be some mandated level of effect where,
if a certain piece of legislation would be beyond it, it can be debated
and refined by the legilsators but must be submitted to a vote of the
people for approval.  This is kind of what happens in California now,
without the automatic minimum (so as to make sure the people get
consulted for the important issues).  Alternately, perhaps instead of
an automatic minimum, laws would require two thirds of the legislators
or a popular vote.

One possible extension, which cuts to the core of government: budgets.
Perhaps, each year, when it comes to budget time, each line item could
be proposed as a separate item in a special election.  Legally mandated
expenses - which themselves had been previously approved by the voters
(or legislators in legacy times) - would be the only thing not voted
on.  Any item getting over 50% of the vote would be approved.  There
might also be a question whether the balance should go up or down: if
up, then the most popular revenue items (even if they got less than
50%) would be added until the budget was balanced; if down, then the
least popular expenses (even if they got more than 50%) would be
removed until the budget was balanced.  (Then again, on the principle
of retaining everything that the majority approves, with the
understanding that expenses will practically always be more popular
than taxes and other revenue, perhaps the "up" option should simply be
assumed.)

Specific items which could get more than one level of revenue, could
submit multiple possible levels to the election: "must have", "really
want", "would work better with", et cetera - although only the monetary
amounts would really be needed.  If the lowest level got 50%, the
lowest level would be granted.  If the lowest and the next lowest
together got 50%, the next lowest would be granted, et cetera.  If even
the lowest failed to get 50%, that line item would get nothing - so any
agency that claimed it really absolutely needed way more than it really
did, would be risking complete defunding (and beauraucratic suicide),
which should encourage more realistic minimum estimates.

Putting just the budget in the hands of the people would technically be
a small step - but it would also eliminate the biggest item of
potential corruption.  It would also remove negotiation and non-popular
pork (at least, where the pork is perceived as being separate from
popular programs), especially if the "up" option was assumed so that
people understood any expense they approved would likely raise their
own taxes.  It would also go a long ways towards thwarting debacles
like the recent US military funding: the Pentagon says it can only
effectively spend a certain amount, but Congress and the President gave
it more so they could look like they were supporting the troops (with
no concern for things like spending down the debt instead).

> The great majority of corporations out there appear to still be
> designed along strongly hierarchical military lines. Surely there are
> better ways to organise corporations, which would more strongly
> reflect the democratic/free ideals we take for granted in public
> life?

There are, and more and more small businesses use them today.  There is
usually one or two people in charge of the checkbook, and nominally
"leading" for sake of interfacing with the funders, but below them
there has been much talk of "flattening the hierarchy" and encouraging
the people who work on projects to talk directly to each other.  There
may be a project manager, who's charged with keeping everyone on track,
and in large companies these may also act as filters to the higher-ups
because the higher-ups literally don't have enough time to talk to
everyone, but even here there are increasingly company-wide blogs or
wikis for everyone to have their say.  Larger corporations don't use
these as much - yet - because of corporate inertia and because these
approaches are optimized for smaller businesses (but then, that's in
part because smaller businesses have been using them more).


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 24 18:17:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050824170038.77460.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050824181724.29465.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Democracy's great achievement is the carefully balanced
> institutions
> > which share power, thus preventing autocracy, but its great
> > embarrasment is the professional politician. A 21st century
> democracy
> > should really be direct, with each citizen having his/her say on
> > issues as they care to.
> 
> While there is perhaps technical for people to represent themselves,
> it is also the case that many government issues are complex enough
> that few members of the public understand them well enough to
> effectively act on them - over and above the vast array of opinions.

This is statist bogosity. I don't need to understand how to clone an
organism myself to have an informed opinion of cloning. Issues become
complex only for those who refuse to operate under a consistent
philosophy. Then again, all of life is complex for those who refuse to
adopt rules of decomplexification.

The general public can understand much of even the most technical
issues if you don't patronize them, castrate their educations, or work
them so hard paying exhorbitant tax and regulatory burdens that they
don't have the time to contribute to civic life.

> It is also the case that, when a deliberating body gets too large, it
> essentially becomes unable to function: the sheer mechanics of
> allowing thousands (to say nothing of millions) of different opinions
> to be voiced about an issue, with each one seriously listened to,
> would bring most legislation to a halt.  

This is a clear shibboleth. That state-wide and national referenda
frequently pass, or not, and are held in a well organized manner by
conventional methods means that, provided email or other communications
protocols can be made more secure, newer technology should be capable
of devolving much legislation to the individual level..

Furthermore, if a polity cannot make effective decisions on certain
issues consistently, that is actually a good argument for why the
decision should not be made at that level, and it should be kicked down
to more local levels. This is why federalism works so well for the US:
if national consensus is impossible for reasons of either divided
opinion, or constitutional restrictions, then it becomes an issue for
individual states to decide one way or another on.


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Aug 24 18:33:47 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <20050824181724.29465.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050824183347.86926.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is statist bogosity. I don't need to understand how to clone an
> organism myself to have an informed opinion of cloning. Issues become
> complex only for those who refuse to operate under a consistent
> philosophy. Then again, all of life is complex for those who refuse
> to
> adopt rules of decomplexification.

This is quite true.  The problem is that those people exist, and it is
not practical, given their numbers, to make slaves or noncitizens of
them - to say nothing of whether that would be acceptable even if it
could be accomplished.

> The general public can understand much of even the most technical
> issues if you don't patronize them, castrate their educations, or
> work
> them so hard paying exhorbitant tax and regulatory burdens that they
> don't have the time to contribute to civic life.

Problem is, how do we get there from here?  We currently do have a
large populace with castrated educations, et cetera, and we can't
simply shut them out in the cold.  Any political system that speaks for
everyone will even have to represent luddites - unsavory though that
may sound, they are people and do have rights.

> > It is also the case that, when a deliberating body gets too large,
> it
> > essentially becomes unable to function: the sheer mechanics of
> > allowing thousands (to say nothing of millions) of different
> opinions
> > to be voiced about an issue, with each one seriously listened to,
> > would bring most legislation to a halt.  
> 
> This is a clear shibboleth. That state-wide and national referenda
> frequently pass, or not, and are held in a well organized manner by
> conventional methods means that, provided email or other
> communications
> protocols can be made more secure, newer technology should be capable
> of devolving much legislation to the individual level..

Referenda != all legislation.  Small, minute details that someone in
the government has to specify are rarely included in referenda - and
when they are, someone's massaged them into at most a few options
first.  For instance, few people have an opinion on whether the law
says if turn signals must be on 100 or 120 feet before a turn...but
someone has to decide that.  Perhaps the people could elect someone to
study the issue and decide, or elect people to appoint someone to do
so.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 24 18:46:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
Message-ID: <20050824184604.80251.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/08/gigahertz_is_ti.html
Gigahertz? Oh mom, that's so ... last generation 
By JOHN PACZKOWSKI, Good Morning Silicon Valley

In semiconductor fashion, "performance per watt" is the new gigahertz,
at least according to Intel's designers. In his first Intel Developers'
Forum keynote as CEO, Paul Otellini announced a next-generation
microprocessor architecture that emphasizes power conservation over raw
performance. "We're changing our engineering focus from clock speed to
multicore processors. Multicore allows us to continue performance
without the penalties we saw [with the] gigahertz approach," Otellini
said. "[Going forward] we will create and build products and platforms
that deliver new levels of performance and energy efficiency and have
communications technology built into them. ... It's time to take things
to the next level. From now on, chip performance will be measured per
watt." 

Among the products Otellini discussed were three chip lines due at
market in the second half of 2006. Code-named Merom, Conroe and
Woodcrest, they are designed for notebooks, desktops and servers,
respectively. They will all feature dual cores for lower power
consumption, and according to Otellini will boast performance-per-watt
increases of three to five times over their respective predecessors.
"Given the power reduction with Merom and Conroe and today's California
electricity costs, computer users can save $1 billion per year for
every 100 million (computer) units sold. And that doesn't include the
cost of cooling," Otellini said. For Intel, which has spent years and
billions of dollars convincing consumers that clock speed is the
primary driver of performance, the shift to multicore and a focus on
power efficiency is a sea change of sorts, and one that's been a long
time coming. Said Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research,
"This is an acknowledgment that the market is more than just megahertz
now." 

- end quote -

Otellini based his calcs on saving 30 watts per PC which, depending on
how many hours a day your run it, could be anywhere between 3,000,000 -
72,000,000 kwh per day per 100 million PCs. At $0.10 kwh, thats
$300,000-7,200,000/day per 100 million PCs in energy savings, or $110
million-$2.64 billion per year, so he must be expecting that the
average PC is run for almost 10 hours per day.

As the average PC's share of this will be $10/year, and power utilities
conservation departments generally like to see a two year ROI on
conservation rebates, we might see $20 rebates from electric utilities
to upgrade machines to the new chip technology.

If your utility is not offering such rebates you should lobby them to
do so, though if you are libertarian you may want to ensure that the
utility is paying for them with its own funds and not getting tax
dollars from the Department of Energy directly or through a regional
distribution Power Authority organization like the TVA or BPA, etc., as
is often the case with conservation rebate funds.

Optimally, if you want to work on this issue, you should lobby your
utility to guage the PC usage of each person applying for the rebate,
so that those who use their PCs (or leave them on) the most get the
largest rebates (should be about $50 by my calcs for those who leave a
PC on all day long all week).

This rebate may be mitigated by how long you own the PC. The utility
may require you to use the PC for at least the two years of the ROI
period, or else pro-rate your rebate if you only use the new machine
12-18 months. As this $50 rate is also based on a $0.10 /kwh electric
rate, this should be adjusted downward if you have cheaper power than
this (i.e. you Seattle area residents).

Also, as Otellini states, this does not count A/C savings, but the
$0.10 /kwh power rate is retail price, not generation cost, so the
utility may want to recover the A/C savings as its overhead margin.


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  Wed Aug 24 19:52:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Spirit rover is landscape photo artist of
	year....
Message-ID: <20050824195205.2763.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This image: http://www.spacedaily.com/images/nix_L7.jpg
is the most spectacular extraterrestrial planetary landscape I believe
we've seen to date. This is a fantastic photo mosaic that shows both
layered sedimentary rock and the dune action of atmospheric processes.

Another great one is this movie of dust devil activity in Gusev Crater
taken on sol 525:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050819a/dd_enhanced_525b-B558R1.gif

and this one on sol 568: 
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050819a/dd_enhanced_568b-B558R1.gif

Apparently the dust devils have been cleaning dust off of Spirits solar
panels that normally collects from settling out of the atmosphere,
particularly after dust storms. This has helped Spirit maintain high
power levels even through the lower light martian winter.

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 ml at gondwanaland.com  Wed Aug 24 20:00:37 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:00:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
In-Reply-To: <20050824184604.80251.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050824184604.80251.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050824200037.GA19997@or.pair.com>

Where do you get the idea that the chipmakers are responding to
high oil prices?  Performance per watt has been the buzz for a few
years at least due to cooling and battery life problems.  Intel
just got around to a complete product line revamp around this now.
If they had been responding to recently higher oil prices I expect
it would've taken them longer, as they would've started later.
Besides, oil accounts for only 3% of US electricity generation:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes2.html

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 24 21:00:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
In-Reply-To: <20050824200037.GA19997@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20050824210024.51285.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> Where do you get the idea that the chipmakers are responding to
> high oil prices?  Performance per watt has been the buzz for a few
> years at least due to cooling and battery life problems.  Intel
> just got around to a complete product line revamp around this now.
> If they had been responding to recently higher oil prices I expect
> it would've taken them longer, as they would've started later.
> Besides, oil accounts for only 3% of US electricity generation:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes2.html

But its a much larger percentage of HVAC needs. The point is that
Olivetti is hyping its energy saving features, as oil prices have
caused energy conservation to be on peoples minds, and California has
been energy starved for longer than Intel has been focusing on
performance per watt. PCs energy load are generally one of the culprits
of the crisis there a few years ago.

Whether oil actually accounts of electricity generation or not is
immaterial. Public perception is that oil is a big share of their total
energy budget. What is spent on SUV fuel price increases is taken from
somewhere else in consumer household budgets. If one can save $20 a
year on one's PC use (plus HVAC savings), that is a half tank of gas,
which isn't much, but its a start, and en mass, that is money better
spent than using one's PC as a heater.



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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 22:18:23 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:18:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Talk: IM and VoIP
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050824024271551ce1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050824024271551ce1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b405082415182b0f161f@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/24/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> On more step... search, mail, IM, VoIP, maps, blogs, videos - is Google
> going to become this global datasphere that modern SF writers use in their
> fiction situated a few decades in the future? Google Talk is a simple and
> free way to talk with and send instant messages to your friends. Like Gmail,
> Google Talk uses Google's innovative technologies to help people communicate
> more effectively and efficiently. Think of it as Google's approach to
> communications. Google Talk is easy and intuitive to use. All you need to
> make free calls is an Internet connection, a microphone, and a speaker.
> After you download Google Talk, sign in with your Gmail username and
> password. Invite your friends to download Google Talk, and once they do,
> you'll be able to talk or IM with them instantly. 

Google's most innovative technology is keeping intrusive ads out of
the way. Hotmail (MSN) is a nightmare in comparison.

Dirk


From trans.humanism3001 at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 22:38:10 2005
From: trans.humanism3001 at gmail.com (oli suggy)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:38:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant?
In-Reply-To: <200508241800.j7OI04u07918@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508241800.j7OI04u07918@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <2994d94b0508241538517057a6@mail.gmail.com>

Hi @ all

Surely the point that has been missed here is that given the
optimistic nature of extropianism we should conclude that we are not
the sum of genetics in itself. In order to produce children who not
only carry on your genetic code but also carry on your beliefs and
philosophy, indeed the philosophy of extropianism and its
associations, then an active role in the childs life is called for.
This obviously limits the number of relationships to very few given
the human dynamic. To pass on not only our genes but our benevolent
and socially beneficial world view to our children is the goal of
imposing our consciousness on our natural urges - and it is only
through this process that humanity will free itself of its animal
past. If we allow our basic instincts to control us we are nothing but
those basic instincts.

suggy

On 24/08/05, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to
>         extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
>       anachronism ? (Mike Lorrey)
>    2. Re: is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an
>       anachronism ? (Russell Wallace)
>    3. Re: Politics: Transhumanist Social System (Adrian Tymes)
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an anachronism ?
> --- user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote:
> > > When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.
> > Eh ... this sounds very selfish.
> 
> Genes are selfish. Why shouldn't you be too?
> 
> > If my genes contain:
> >
> > a) fitness
> > b) the ability to attract other mates of equal or greater fitness
> >
> > and if my most cherished _intellectual_ goal is the continuation and
> > enlargement of the human race, then it would seem that I lose if I do
> > not maximize the tools I have to push that goal along ...
> >
> > I would think a better definition of losing would refer to losing in
> > terms of the intellectual goal - which means you lose if your actions
> > produce a net drag, or loss, on the expansion and betterment of
> > humankind.
> 
> Your "intellectual goal" is nothing more than a rationalization for
> being a slave to your urges. You are like a house negroe quoting
> property law to justify his own enslavement.
> 
> >
> > And in the course of this topic, I am trying to hypothetically decide
> > what is a bigger net gain for humanity: my raising 2-3 kids hands on,
> > or fighting it out in the mate finding contest (against a fairly
> > strong tide of tradition, culture, and probably laws and finances)
> > to see if I am really as fit as I think I am.
> 
> Evolution for humans stopped being darwinian a long time ago, it is now
> Lamarckian in the arena of memetic evolution. If you want immortality,
> adopt lots of kids, teach them well to become titans in whatever fields
> they endeavor in, and your name will be immortalized as the father of
> giants. Many know who Erasmus Darwin was. Many can tell you who William
> Gates II was, who were the fathers of JFK, George HW Bush, Michael
> Douglas, John Quincy Adams, and Emilio Estevez.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:31 +0100
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an anachronism ?
> On 8/24/05, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> > My gut reaction this morning is that, if I had a crystal ball, 2-3 kids
> > raised hands on in a loving nuclear family probably produce more net gain
> > for mankind than 30 randomly sprouted, all else being equal.
> 
> Looked at on the large scale and in the long term, the current custom
> of having fewer children than bare numeric replacement (average 1-2,
> bare numeric replacement being necessarily more than 2) is certainly
> an aberration. On the other hand, it's clear that wandering around
> trying to randomly mate with as many women as will consent in the hope
> of producing "30 randomly sprouted" children has not usually been a
> winning strategy either.
> 
> The best strategy for passing on one's genes and contributing to the
> human capital of future generations, looking at what has worked in the
> past and what still works in the present, seems to be to find an
> attractive/fit mate with whom you can fall in love (quite apart from
> its intrinsic value, love and commitment are important for maintaining
> a stable relationship) and who is willing to have as many children as
> reasonably possible; in modern conditions it should be quite feasible
> for a couple to have say 7 or 8 children and raise them all to healthy
> and happy adulthood.
> 
> - Russell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Democracy's great achievement is the carefully balanced institutions
> > which share power, thus preventing autocracy, but its great
> > embarrasment is the professional politician. A 21st century democracy
> > should really be direct, with each citizen having his/her say on
> > issues as they care to.
> 
> While there is perhaps technical for people to represent themselves,
> it is also the case that many government issues are complex enough that
> few members of the public understand them well enough to effectively
> act on them - over and above the vast array of opinions.  It is also
> the case that, when a deliberating body gets too large, it essentially
> becomes unable to function: the sheer mechanics of allowing thousands
> (to say nothing of millions) of different opinions to be voiced about
> an issue, with each one seriously listened to, would bring most
> legislation to a halt.  (It's a separate issue whether that itself
> would be a good thing, but for sake of discussing something we might
> actually be able to bring about - small steps at a time, instead of
> large steps that would be completely rejected - let's put off bringing
> government a halt for some later phase, if that is ultimately desired.)
> 
> Thus we have specialist politicians, just like we have specialist
> farmers, specialist surgeons, specialist police, et cetera.  But unlike
> farming, where if someone takes responsibility for feeding visself,
> only that person is harmed upon failure, if we were to allow people to
> represent themselves in Congress or similar bodies, enough people would
> take up that offer as to flood Congress with a flurry of contradicting
> opinions.  The end result would cause "harm" to those people who want
> legislation on non-critical things passed or amended, even if those
> people are the majority on a given issue: the debate itself would
> essentially veto their desires.
> 
> However...perhaps there should be some mandated level of effect where,
> if a certain piece of legislation would be beyond it, it can be debated
> and refined by the legilsators but must be submitted to a vote of the
> people for approval.  This is kind of what happens in California now,
> without the automatic minimum (so as to make sure the people get
> consulted for the important issues).  Alternately, perhaps instead of
> an automatic minimum, laws would require two thirds of the legislators
> or a popular vote.
> 
> One possible extension, which cuts to the core of government: budgets.
> Perhaps, each year, when it comes to budget time, each line item could
> be proposed as a separate item in a special election.  Legally mandated
> expenses - which themselves had been previously approved by the voters
> (or legislators in legacy times) - would be the only thing not voted
> on.  Any item getting over 50% of the vote would be approved.  There
> might also be a question whether the balance should go up or down: if
> up, then the most popular revenue items (even if they got less than
> 50%) would be added until the budget was balanced; if down, then the
> least popular expenses (even if they got more than 50%) would be
> removed until the budget was balanced.  (Then again, on the principle
> of retaining everything that the majority approves, with the
> understanding that expenses will practically always be more popular
> than taxes and other revenue, perhaps the "up" option should simply be
> assumed.)
> 
> Specific items which could get more than one level of revenue, could
> submit multiple possible levels to the election: "must have", "really
> want", "would work better with", et cetera - although only the monetary
> amounts would really be needed.  If the lowest level got 50%, the
> lowest level would be granted.  If the lowest and the next lowest
> together got 50%, the next lowest would be granted, et cetera.  If even
> the lowest failed to get 50%, that line item would get nothing - so any
> agency that claimed it really absolutely needed way more than it really
> did, would be risking complete defunding (and beauraucratic suicide),
> which should encourage more realistic minimum estimates.
> 
> Putting just the budget in the hands of the people would technically be
> a small step - but it would also eliminate the biggest item of
> potential corruption.  It would also remove negotiation and non-popular
> pork (at least, where the pork is perceived as being separate from
> popular programs), especially if the "up" option was assumed so that
> people understood any expense they approved would likely raise their
> own taxes.  It would also go a long ways towards thwarting debacles
> like the recent US military funding: the Pentagon says it can only
> effectively spend a certain amount, but Congress and the President gave
> it more so they could look like they were supporting the troops (with
> no concern for things like spending down the debt instead).
> 
> > The great majority of corporations out there appear to still be
> > designed along strongly hierarchical military lines. Surely there are
> > better ways to organise corporations, which would more strongly
> > reflect the democratic/free ideals we take for granted in public
> > life?
> 
> There are, and more and more small businesses use them today.  There is
> usually one or two people in charge of the checkbook, and nominally
> "leading" for sake of interfacing with the funders, but below them
> there has been much talk of "flattening the hierarchy" and encouraging
> the people who work on projects to talk directly to each other.  There
> may be a project manager, who's charged with keeping everyone on track,
> and in large companies these may also act as filters to the higher-ups
> because the higher-ups literally don't have enough time to talk to
> everyone, but even here there are increasingly company-wide blogs or
> wikis for everyone to have their say.  Larger corporations don't use
> these as much - yet - because of corporate inertia and because these
> approaches are optimized for smaller businesses (but then, that's in
> part because smaller businesses have been using them more).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Aug 24 23:43:48 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:43:48 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>

You know its interesting Bret, but I wasn't really all that interested
in this thread headed "a futurist prediction". 

Yet somehow I doubt that is what you are referring too ;-)

Can you say oh person whose DNA is 99.9% identical to most
others of your species what it is EXACTLY, "this thread", that
you so much wish not to have again that you pray to the Flying
Spaghetti Monster to deliver you from?

I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just another Brett, yet
even I am almost certainly going to be able to oblige you. 

- Brett 

(who misses not the irony of nearly always, nearly talking to
someone that is nearly himself)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bret Kulakovich" <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction


> 
> 
> Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have This  
> Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !
> 
> 
> -or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !
> 
> 
> /begs
> /pleads
> 
> 
> ]3
> 
> 
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
> 
>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
>>> watch.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean  
>> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
>>
>> 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Aug 25 00:37:02 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:37:02 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A little side project I'm interested in
Message-ID: <053601c5a90d$1cab1410$0d98e03c@homepc>

Its fascinating to me that so many folks still don't realise that the US
congress ratified the UN Charter. That the UN Charter was if you like a
previous generation of Americans gift to succeeding generations.

An instrument of and for peace-making policy forged by the hands of a
warrior generation that had not just the war genes in their cells but war
memes vividly in their personal life histories and as an integral and 
pressing part of their memories.

Perhaps not at the exact instant, but figuratively, even as Harry Truman
was contemplating the terrible calculus of whether to bomb Hiroshima 
the United Nations Charter was on his mind. 

>From a US State Department web site I gleaned the fact that by a vote
of either 89 or 87 (memory fails) to 2, the US Senate approved the 
ratification of the UN Charter. 

I got it into my head that I would like to read the text of the debates those
Senators, those representatives of their respective states, some Republican
some Democrat must have had in getting to the point of agreeing to ratify
the charter, (I know something of how fiercely states rights are guarded even
within the union) so I sent an email to US Senate library and received a very
helpful response from a librarian there about sources I might seek out.

Taking that response, nicely and concisely summarised in the timesaving
manner that email allows I forwarded it on to a librarian at an academic
university here in Australia to see if the relevant documents were available
here. I hoped to read them and perhaps make copies and perhaps make
at least some of what is not available on the net (to my knowledge) available. 

You see I wanted to read the text of speeches that are from an era and 
a country that is not only not my own, but predated the great digitisation
of documents that has occurred in recent decades. 

Anyway, at a library here in Melbourne, I found the Congressional Reports
on Microfiche but alas they stop, frustratingly, just before the time I am 
interested in and the Melbourne Uni librarian, skilled in the way that librarians
can be, checked for me the availability of those reports for the time period I 
seek and determined that alas she could find none here in Australia. 

To assess the reports for the time period I seek I need access to a 
Federal Repository Library of which there are many in all the great states
of the US, including Hawaii. and yet there is none in Australia.

If there are any readers of this, that live in the US near a relevant library
that has the texts of those speeches from that period and is interested,
like me in what the Republicans of that day, some of which will have no
doubt continued to have distinguished careers and to great service for
their country said at that time, then I would be grateful if you would 
contact me. 

My idea is to discover the wisdom of an earlier and yet relevant era and
to remind the current generation or those that will listen, that previous
generations fought hard and thought hard before establishing some of the
still imperfect institutions and systems that the current generations can
take for granted and as part of their heritage today. 

I know from the material that I have been able to gather that both Republicans
and Democrats were actively involved in the forging of the UN.  Tom Connolly
of Texas and Vandenburg of Michigan if memory serves. I do have their
speeches commending, with the then President, Harry Truman, the UN Charter
to the Senate.

So far I just have not been able to get the speeches for the Senators that
were not ambassadors.  I am also especially interested in the speeches
if any from those two dissenters. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050825/d1883ee2/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 25 00:37:10 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:37:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>




The-lets-beat-up-the-President-and-invalidate-each-other's-political- 
standing topic that has increased the signal-to-noise on this list by  
some sort of geometric amount of dB over the past several months.

Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us contradict,  
Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's threadjacking run  
amok.

There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that are  
going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the thread  
bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is deadended. It's  
like yelling down a hole sometime.


I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my  
plea no doubt =)


]3


For more on Pastafarianism, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster




On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> You know its interesting Bret, but I wasn't really all that interested
> in this thread headed "a futurist prediction".
> Yet somehow I doubt that is what you are referring too ;-)
>
> Can you say oh person whose DNA is 99.9% identical to most
> others of your species what it is EXACTLY, "this thread", that
> you so much wish not to have again that you pray to the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster to deliver you from?
>
> I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just another Brett, yet
> even I am almost certainly going to be able to oblige you.
> - Brett
> (who misses not the irony of nearly always, nearly talking to
> someone that is nearly himself)
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Kulakovich"  
> <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
>
>
>
>> Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have  
>> This  Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !
>> -or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !
>> /begs
>> /pleads
>> ]3
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>
>>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
>>>> watch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean   
>>> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Aug 25 01:04:47 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:04:47 +1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist
	prediction
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc><430A912B.2050304@aol.com><D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com><051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>

> Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us contradict,  
> Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's threadjacking run  
> amok.

You are an active agent in keeping that process going. You choose
which threads you want to inflame with the oxygen of your 
attention to them.  Thats part of the dynamics of a list. 

You don't have to reply to any post or to any poster its entirely
optional. You can keep a database of posts and posters if you
want and reply only to those you want to reply to. 

You can give a person a warning that they are going beyond what
you find acceptable to you, either in rudeness or in level of noise
and if they don't heed the warning you can ignore them. But if you
step in to shut them up, you oxygenate their flame. 

Shunning was a very effective form of feedback in tribal villages
as I understand. Violence and censorship wasn't necessary, the
simple withdrawal of attention was enough. 

Heck even the metaphor of Heaven has gates on it. 
 
> There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that are  
> going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the thread  
> bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is deadended. It's  
> like yelling down a hole sometime.

Re the hole, I can imagine, but I'll have to take you word for it. 
 
Re the out there. Sure. 

> I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my  
> plea no doubt =)

Your post provides an opportunity to comment on a means for 
improving list quality without censorship. If someone is excessively and
constistently rude or boring just ignore them. Warn them if you like and
if they don't heed you, just stop talking to them. 

Perhaps spend *your* time like its *yours* to spend and a resource of
value, and the rest can take care if itself. 

You find the content boring but the people potentially worth talking to
post another thread and see if the marketplace picks it up. 

Brett 





From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 01:14:13 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:44:13 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>

FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
than being swamped by the political stuff.

And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
(pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
invite, just ask :-)

-- 
Emlyn

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

On 25/08/05, Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The-lets-beat-up-the-President-and-invalidate-each-other's-political-
> standing topic that has increased the signal-to-noise on this list by
> some sort of geometric amount of dB over the past several months.
> 
> Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us contradict,
> Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's threadjacking run
> amok.
> 
> There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that are
> going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the thread
> bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is deadended. It's
> like yelling down a hole sometime.
> 
> 
> I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my
> plea no doubt =)
> 
> 
> ]3
> 
> 
> For more on Pastafarianism, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > You know its interesting Bret, but I wasn't really all that interested
> > in this thread headed "a futurist prediction".
> > Yet somehow I doubt that is what you are referring too ;-)
> >
> > Can you say oh person whose DNA is 99.9% identical to most
> > others of your species what it is EXACTLY, "this thread", that
> > you so much wish not to have again that you pray to the Flying
> > Spaghetti Monster to deliver you from?
> >
> > I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just another Brett, yet
> > even I am almost certainly going to be able to oblige you.
> > - Brett
> > (who misses not the irony of nearly always, nearly talking to
> > someone that is nearly himself)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Kulakovich"
> > <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> > To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
> >
> >
> >
> >> Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have
> >> This  Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !
> >> -or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !
> >> /begs
> >> /pleads
> >> ]3
> >> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
> >>>> watch.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean
> >>> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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  Thu Aug 25 01:34:56 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:34:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<430A912B.2050304@aol.com><D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com><051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc><8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <056b01c5a915$33425640$0d98e03c@homepc>

Emlyn wrote:

> FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
> so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
> the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> than being swamped by the political stuff.

When you say its "inherently threaded" I don't follow. How are
incoming posts from say the Exi-chat list "inherently threaded" so that
you can read just the tech stuff if you want and avoid the political
stuff if you don't?

As you know Emlyn, I have an IT degree, but I *still* forget or don't
keep track of all the features of all the bits of software. Most of what
I hear I have to discount as salesy blah blah from people who haven't
got much of a clue themselves. At least until the time I get irked enough
by some limitation to formulate a plan to learn and listen to some of
them asking what I want to know, not what they want to tell me. There
isn't time to check everything. But if you, who likes this stuff are getting
value from it, its probably pretty damn good (at least for what your
doing with it ;-).

> And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
> search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
> invite, just ask :-)

Thats an invite to gmail, again, or an invite to something else? I took
your gmail invite and I think I lost my gmail account, or perhaps didn't,
because I wasn't ready, it wasn't important enough to me, to take the
time to make the change.

I reckon a lot of Exi-chat posters are like me. Smart but lazy. Looking
for the easy way. Budgetting time, in a way, like most people budget
money, because time, is also precious, and the serious thinking we like
to do, but we don't like to waste it on trivial administrative stuff.

Funny thing is one persons trivial administrative stuff is anothers living
and passion.

Brett Paatsch







From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 25 02:02:10 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:02:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14A802CF-E94B-47B2-A3E4-F06CAAED4E7F@bonfireproductions.com>


That's actually very helpful to know - I am using the MacOSX mail  
client, and although it does threading, the highlights bind to header  
data that is dependent on people paying attention to them. For  
instance, when starting a new thread it is easier to reply to  
someone's email from the list and then remove the subject and the  
content and put in my own subject - but this wreaks havoc on this  
threading mechanism.

]3ret

On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:14 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
> so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
> the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> than being swamped by the political stuff.
>
> And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
> search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
> invite, just ask :-)
>
> -- 
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
>
> On 25/08/05, Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> The-lets-beat-up-the-President-and-invalidate-each-other's-political-
>> standing topic that has increased the signal-to-noise on this list by
>> some sort of geometric amount of dB over the past several months.
>>
>> Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us contradict,
>> Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's threadjacking run
>> amok.
>>
>> There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that are
>> going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the thread
>> bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is deadended. It's
>> like yelling down a hole sometime.
>>
>>
>> I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my
>> plea no doubt =)
>>
>>
>> ]3
>>
>>
>> For more on Pastafarianism, see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You know its interesting Bret, but I wasn't really all that  
>>> interested
>>> in this thread headed "a futurist prediction".
>>> Yet somehow I doubt that is what you are referring too ;-)
>>>
>>> Can you say oh person whose DNA is 99.9% identical to most
>>> others of your species what it is EXACTLY, "this thread", that
>>> you so much wish not to have again that you pray to the Flying
>>> Spaghetti Monster to deliver you from?
>>>
>>> I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just another Brett, yet
>>> even I am almost certainly going to be able to oblige you.
>>> - Brett
>>> (who misses not the irony of nearly always, nearly talking to
>>> someone that is nearly himself)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Kulakovich"
>>> <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
>>> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:13 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have
>>>> This  Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !
>>>> -or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !
>>>> /begs
>>>> /pleads
>>>> ]3
>>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
>>>>>> watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean
>>>>> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 25 02:03:59 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] supplement, was a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <056b01c5a915$33425640$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

I started this thread, apologies for that. To atone here's an entirely different thread: if you were to ingest only one supplement, what would it be? I might choose saw palmetto, or milk thistle, extracts.
 


Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Emlyn wrote:

> FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
> so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
> the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> than being swamped by the political stuff.

When you say its "inherently threaded" I don't follow. How are
incoming posts from say the Exi-chat list "inherently threaded" so that
you can read just the tech stuff if you want and avoid the political
stuff if you don't?

As you know Emlyn, I have an IT degree, but I *still* forget or don't
keep track of all the features of all the bits of software. Most of what
I hear I have to discount as salesy blah blah from people who haven't
got much of a clue themselves. At least until the time I get irked enough
by some limitation to formulate a plan to learn and listen to some of
them asking what I want to know, not what they want to tell me. There
isn't time to check everything. But if you, who likes this stuff are getting
value from it, its probably pretty damn good (at least for what your
doing with it ;-).

> And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
> search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
> invite, just ask :-)

Thats an invite to gmail, again, or an invite to something else? I took
your gmail invite and I think I lost my gmail account, or perhaps didn't,
because I wasn't ready, it wasn't important enough to me, to take the
time to make the change.

I reckon a lot of Exi-chat posters are like me. Smart but lazy. Looking
for the easy way. Budgetting time, in a way, like most people budget
money, because time, is also precious, and the serious thinking we like
to do, but we don't like to waste it on trivial administrative stuff.

Funny thing is one persons trivial administrative stuff is anothers living
and passion.

Brett Paatsch





_______________________________________________
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/20050824/edb5e798/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 25 02:18:05 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:18:05 -0400
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc><430A912B.2050304@aol.com><D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com><051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <C73651B2-8D12-4A95-AC66-B0335CAC0E71@bonfireproductions.com>


Hm. I appreciate your intentions here. And I do understand the  
mechanics. Been around for a while, etc. etc.

What I was doing, imho, was exactly what you are saying. I was  
whining. Profusely. Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because  
that was serious. But censorship? None. I don't even have a killfile  
myself because I view it as intellectual cowardice. Yes, that is also  
imho. Take the good with the bad.

But, but - but: The 'a futurist prediction' thread had the 'Bush is a  
(biological process, product, and/or verb)' meme inserted, and, well  
I wasn't up for another run through the long dirt remnants of that  
particular horse.

Could I have ignored it? Perhaps. I did the first eight times. Months  
ago.

Fan the flames? Doubt it. I could produce more flames pointing out  
that there are more similarities between Robbie and Mike than there  
are differences, and that I think we'd all enjoy a beer together, if  
it weren't for the taxation and the price of oiiiillllllll. /segue,  
duck under chair, etc.

Anyway. I'll go back to watching threads go by then. Haven't seen  
shunning work since the BBS days though.

Thanks for the chat.


Bret Kulakovich


On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:04 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>> Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us  
>> contradict,  Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's  
>> threadjacking run  amok.
>>
>
> You are an active agent in keeping that process going. You choose
> which threads you want to inflame with the oxygen of your attention  
> to them.  Thats part of the dynamics of a list.
> You don't have to reply to any post or to any poster its entirely
> optional. You can keep a database of posts and posters if you
> want and reply only to those you want to reply to.
> You can give a person a warning that they are going beyond what
> you find acceptable to you, either in rudeness or in level of noise
> and if they don't heed the warning you can ignore them. But if you
> step in to shut them up, you oxygenate their flame.
> Shunning was a very effective form of feedback in tribal villages
> as I understand. Violence and censorship wasn't necessary, the
> simple withdrawal of attention was enough.
> Heck even the metaphor of Heaven has gates on it.
>
>> There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that  
>> are  going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the  
>> thread  bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is  
>> deadended. It's  like yelling down a hole sometime.
>>
>
> Re the hole, I can imagine, but I'll have to take you word for it.  
> Re the out there. Sure.
>
>> I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my   
>> plea no doubt =)
>>
>
> Your post provides an opportunity to comment on a means for  
> improving list quality without censorship. If someone is  
> excessively and
> constistently rude or boring just ignore them. Warn them if you  
> like and
> if they don't heed you, just stop talking to them.
> Perhaps spend *your* time like its *yours* to spend and a resource of
> value, and the rest can take care if itself.
> You find the content boring but the people potentially worth  
> talking to
> post another thread and see if the marketplace picks it up.
> Brett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Aug 25 02:24:40 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:24:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] supplement, was a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E1665FBC-7F65-44CE-AAD7-FDB4DC746BC1@bonfireproductions.com>


Hey - no apologies needed - I was trolling Ideas Futures the other  
day if you remember that one.

Supplements. Yikes. I am guessing my multivitamin doesn't count as  
one. I've had success with glucosamine for joint pain, but nothing  
overwhelming. If I had to choose, I would have to go with one glass  
of red wine a day.

]3


On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:03 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

> I started this thread, apologies for that. To atone here's an  
> entirely different thread: if you were to ingest only one  
> supplement, what would it be? I might choose saw palmetto, or milk  
> thistle, extracts.
>
>
>
> Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> > political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently  
> threaded,
> > so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts)  
> while
> > the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> > threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> > than being swamped by the political stuff.
>
> When you say its "inherently threaded" I don't follow. How are
> incoming posts from say the Exi-chat list "inherently threaded" so  
> that
> you can read just the tech stuff if you want and avoid the political
> stuff if you don't?
>
> As you know Emlyn, I have an IT degree, but I *still* forget or don't
> keep track of all the features of all the bits of software. Most of  
> what
> I hear I have to discount as salesy blah blah ! from people who  
> haven't
> got much of a clue themselves. At least until the time I get irked  
> enough
> by some limitation to formulate a plan to learn and listen to some of
> them asking what I want to know, not what they want to tell me. There
> isn't time to check everything. But if you, who likes this stuff  
> are getting
> value from it, its probably pretty damn good (at least for what your
> doing with it ;-).
>
> > And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> > the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a  
> google
> > search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> > interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> > (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone  
> wants an
> > invite, just ask :-)
>
> Thats an invite to gmail, again, or an invite to something else? I  
> took
> your gmail invite and I think I lost my gmail account, or perhaps  
> didn't,
> becau! se I wasn't ready, it wasn't important enough to me, to take  
> the
> time to make the change.
>
> I reckon a lot of Exi-chat posters are like me. Smart but lazy.  
> Looking
> for the easy way. Budgetting time, in a way, like most people budget
> money, because time, is also precious, and the serious thinking we  
> like
> to do, but we don't like to waste it on trivial administrative stuff.
>
> Funny thing is one persons trivial administrative stuff is anothers  
> living
> and passion.
>
> Brett Paatsch
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050824/1ccfe7ba/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Aug 25 01:34:51 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:34:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:  Supplements- pick your top 13
In-Reply-To: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <430D203B.3090608@sasktel.net>

Al Brooks wrote:. To atone here's an entirely different thread: if you 
were to ingest only one supplement, what would it be? I might choose saw 
palmetto, or milk thistle, extracts

One is like looking for Ponce de Leone's fountain; try picking your top 13

If I had to Pick 13:

1-Whole plant buffaloberry - leaf, bark and berry
carotenoids, flavonoids, tannins
2- Whole Hemp bud- omega 3s, flavonoids, terpenes and cannabinoids, 
arginine
3- Tobacco leaf extract - nicotine
4-Conjugated Linoleic acid-metabolic enhancer
5-Garlic-
6-Barberry root
7-Gotu Kola
8-Ginger root
9- Cyanocobalamin -B12
10-Ginseng root
11-Cocao
12-Guarana
13-Folic acid







From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Aug 25 02:41:18 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:41:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] supplements
In-Reply-To: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050825020400.18098.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <430D2FCE.5080801@jefallbright.net>

Al Brooks wrote:

> I started this thread, apologies for that. To atone here's an entirely 
> different thread: if you were to ingest only one supplement, what 
> would it be? I might choose saw palmetto, or milk thistle, extracts.

Okay, I'll play, but I can't imagine any real situation where I would 
only pick one.

EPA/DHA (fish oil) would probably head my list of the most rewarding 
supplements, or possibly co-enzyme Q10.

However, a new supplement that is rapidly rising to the forefront is 
curcumin, from tumeric, the key spice in curry.

http://www.alz.org/News/04Q4/122304.asp

I've added two capsules per day to my regimen.

- Jef


From aiguy at comcast.net  Thu Aug 25 03:18:55 2005
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:18:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
In-Reply-To: <20050824200037.GA19997@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <200508250319.j7P3J3u11963@tick.javien.com>

I agree Intel is not switching to multicore to compensate for higher oil
prices.

Rather their R&D efforts to reduce current leakage at higher clock speeds as
they moved to smaller die masks failed!

They could not go above 3.8 Ghz without asking PC makers to resort to liquid
cooling.

That would have added considerable expense to the PC and the major makers
balked at it.

Intel then put their other parallel development project for multicore on the
fast track and made a whole host of minor improvements to keep the customers
buying/upgrading until they could deliver dual core chips which run at
slower Ghz and thus produce less heat.

Too bad that 95% of the software on the home market is not multithreaded and
can't benefit greatly from dual core technology. 

In the process they also added 64 bit capability to chips.  Also for which
no software exists to benefit the home user.

Even though Windows 64 bit is released very few applications will be release
until mid 2006.  

Even then the majority of them will be aimed towards the business server
market.

I know someone will bring up that there are 64 bit Linux releases available
and that is true.

But it is in my opinion a shortage of software and user friendliness to the
uninitiated that has held Linux back on the desktop.

I imagine that Intel is might worried about AMD now since AMD is currently
running ahead of them in both the dual and single core benchmarks.  Also AMD
is running at a lower clockrate than what Intel maxed out at.
That makes me believe that AMD still has room to jack up their clockrates in
a few new chip generations without hitting the overheating problem that
Intel hit at 4Ghz.

Even though Moore's law with respect to the number on circuit elements
doubling every 18 months will be maintained, our applications will no longer
double in speed until they have all been rewritten for a multithreaded
architecture.

Regards Gary Miller.



>>Where do you get the idea that the chipmakers are responding to high oil
prices?  Performance per watt has been the buzz for a few years at least due
to cooling and battery life problems.  Intel just got around to a complete
product line revamp around this now.
If they had been responding to recently higher oil prices I expect it
would've taken them longer, as they would've started later.
Besides, oil accounts for only 3% of US electricity generation:




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Aug 25 03:24:48 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:24:48 +1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com><021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc><430A912B.2050304@aol.com><D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com><051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc><8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com><055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<C73651B2-8D12-4A95-AC66-B0335CAC0E71@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <05a401c5a924$8c2096f0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:
 
> Hm. I appreciate your intentions here. And I do understand the  
> mechanics. Been around for a while, etc. etc.

I get that and I'm not really meaning to give *you* personally a
hard time, I'm just using you as an example, because to do so
fits nicely with the colloquial way of speaking, using the word,
you. Or, perhaps I'm verbalising my internal dialogue. 

> What I was doing, imho, was exactly what you are saying. I was  
> whining. Profusely. Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because  
> that was serious.

;-)

> But censorship? None. I don't even have a killfile myself because 
> I view it as intellectual cowardice. Yes, that is also imho. Take the
> good with the bad.

The danger of censorship isn't, in my opinion, what you seem to think
it is.  It isn't that some nitwit might poison the minds of the young that
you or I feel duty bound to protect. The young have minds adequate,
for the most part of being able to distinguish or make their own
judgements as to what is noise and what is message. 

The problem with censorship is that the censors rarely have the acumen
or the time to judge the content of the messages they'd have to censor.

If Protagorus is having it out with Socrates I don't want Homer Simpson
coming along and putting his foot down.  We can't always tell who is 
Protagorus, Socrates or Homer Simpson, unless we are paying very 
very close attention, and frankly, who is?  

> But, but - but: The 'a futurist prediction' thread had the 'Bush is a  
> (biological process, product, and/or verb)' meme inserted, and, well  
> I wasn't up for another run through the long dirt remnants of that  
> particular horse.

See there you go, the equestrian and scatological aspects had escaped
me completely ! 
 
> Could I have ignored it? Perhaps. I did the first eight times. Months  
> ago.
> 
> Fan the flames? Doubt it. I could produce more flames pointing out  
> that there are more similarities between [snip] and [snip] than there  
> are differences, and that I think we'd all enjoy a beer together, if  
> it weren't for the taxation and the price of oiiiillllllll. /segue,  
> duck under chair, etc.
> 
> Anyway. I'll go back to watching threads go by then. Haven't seen  
> shunning work since the BBS days though.

I reckon some of the old village paradigms that ceased to apply to
city living may be able to come back and be useful for us again, of
course with some slight modifications. 

Shunning is just one tool in the box. Another is keeping a *personal*
database, or spreadsheet (same thing if you can use it well enough),
of posters who post under their userids. 

Reward merit with merit, track interests, help those that help you
or whose values you like.
 
> Thanks for the chat.

Thank *you*.

I was talking with Bret Kulakovich in mind as my potential reader
but with the idea the others might be reading too. This is, imo, a 
smallish tribute to you rather than using you. I only have a certain
amount of time. But if you *feel* used, sorry.

No reply expected, or necessary.

Brett Paatsch




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 06:37:50 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:07:50 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <056b01c5a915$33425640$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
	<056b01c5a915$33425640$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050824233710bccada@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Brett, long time no email. How's the big wide world treating you?
I've replied to your email inline below.

On 25/08/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> 
> > FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> > political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
> > so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
> > the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> > threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> > than being swamped by the political stuff.
> 
> When you say its "inherently threaded" I don't follow. How are
> incoming posts from say the Exi-chat list "inherently threaded" so that
> you can read just the tech stuff if you want and avoid the political
> stuff if you don't?

I've attached three pictures of my gmail user interface. The first one
is the main screen, the second one is where I've clicked on a thread
and you can see the unread message at the end of the thread, the third
is where I've clicked on the thread message list higher up and then
selected an old post to view. Note in the first pictures that emails
are grouped by subject, with a number of posts next to each one. It's
really simple and surprisingly usable. Actually it's the best email
interface I've ever used. It's not very customisable, but I haven't
found that I've needed to customise it so far.

> 
> As you know Emlyn, I have an IT degree, but I *still* forget or don't
> keep track of all the features of all the bits of software. Most of what
> I hear I have to discount as salesy blah blah from people who haven't
> got much of a clue themselves. At least until the time I get irked enough
> by some limitation to formulate a plan to learn and listen to some of
> them asking what I want to know, not what they want to tell me. There
> isn't time to check everything. But if you, who likes this stuff are getting
> value from it, its probably pretty damn good (at least for what your
> doing with it ;-).

I hear you absolutely. I have enough technofetish to investigate new
things, but I am very lazy too, and I am the world's worst
administrator. Most techies I know wont use gmail because they run
their own mail servers, etc etc etc. But although I know how to do all
that stuff, I refuse to because I don't have a 24x7 server
infrastructure at home, and have no hope in hell of achieving one.
These days I even find Microsoft Word too annoying because I'm always
using different machines with different installations of software,
often not controlled by me.

So, I prefer web applications to desktop applications. They have a
drawback that they absolutely require you to be online, but I've made
it my business to satisfy that requirement. Their benefits are zero
installation, being available everywhere, being run by people who are
usually excellent administrators, and usually being free.

My favourite obviously is google, but my next favourite is gmail, best
email system I've ever had, no hassles, almost non-existent learning
curve, huge capacity.

And if this is ever relevant to you, my next favourite is the Yahoo
calendar; it's a really excellent web based schedule, which you can
keep private or share with people as you see fit. You can also combine
in other people's schedules if you want to see them inline with yours,
and you can set up email or sms alerts for important events in your
schedule. And again, it's free.

> 
> > And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> > the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
> > search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> > interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> > (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
> > invite, just ask :-)
> 
> Thats an invite to gmail, again, or an invite to something else? I took
> your gmail invite and I think I lost my gmail account, or perhaps didn't,
> because I wasn't ready, it wasn't important enough to me, to take the
> time to make the change.
> 

I mean an invite to gmail. I'll send you another one; they are really
easy to come by these days (for example, I have 50 at all times it now
appears), and you can use it if you want to.

> I reckon a lot of Exi-chat posters are like me. Smart but lazy. Looking
> for the easy way. Budgetting time, in a way, like most people budget
> money, because time, is also precious, and the serious thinking we like
> to do, but we don't like to waste it on trivial administrative stuff.

That laziness is extremely important; it's actually, as you've said, a
response to a strong demands on one's time. All the applications I
favour are on the quick & easy side of the fence, rather than super
configurable but complex (which suck up all your time for dubious
returns).

I've committed myself to learning more about the Linux and open source
worlds recently, which can only really be done one way - by immersion.
The most annoying thing about it is that the Linux world is all about
complex & super configurable, which means huge learning curves &
massive time investment. I'm trying to push through it because I think
the Open Source / Free Software has discovered some really interesting
and relatively new ways of organising collaborative creative effort.
But the cost of penetrating that world is very high...

> 
> Funny thing is one persons trivial administrative stuff is anothers living
> and passion.

My passion is building software, making music, and all things
transhuman. The administrative side of computers is definitely not a
passion, it's something I mostly loathe, and I continue to search for
ways to make it an unnecessary evil. Web apps (the new breed of really
excellent ones) seem to be a major part of the solution.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 06:41:18 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:11:18 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050824233710bccada@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
	<056b01c5a915$33425640$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<710b78fc050824233710bccada@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05082423414ae0a723@mail.gmail.com>

Double oops...

1 - I thought yours was a personal email to me and then sent it to the
list anyway by accident. Apologies all.
2 - I forgot the attachments. I'll send them on separately (I'm not
going to post screenshots to a public list, it seems like poor form),
if anyone else wants them just let me know privately.

Emlyn

On 25/08/05, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Brett, long time no email. How's the big wide world treating you?
> I've replied to your email inline below.
> 
> On 25/08/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Emlyn wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, I haven't been overly bugged by all this twentycen partisan
> > > political crapola, because I'm using gmail. It's inherently threaded,
> > > so the tech threads have a 2 or 3 next to them (number of posts) while
> > > the political ones have numbers that are 50+ sometimes, but the
> > > threading keeps it contained; I see them as equal weighted, rather
> > > than being swamped by the political stuff.
> >
> > When you say its "inherently threaded" I don't follow. How are
> > incoming posts from say the Exi-chat list "inherently threaded" so that
> > you can read just the tech stuff if you want and avoid the political
> > stuff if you don't?
> 
> I've attached three pictures of my gmail user interface. The first one
> is the main screen, the second one is where I've clicked on a thread
> and you can see the unread message at the end of the thread, the third
> is where I've clicked on the thread message list higher up and then
> selected an old post to view. Note in the first pictures that emails
> are grouped by subject, with a number of posts next to each one. It's
> really simple and surprisingly usable. Actually it's the best email
> interface I've ever used. It's not very customisable, but I haven't
> found that I've needed to customise it so far.
> 
> >
> > As you know Emlyn, I have an IT degree, but I *still* forget or don't
> > keep track of all the features of all the bits of software. Most of what
> > I hear I have to discount as salesy blah blah from people who haven't
> > got much of a clue themselves. At least until the time I get irked enough
> > by some limitation to formulate a plan to learn and listen to some of
> > them asking what I want to know, not what they want to tell me. There
> > isn't time to check everything. But if you, who likes this stuff are getting
> > value from it, its probably pretty damn good (at least for what your
> > doing with it ;-).
> 
> I hear you absolutely. I have enough technofetish to investigate new
> things, but I am very lazy too, and I am the world's worst
> administrator. Most techies I know wont use gmail because they run
> their own mail servers, etc etc etc. But although I know how to do all
> that stuff, I refuse to because I don't have a 24x7 server
> infrastructure at home, and have no hope in hell of achieving one.
> These days I even find Microsoft Word too annoying because I'm always
> using different machines with different installations of software,
> often not controlled by me.
> 
> So, I prefer web applications to desktop applications. They have a
> drawback that they absolutely require you to be online, but I've made
> it my business to satisfy that requirement. Their benefits are zero
> installation, being available everywhere, being run by people who are
> usually excellent administrators, and usually being free.
> 
> My favourite obviously is google, but my next favourite is gmail, best
> email system I've ever had, no hassles, almost non-existent learning
> curve, huge capacity.
> 
> And if this is ever relevant to you, my next favourite is the Yahoo
> calendar; it's a really excellent web based schedule, which you can
> keep private or share with people as you see fit. You can also combine
> in other people's schedules if you want to see them inline with yours,
> and you can set up email or sms alerts for important events in your
> schedule. And again, it's free.
> 
> >
> > > And I get practically no junk mail, and it's extremely reliable, and
> > > the ads are ignorable or actually relevant (the same as with a google
> > > search, small print on the right side of the screen), and the
> > > interface is excellent, and the capacity now grows continuously
> > > (pushing 2.5gb last time I looked), and it's free. If anyone wants an
> > > invite, just ask :-)
> >
> > Thats an invite to gmail, again, or an invite to something else? I took
> > your gmail invite and I think I lost my gmail account, or perhaps didn't,
> > because I wasn't ready, it wasn't important enough to me, to take the
> > time to make the change.
> >
> 
> I mean an invite to gmail. I'll send you another one; they are really
> easy to come by these days (for example, I have 50 at all times it now
> appears), and you can use it if you want to.
> 
> > I reckon a lot of Exi-chat posters are like me. Smart but lazy. Looking
> > for the easy way. Budgetting time, in a way, like most people budget
> > money, because time, is also precious, and the serious thinking we like
> > to do, but we don't like to waste it on trivial administrative stuff.
> 
> That laziness is extremely important; it's actually, as you've said, a
> response to a strong demands on one's time. All the applications I
> favour are on the quick & easy side of the fence, rather than super
> configurable but complex (which suck up all your time for dubious
> returns).
> 
> I've committed myself to learning more about the Linux and open source
> worlds recently, which can only really be done one way - by immersion.
> The most annoying thing about it is that the Linux world is all about
> complex & super configurable, which means huge learning curves &
> massive time investment. I'm trying to push through it because I think
> the Open Source / Free Software has discovered some really interesting
> and relatively new ways of organising collaborative creative effort.
> But the cost of penetrating that world is very high...
> 
> >
> > Funny thing is one persons trivial administrative stuff is anothers living
> > and passion.
> 
> My passion is building software, making music, and all things
> transhuman. The administrative side of computers is definitely not a
> passion, it's something I mostly loathe, and I continue to search for
> ways to make it an unnecessary evil. Web apps (the new breed of really
> excellent ones) seem to be a major part of the solution.
> 
> --
> Emlyn
> 
> http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
> 


-- 
Emlyn

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 25 06:45:49 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Transhumanist Social System
In-Reply-To: <380-220058324151550718@M2W126.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050825064549.16270.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com"
<nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> Maybe I am a mutant, but I simply do not sit with
> any one political view as
> entirely positive, workable, and fair-minded. 

Well, Natasha, there is a place in the world for us
mutants. :) I have typically voted democrat but only
because of small personal idiosyncracies that make
that party by an infinitesimal amount the lesser of
two evils and to be honest, I am sick of it. I hear
the complaints by my conservative friends against the
democrats and these complaints are legitimate. Sadly
however the complaints of my liberal friends against
the republicans are every bit as legitimate. So I am
stuck making horrible compromises that I am loathe to
do. 

> Well, yes.  And, again, my point is that I am MOST
> interested in the
> mechanism - the architecture - the means for solving
> the problem:  a
> multi-disciplinary, non-partisan writing team.   In
> other words, leave the
> political positioning badge outside the door and put
> on the intelligent
> thinking cap.

This is hard to do when even people trying to be
non-partisans get called on making subtle references
to party dogma. This however is the karma of a
dualistic two-party system. I think that an important
first step is realizing that a duopoly is every bit as
horrendous as a monopoly. You end up with only coke
and pepsi and they taste the same. So you end up
having to choose between them based on the most inane
of criteria after which you get essentially the same
thing. A bunch of fizzy, poppy, sugary, yet all so
empty calories.

But I agree with you on the importance of being able
to have a non-partisan forum on politics. I am not
sure how to go about it. Maybe we could agree to not
use proper nouns in our political discussions or any
noun with an -ism suffix. Quite frankly I am very
disillusioned with -isms. 

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 pharos at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 08:27:40 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:27:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: Web Ad filtering
Message-ID: <ee50357e05082501279e07713@mail.gmail.com>

First Dirk then Emlyn comment that the ads are not too intrusive.
Haven't you heard of ad-filtering software?

I never see any gmail ads and rarely see ads on any other site.
Admittedly I do have a bit of a 'thing' about avoiding ads that web
sites try to thrust into my face, but the basics are really easy.

Install Firefox. (Stops web sites pushing all the ActiveX crap at you).

Set the Popup Ads block option. (Stops popup ads).

Read through the Firefox extensions list that you can install.
The AdBlock extension will stop many ads, and you can find libraries
of filters to block more.

The Preferences Toolbar extension enables you to switch Flash and Java
on and off as required.

Try setting the option for 'Load images from originating site only'.
Most ads come from a separate ad server, so they will be blocked, but
this option will also spoil some sites.

That's the easy stuff.  A few minutes to install the above will really
clean up your web experience.


For those on a crusade against web ads (like me ;)  ), and prepared to
spend the time on learning about new software packages, try the more
complex stuff below.
The thing to remember is that ad-filtering can sometimes get false
positives and delete important parts of a web site that are not really
ads. It is an ongoing battle with the ad pushers. So if you try
experimenting with the clever stuff, expect funny things to happen,
especially while you're learning! But the packages below have forums
where you can get help and advice, so you won't be on your own.

Try the GreaseMonkey Firefox extension. This can redraw any website
the way you like it. Fans have provided many filters for various
sites.

Try the Proxomitron (Windows only). Again fans have libraries of
filters available.
<http://www.proxomitron.info/>

Try Privoxy (Linux and Windows)
<http://www.privoxy.org/>

There is more filtering available, and google will find it for you if
you get really enthusiastic

Have fun!    BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Aug 25 08:54:55 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:54:55 +0200
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:04:47AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Shunning was a very effective form of feedback in tribal villages
> as I understand. Violence and censorship wasn't necessary, the
> simple withdrawal of attention was enough. 

Shunning is an active process in meatspace: the target is immediately
notified, via nonverbal communication channels.

There's no way for you to sense in how many killfiles you're in. You
can still send, and see your messages broadcast through the list. 
Consider this a protocol deficit, but it's locked in now. Can't change it.

Crap is poisonous. It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. 
The best contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
for crap. The trolls take over. Eventually, not even idiots can
tolerate idiots, volume goes down, and the list dies. Consider this
a caricature of a common pattern, a pattern I've seen very often. 

This is why shunning doesn't work online. You need moderators,
temporarily or permanently removing your ability to post as soon
as you're over crap quota. This needs to happen in realtime (less than
a day), or the control loop is too loose.

This is different from meatspace, and this is what most list operators
don't understand.

Cryonet now apparently has a crude voting mechanism (gosh, in 2005, who'd thunk),
but it is only available in digest format, and the users are not using it
enough, apparently.

-- 
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/20050825/f7e56a10/attachment.bin>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Aug 25 10:02:23 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:02:23 +1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com><055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>

>On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:04:47AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> > Shunning was a very effective form of feedback in tribal villages
> > as I understand. Violence and censorship wasn't necessary, the
> > simple withdrawal of attention was enough.
>
> Shunning is an active process in meatspace: the target is immediately
> notified, via nonverbal communication channels.
>
> There's no way for you to sense in how many killfiles you're in.

If you mean me Brett Paatsch in the sense of the word you. I disagree.
Or perhaps rather I don't care that much, or think I could find out if
I wanted to.

If you mean you Eugen Leitl, well you *may* be right. I assure you that
you are not in mine. I don't use automated ones. If you want to know if
you are in my killfile all you'd have to do is send me a personal email
and you'd get a pretty good indication.  If I killfile anyone I will 
basically
tell them I'm done with them. I've only done it once and that was 
reluctantly
because the person was actively using me as an experiment in how much
rudeness they could get away with.

> > You can still send, and see your messages broadcast through the list.
> > Consider this a protocol deficit, but it's locked in now. Can't change
> > it.

I don't want to.

> > Crap is poisonous.

So don't do it on the list (which you and I agree on), but the second
point is when someone else does, don't eat it, don't praise it, don't
encourage it.

> > It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. The best
> > contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
> > for crap.

I don't know that that is true.

It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
the bed quality posters.

I think Hal said "bad posters drive away good".  But I'm not sure
that even Hal or Damien are always the best judges of what is and
isn't going anywhere. Nor would I be and I definately don't want
to be.

But if you consider what is implied when people say they want more
quality isn't it that they want other people to post more good quality
stuff? Or censorship?

Re the first, of course we'd all like to have more great stuff (as we
variously see it, to read, but that involves someone taking the time
to write it and they are not paid for doing so).

>  The trolls take over. Eventually, not even idiots can
>  tolerate idiots, volume goes down, and the list dies. Consider this
>  a caricature of a common pattern, a pattern I've seen very often.

I consider it a theory. Yours. I'm open to your evidence in its favour.

> This is why shunning doesn't work online.

If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
posts with good posts.

I personally feel I *owe* Hal Finney some good posts, though he
may not care less if he gets them !

I feel I *almost* owe you and Rafal a response to your posts on
cryonics but not quite ;-)

>                                                                  You need 
> moderators,
> temporarily or permanently removing your ability to post as soon
> as you're over crap quota. This needs to happen in realtime (less
> than a day), or the control loop is too loose.

I agree with the current moderator approach. 8 posts per day max.
A panel of moderators.  I wouldn't mind if the post limit was reduced
for everyone to 6 or 4. The good posters, as you probably consider
them, will simply talk to each other anyway they will just do it offlist
once the post limit kicks in.

> This is different from meatspace, and this is what most list
> operators don't understand.
>
> Cryonet now apparently has a crude voting mechanism (gosh, in
> 2005, who'd thunk), but it is only available in digest format, and
> the users are not using it enough, apparently.

I've seen it, I still get the digest.

Brett Paatsch 




From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 10:13:25 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:13:25 +0100
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050825031319b96e27@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/25/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
> the bed quality posters.
> 

'bed quality poster' ????!!!!   ^_^

Is this a compliment or an insult?

There are rumors about Damien, of course. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. ;)

Where's Spike, when you need a good joke?

BillK


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Aug 25 10:20:51 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:20:51 +1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat]
	afuturistprediction
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com><055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc><20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org><064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<ee50357e050825031319b96e27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <065701c5a95e$ab21dbb0$0d98e03c@homepc>

BillK wrote:

> On 8/25/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> 
>> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
>> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
>> the bed quality posters.
>> 
> 
> 'bed quality poster' ????!!!!   ^_^
> 
> Is this a compliment or an insult?

I'm sure I wrote best. These computers. Can't trust 'em.

[Ps. Sorry for the typo.] 
 
> There are rumors about Damien, of course. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. ;)
> 
> Where's Spike, when you need a good joke?

Or, a judicious moderator! Multi-talented is Spike.

Brett Paatsch



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 10:57:56 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:57:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <14A802CF-E94B-47B2-A3E4-F06CAAED4E7F@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
	<14A802CF-E94B-47B2-A3E4-F06CAAED4E7F@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0508250357264dbf8a@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/25/05, Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> 
> That's actually very helpful to know - I am using the MacOSX mail
> client, and although it does threading, the highlights bind to header
> data that is dependent on people paying attention to them. For
> instance, when starting a new thread it is easier to reply to
> someone's email from the list and then remove the subject and the
> content and put in my own subject - but this wreaks havoc on this
> threading mechanism.
> 

Google has just announced their new (pretty basic) IM system for
instant messaging and chat. Because you need a gmail account to use it
and they want to encourage new users, they are now issuing gmail
invites to pretty well anyone. I think they are still using the old
'recommend a friend' system, but every gmail user has 50 invites and
if you use them up they will be renewed the next day.

If you want to see what gmail looks like, go to:
<http://mail.google.com/mail/help/about.html>
and look at some of the screenshots.

BillK


From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 12:24:08 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:24:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genetically altered piglets will produce a protein
	helpful in fighting cancer
Message-ID: <470a3c5205082505244e14c879@mail.gmail.com>

Looks like another big step toward advanced biotech applications by South 
Korean scientists.
Forbes <http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/08/25/afx2191352.html>: A 
team of South Korean scientists said that they had succeeded in
cloning genetically
altered piglets that will produce a protein helpful in fighting cancer. 
Professor Park Chang-Sik at Chungnam National University said his team had 
created four female piglets that will produce milk containing GM-CSF, a kind 
of protein that stimulates production of white blood cells.
GM-CSF, or cytokine granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor, is 
prescribed for sufferers of leukemia and anemia or patients who have low 
white blood cell counts during cancer treatment.
But it is prohibitively expensive, fetching 600,000 usd per gram because 
production is limited. 'We have cloned piglets that will produce milk 
containing a high level of GM-CSF within a year,' Park told Agence 
France-Presse. To clone the piglets, the team said it used virtually the 
same method as the one that produced the world's first cloned animal, Dolly 
the Sheep. The piglets are capable of reproducing and their offspring will 
also carry GM-CSF in their bodies, Park said.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050825/5c6e8ccd/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 14:05:25 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:05:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Future Of Virtual Environments
Message-ID: <470a3c52050825070526547117@mail.gmail.com>

>From the Our Technological
Future<http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/08/future-of-virtual-environments.html>blog:
Marshall
Brain, founder of the very successful
www.howstuffworks.com<http://www.howstuffworks.com/>,
is writing a book entitled The Day You Discard Your
Body<http://marshallbrain.com/discard.htm>.
The book paints a picture of how humanity will, eventually, make the 
transition from our current, real life, meat-world into Virtual
Environments(VE). The way Marshall describes it in his book is, of
course, one of the
many possible ways this transition could be made. [See also] Singularity FAQ 
for Dummies<http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/07/singularity-faq-for-dummies.html>.
It explains exponential acceleration, and the implications of it. We won't 
have to wait for VE's to become audiovisually immersive for a long time. 
Those type of VE's will be here very shortly. Read The Future Of
Computers<http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/08/future-of-computers-2.html>for
details.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050825/fddd506a/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 25 14:58:07 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:  Supplements- pick your top 13
In-Reply-To: <430D203B.3090608@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050825145807.59249.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

This is a good list-- I especially like 2 & 4. 
Is it true DHA & DHO can strengthen the retinas?


 
----------------------------------------------------------------
1-Whole plant buffaloberry - leaf, bark and berry
carotenoids, flavonoids, tannins
2- Whole Hemp bud- omega 3s, flavonoids, terpenes and cannabinoids, 
arginine
3- Tobacco leaf extract - nicotine
4-Conjugated Linoleic acid-metabolic enhancer
5-Garlic-
6-Barberry root
7-Gotu Kola
8-Ginger root
9- Cyanocobalamin -B12
10-Ginseng root
11-Cocao
12-Guarana
13-Folic acid





_______________________________________________
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/20050825/32149d34/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Aug 25 14:25:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:25:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Supplements- pick your top 13
In-Reply-To: <20050825145807.59249.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050825145807.59249.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <430DD4D8.8090208@sasktel.net>

We pride ouselves in dealing with complexity rather than dumbing things 
down to One Thing and One liner solutions.
To this end I will post in several  pieces,  tonight a piece from August 
15, 2005  "Natural Health Products Insider", an industry trade publication.

As extropians, futurists or practitioners of complexity sciences,  I see 
an opportunity that might extend right from the farm door
, through the consultancy level to the consumer level to implement 
cutting edge health science on an ongoing  basis
to assist the "Kurzweil Commandment:"   "- Live long enough to live 
forever".

The futuretagltd group, if monitoring (pgptag at gmail.com) this might take 
note of this as well when looking at commercializable consultations.

The piece is entitled "The Age of the Wildfire... Inflammation and its 
effect on aging and degenerative disease"

Al Brooks wrote:

> This is a good list-- I especially like 2 & 4.
> Is it true DHA & DHO can strengthen the retinas?
>
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 1-Whole plant buffaloberry - leaf, bark and berry
> carotenoids, flavonoids, tannins
> 2- Whole Hemp bud- omega 3s, flavonoids, terpenes and cannabinoids,
> arginine
> 3- Tobacco leaf extract - nicotine
> 4-Conjugated Linoleic acid-metabolic enhancer
> 5-Garlic-
> 6-Barberry root
> 7-Gotu Kola
> 8-Ginger root
> 9- Cyanocobalamin -B12
> 10-Ginseng root
> 11-Cocao
> 12-Concord grape juice
> 13-Folic acid
>



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 25 15:41:00 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Supplements- pick your top 13
In-Reply-To: <430DD4D8.8090208@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050825154100.22673.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

'solutions'? Who wrote anything about solutions? There are only treatments, not solutions.

"Lifespan Pharma Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:We pride ouselves in dealing with complexity rather than dumbing things 
down to One Thing and One liner solutions.

__________________________________________________
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/20050825/2305d170/attachment.html>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Aug 25 19:03:52 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:03:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Aliens at the Science Museum
Message-ID: <430E1618.1060207@mindspring.com>

Tim Chapman wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1555324,00.html
> But, as the physicist Enrico Fermi once asked, in a question now known
> as Fermi's paradox: "Where is everybody?"

Hi TIm,
a bit like Olber's, Fermi's "paradox" is no such thing, merely a
product of our - hopefully temporary - ignorance.

In simple terms Fermi's complaint is like a rugrat moaning "why
don't those tall people talk to _us_?" or, more closely, like an
octopus saying "theoretically it's possible for beings to live on
dry land but we see no evidence for it!"

Ie - the `paradox' is meaningless because we're not yet equipped
to "see" or "hear" communications among advanced civilizations -
as Carl Sagan said ""A civilization very much more advanced than
we will be engaged in a busy communications traffic with its
peers; but not with us, and not via technologies accessible to
us."
("Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence" - 1973 p.
366)

cheers
Ray D



-- 
"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 megao at sasktel.net  Thu Aug 25 18:14:06 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:14:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inflammation and degenerative disease- Morris
	Johnson/Lifespan Pharma
Message-ID: <430E0A6E.3040805@sasktel.net>

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/581inflammation.html

This covers a lot of territory much like the May nutraceuticalsworld 
feature.

What it does show is the general industry consensus for leading edge 
ongoing  commercialization of a  science-based logic track.

Some of this is soooo simple in hindsight some people 5  years from now will
ask why it was overlooked so long.

Because it mentions specific interventions the media are wary to 
recommend it for fear of future liability...

The stock answer is that Canadian Medicare, HMO's and Medicaid ,   ETC 
simply
do not fund preventative medicine for those who are currently "healthy".

They fund end of life heroic last ditch efforts to extend fragile lives 
days to years
in ways have good public relations optics and low liability aspects.

User driven HACCP for Humans and GMP for Daily Human Activity simply 
does not
fit the public mandate.

Maybe its time to implement "HACCP for Humans"?

Hyperbaric Hydrogen for Cancer was dropped by Texas A&M in 1976 for 
simple public liability reasons
Cryo-treatment of tumors as done in China has no Intellectual Property 
rights worth developing  outside China.
Adenovirus grown on stem cell gene transfer (Gendicine) for cancer  is 
socially unacceptable ouside the far east.

Now add:
Preventative medicine is viewed as an economic threat to Social Security 
and the general insurance industry.

"Pharmer Mo from LA North, Eh"






From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 25 22:32:42 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:32:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <57288408-C902-4003-AC97-44F99960289F@mac.com>

I have given up on talking politics in this venue for the most part.   
But it scares and saddens me to see this country apparently marching  
to its demise and to see many here forgiving and sanctioning too much  
that is now being done by this wonderfully conceived nation.  I am  
afraid because there are a lot of energies afoot that could derail  
all those wonderful possibilities and aspirations for generations.    
And many of those negative things are done by we (Americans)  
ourselves.   To not face that is to possibly be blind-sided and  
destroyed.    Facing it does not mean being anti-American.   On the  
flip side being extropian does not require a default political  
position of always seeing America as good or excusing too much simply  
because it is America.    Yes the founding was based on the  
absolutely crucial Enlightenment positions and understandings.  Yes  
the pro-individual focus was and is a fabulously right and needed.   
But we should not lose the ability for self-examination just on the  
basis of what the best of our roots were.  Nor should we assume that  
critics of various aspects of what America is and does today are  
against or attacking these roots or semehow automatically the kin of  
luddites and freedom haters.

- samantha


On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
>
>
> The-lets-beat-up-the-President-and-invalidate-each-other's- 
> political-standing topic that has increased the signal-to-noise on  
> this list by some sort of geometric amount of dB over the past  
> several months.
>
> Here's a 'prediction': One of us replies, others of us contradict,  
> Iraq, idiot, killfile; lather, rinse, repeat. It's threadjacking  
> run amok.
>
> There are wonderful things going on out there, and things that are  
> going to move us forward. While all the energy goes in, the thread  
> bleeds into neighboring discussions, and good news is deadended.  
> It's like yelling down a hole sometime.
>
>
> I mean hey, ignore my post. The Flying Spaghetti Monster heard my  
> plea no doubt =)
>
>
> ]3
>
>
> For more on Pastafarianism, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>
>> You know its interesting Bret, but I wasn't really all that  
>> interested
>> in this thread headed "a futurist prediction".
>> Yet somehow I doubt that is what you are referring too ;-)
>>
>> Can you say oh person whose DNA is 99.9% identical to most
>> others of your species what it is EXACTLY, "this thread", that
>> you so much wish not to have again that you pray to the Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster to deliver you from?
>>
>> I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just another Brett, yet
>> even I am almost certainly going to be able to oblige you.
>> - Brett
>> (who misses not the irony of nearly always, nearly talking to
>> someone that is nearly himself)
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Kulakovich"  
>> <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
>> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh, My, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Can we P-l-e-a-s-e Not Have  
>>> This  Thread A-g-a-i-n ? !
>>> -or- at Least change the list name to Entropy-Chat ? !
>>> /begs
>>> /pleads
>>> ]3
>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think he really *wants* to do some good on his
>>>>> watch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's fascinating.  Why do you think that?  I assume you mean   
>>>> "real-good" not just "cover-your-ass" good.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Thu Aug 25 22:39:48 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:39:48 -0700
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <430B371D-3703-40FE-971F-D96AAF363593@mac.com>


On Aug 24, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Your post provides an opportunity to comment on a means for  
> improving list quality without censorship. If someone is  
> excessively and
> constistently rude or boring just ignore them. Warn them if you  
> like and
> if they don't heed you, just stop talking to them.

Sounds good.  In practice the rude loud voices seem to drown the  
perhaps more soft-spoken and perhaps more thoughtful ones.   I think  
the best list upkeep requires more active gardening and occasional  
pruning of a more aggressive kind than seen here.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050825/8ddb0eea/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 25 23:06:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:06:15 -0700
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>


On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote in response to Eugen:

>
>
>> > Crap is poisonous.
>>
>
> So don't do it on the list (which you and I agree on), but the second
> point is when someone else does, don't eat it, don't praise it, don't
> encourage it.
>

It is good to actively prohibit others from shitting in the communal  
waterway.  It is insufficient and unhealthy to simply ignore the  
turds floating by.

>
>> > It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. The best
>> > contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
>> > for crap.
>>
>
> I don't know that that is true.

I do.  I argued over it at first too but I am convinced by the  
evidence inside myself and watching the process in various lists more  
closely.

>
> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
> the bed quality posters.

That isn't a good way to validate such a hypothesis.

>
> I think Hal said "bad posters drive away good".  But I'm not sure
> that even Hal or Damien are always the best judges of what is and
> isn't going anywhere. Nor would I be and I definately don't want
> to be.
>

Not sure I see what you meant to say.

> But if you consider what is implied when people say they want more
> quality isn't it that they want other people to post more good quality
> stuff? Or censorship?
>

They want less crap to wade through to maybe get to something good.

> Re the first, of course we'd all like to have more great stuff (as we
> variously see it, to read, but that involves someone taking the time
> to write it and they are not paid for doing so).
>

People aren't paid for writing crap either.  But it is easier to  
write and will thus likely predominate if not suppressed.

>
>>  The trolls take over. Eventually, not even idiots can
>>  tolerate idiots, volume goes down, and the list dies. Consider this
>>  a caricature of a common pattern, a pattern I've seen very often.
>>
>
> I consider it a theory. Yours. I'm open to your evidence in its  
> favour.
>

Well of course it is a theory.  The evidence is in front of and all  
around you.

>
>> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
>>
>
> If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
> isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
> talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
> off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
> attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
> a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
> track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
> posts with good posts.
>

So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?  The  
feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate  
ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive  
feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.
>
>

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Aug 25 23:11:05 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:11:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Genetically altered piglets will produce a protein
	helpful in fighting cancer
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205082505244e14c879@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c5205082505244e14c879@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D11E94E-F038-4641-A516-EAD26B8071BE@mac.com>

Hmm.  If it is inheritable then a question arises as to what effect  
this protein has on the baby pigs that may ingest it and whether any  
of those effects may be passed on to other parts of the food chain  
like humans.

- s

On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Looks like another big step toward advanced biotech applications by  
> South Korean scientists.
> Forbes: A team of South Korean scientists said that they had  
> succeeded in cloning genetically altered piglets that will produce  
> a protein helpful in fighting cancer . Professor Park Chang-Sik at  
> Chungnam National University said his team had created four female  
> piglets that will produce milk containing GM-CSF, a kind of protein  
> that stimulates production of white blood cells.
> GM-CSF, or cytokine granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating  
> factor, is prescribed for sufferers of leukemia and anemia or  
> patients who have low white blood cell counts during cancer treatment.
> But it is prohibitively expensive, fetching 600,000 usd per gram  
> because production is limited. 'We have cloned piglets that will  
> produce milk containing a high level of GM-CSF within a year,' Park  
> told Agence France-Presse. To clone the piglets, the team said it  
> used virtually the same method as the one that produced the world's  
> first cloned animal, Dolly the Sheep. The piglets are capable of  
> reproducing and their offspring will also carry GM-CSF in their  
> bodies, Park said.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050825/4215735f/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Aug 25 23:14:15 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:14:15 -1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>	<20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>	<064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <430E50C7.1090006@aol.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>>
>>> > Crap is poisonous.
>>>
>>
>> So don't do it on the list (which you and I agree on), but the second
>> point is when someone else does, don't eat it, don't praise it, don't
>> encourage it.
>>
>
> It is good to actively prohibit others from shitting in the communal  
> waterway.  It is insufficient and unhealthy to simply ignore the  
> turds floating by.


Isn't it time to self-evaluate here?  I mean, this thread has been going 
on useless for days at this point.

Robbie



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Aug 25 23:49:03 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:49:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
In-Reply-To: <20050824200037.GA19997@or.pair.com>
References: <20050824184604.80251.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050824200037.GA19997@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <430E58EF.4040708@cox.net>

Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>Where do you get the idea that the chipmakers are responding to
>high oil prices?  Performance per watt has been the buzz for a few
>years at least due to cooling and battery life problems.  Intel
>just got around to a complete product line revamp around this now.
>If they had been responding to recently higher oil prices I expect
>it would've taken them longer, as they would've started later.
>Besides, oil accounts for only 3% of US electricity generation:
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes2.html
>
>  
>
Yes. The industry has been trying to optimize efficiency since long 
before the current "oil crisis." The drivers are mobility aapplications 
on the one hand, and massive server farms on the other. From my 
perspective the server issue has been the major driver.

The fundamental problem for a massive server farm is density. Density is 
measure in square feet of floor space. This includes floor space for the 
server racks, for the cooling system, and for the backup power system.

As the power per rack goes up, the complexity of delivering power and 
(especially) cooling to that rack go up non-linearly. There is a point 
(about 10KW/rack) at which things get crazy. From a practical 
perspective, you begin to lose computing density when you cross that 
threshold. Therefore, you increase your true density (cycles per square 
foot) by using servers that need less power.

The threshold varies depending on the rental cost per square foot, but 
this cost is remarkably constant for server farms that need high-speed 
connectivity to the Internet,


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 00:48:09 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:18:09 +0930
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050825174822bd0a8a@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/08/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote in response to Eugen:

> >
> >> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
> >>
> >
> > If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
> > isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
> > talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
> > off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
> > attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
> > a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
> > track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
> > posts with good posts.
> >
> 
> So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?  The
> feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate
> ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive
> feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.
> >
> >
> 
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

Maybe we could do with some kind of tool to help with this? If you
were going to design an automated tool to help track/identify who
responds to or ignores whom, and maybe other related metrics, how
would it work and what kind of features would you include?

That reminds me, some years ago Anders set up an online graph showing
the interelation between posts/postors, for fun I think, but it did
give clues as to quality, and highlighted who talked with who. Any
idea if that still exists?

-- 
Emlyn

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 26 00:50:24 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:04:47AM +1000, Brett
> Paatsch wrote:
> There's no way for you to sense in how many
> killfiles you're in. You
> can still send, and see your messages broadcast
> through the list. 
> Consider this a protocol deficit, but it's locked in
> now. Can't change it.

There is no way for the writer to sense how many
killfiles he is in, but can the listserver do it? Does
the computer that filters out an email give any kind
of feedback that it is doing so? If so the listserver
itself could "moderate" threads by responding to the
democratic behavior of list members. Thus if the
server realizes that less than an arbitrary quorum of
listmembers want to read a person's post, it can just
stop posting that persons's crap.

> Cryonet now apparently has a crude voting mechanism
> (gosh, in 2005, who'd thunk),
> but it is only available in digest format, and the
> users are not using it
> enough, apparently.

My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
offender rather than having some sort of organized
balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
this be done?


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!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 01:16:59 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:46:59 +0930
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
> offender rather than having some sort of organized
> balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
> this be done?

IANAE, but here are my two cents...

Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to detect their use.

What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
permanent mark of disdain!

I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
excellent posts and favoured postors to.

With something like that in place and publicised, you've got a voting
mechanism accomplished entirely by email (useful, because I think it
has become clear over time that most members use email exclusively,
not the web forum that I assume still exists).

If you were feeling particularly motivated, you could calculate
aggregate "quality" scores for postors, and put that score in each
subject line or email body sent by the person (that is, it would be
added by the server).

With some carefully formatted subject line tags, clever email users
might find that they can actually filter on the quality score in the
future.

The possibilities of such a mechanism are quite large, I think.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 26 01:53:01 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050826015301.27436.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

You know, even I'm tired of politics-- and that is like a hophead being tired of cannabis or a film addict being tired of films. What would be fun to discuss is: 
what would you do if you had $5 million?; 
which country would you dream of moving to?; 
if you had unlimited funds to take care of your health where would you start in preventive maintenance?; 
if someone gave you a $50 gift certificate only good for supplements at a shop in the next few minutes which supplements would you grab?. 




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please send your unmarked cash donations in plain brown envelopes to--
ACME Fly-By-Night Futurist Corporation
PO Box 41
Kampala, Uganda
0846-29








		
---------------------------------
 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/20050825/634a7a16/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Aug 26 02:26:39 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:26:39 -0700
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat]
	a	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <254B8282-8381-4DA8-88C1-A15AB1606B17@mac.com>


On Aug 25, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
>> offender rather than having some sort of organized
>> balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
>> this be done?
>>
>
> IANAE, but here are my two cents...
>
> Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to detect  
> their use.
>
> What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
> extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
> disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
> someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
> permanent mark of disdain!
>


An extropy crap list has a certain (perhaps dark) appeal.  No  
really.   This is a workable way to get feedback.  It is far less  
crude than a blanket decision to just auto-delete everything from a  
person.     I like this idea.

> I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
> excellent posts and favoured postors to.

Instead we could keep one mailing address that readers could forward  
a post to along with a q (utter crap) to 10 (excellent) score or  
whatever scoring scheme we could agree upon.   Mail to this address  
could be filtered to a program that maintained the database.


>
> With something like that in place and publicised, you've got a voting
> mechanism accomplished entirely by email (useful, because I think it
> has become clear over time that most members use email exclusively,
> not the web forum that I assume still exists).
>
> If you were feeling particularly motivated, you could calculate
> aggregate "quality" scores for postors, and put that score in each
> subject line or email body sent by the person (that is, it would be
> added by the server).
>
> With some carefully formatted subject line tags, clever email users
> might find that they can actually filter on the quality score in the
> future.
>
> The possibilities of such a mechanism are quite large, I think.

Yep.  The trick, as with most good ideas, will be settling on a  
useful subset that can be relatively quickly implemented and is  
widely used with minimum hassle.

- samantha


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050825/8bb27935/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Fri Aug 26 02:26:27 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:26:27 -0400
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a	futurist
	prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>

Emlyn wrote:

>On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
>>offender rather than having some sort of organized
>>balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
>>this be done?
>>    
>>
>
>IANAE, but here are my two cents...
>
>Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to detect their use.
>
>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>permanent mark of disdain!
>
>  
>
IAASA. (I Am a Systems Architect)

Emylin, If we choose to implement anything at the list level, we should 
implement
a way to allow each list member to push the member's killfile rules back 
to the list mailer.
This has two effects.

First, the mailer can apply the rules on behalf of each member thus
reducing the mailing of posts that would otherwise be killed by the 
recipient. 
As a general rule it is far cheaper (in CPU cycles and bandwidth) to 
kill a post than
it is to send it, This is true for the mailer machine. It is 
overwhelmingly true for the
Internet as a whole.

Second, this gives the list mailer the information it needs to feed the 
kill ratio back
to each poster. Thus, if Eugene posts a message, the list system will 
respond with a
message that says: "This message was sent to 100% of the list, and 75% 
say  'thank you'
automatically." If an unknown author sends a message that includes the 
term "viagra" then
the system will respond with a message that says: " this message was 
sent to 0% of the list.
 0% say 'thank you' automatically. Based on these percentages, you may 
not post another
message for 24 hours."

At a meta level, a list member could decide to depend on the consensus 
of other members to
kill messages. In addition to personal killfile rules, a recipient could 
ask the list to establish
a rule such as "kill any post that is killed by >50% of the personal 
killfile rules" or "kill any
post that is killed by Natasha's killfile rules."

NOTE: I do not personally use an automated kill system. I when the inbox 
is too full, I manually
kill messages based on the subject line: this takes about 2 seconds per 
message. If I knew that my
kill rules were to be implemented at the list level and that they could 
be used by others, I would
create such rules in a heartbeat.



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 03:27:56 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:27:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] a futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0508250357264dbf8a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050822233559.18104.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<021f01c5a785$7d931f90$0d98e03c@homepc> <430A912B.2050304@aol.com>
	<D3ED5357-5C3F-4AD2-90B5-31AD46284CAF@bonfireproductions.com>
	<051e01c5a905$ac85fd00$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com>
	<710b78fc05082418145bae108d@mail.gmail.com>
	<14A802CF-E94B-47B2-A3E4-F06CAAED4E7F@bonfireproductions.com>
	<ee50357e0508250357264dbf8a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05082520273bbb9365@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/25/05, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they are still using the old
> 'recommend a friend' system, but every gmail user has 50 invites and
> if you use them up they will be renewed the next day.

Actually, Google just announced that invites aren't necessary anymore:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/sign-up-for-gmail.html

If I understand correctly they can now send a code directly to a U.S.
mobile phone (for verification purposes). If someone wants an invite
and doesn't want to go through that, I've still got plenty of invites
available.

I also agree with Emlyn -- I've barely been noticing the various
political threads in gmail.

-- Neil


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 04:31:24 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:01:24 +0930
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com> <430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050825213171bd11a0@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/08/05, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> 
> >On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
> >>offender rather than having some sort of organized
> >>balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
> >>this be done?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >IANAE, but here are my two cents...
> >
> >Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to detect their use.
> >
> >What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
> >extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
> >disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
> >someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
> >permanent mark of disdain!
> >
> >
> >
> IAASA. (I Am a Systems Architect)
> 
> Emylin, If we choose to implement anything at the list level, we should
> implement
> a way to allow each list member to push the member's killfile rules back
> to the list mailer.

Clearly this is a good place from a system design point of view. I've
suggested the mechanism above though, mostly because I think we are an
email based group, most of whose members are fairly tied to and happy
with their email clients.

If experience says anything about the extropy list, it is that you
must either implement it as an entirely email-based system, or no one
will use it.

> 
> First, the mailer can apply the rules on behalf of each member thus
> reducing the mailing of posts that would otherwise be killed by the
> recipient.
> As a general rule it is far cheaper (in CPU cycles and bandwidth) to
> kill a post than
> it is to send it, This is true for the mailer machine. It is
> overwhelmingly true for the
> Internet as a whole.

The traffic is so minimal as to make this pretty irrelevant. We
struggle by now pretty easily (with the extropy list I mean, not
commenting on the entire email world).

> 
> Second, this gives the list mailer the information it needs to feed the
> kill ratio back
> to each poster. Thus, if Eugene posts a message, the list system will
> respond with a
> message that says: "This message was sent to 100% of the list, and 75%
> say  'thank you'
> automatically." If an unknown author sends a message that includes the
> term "viagra" then
> the system will respond with a message that says: " this message was
> sent to 0% of the list.
>  0% say 'thank you' automatically. Based on these percentages, you may
> not post another
> message for 24 hours."
> 
> At a meta level, a list member could decide to depend on the consensus
> of other members to
> kill messages. In addition to personal killfile rules, a recipient could
> ask the list to establish
> a rule such as "kill any post that is killed by >50% of the personal
> killfile rules" or "kill any
> post that is killed by Natasha's killfile rules."
> 

We also need a system of punishing or rewarding posts I think.
Killfiles come about because people become exasperated by crappy
posts. A method of providing feedback earlier might actually minimise
the use of automated rules.

> NOTE: I do not personally use an automated kill system. I when the inbox
> is too full, I manually
> kill messages based on the subject line: this takes about 2 seconds per
> message. If I knew that my
> kill rules were to be implemented at the list level and that they could
> be used by others, I would
> create such rules in a heartbeat.
> 

There is already a karma system on the BBS, maybe that is a start?

http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php?board=71

Apparently I have zero karma, which is just as it should be; the
universe is complex enough without a whole spiritual economy to cope
with...

-- 
Emlyn

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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 26 05:28:04 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's
In-Reply-To: <a5258c00409050006b227da6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050826052804.51962.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

I've never waivered in my belief that the tech
revolution is the real deal, driven by the
ever-accelerating pace of tech
research-slash-discovery-slash-application.  

While I agree with Harvey that the expanse of new
possible knowledge--the previously unknown now partly
seen out of the mists of Maya--is vast, yet it is a
challenge not so much from accessibility as from the
hugeness of the task... of exploration.  It is a vast
"orchard" to be sure, but an orchard of "low hanging
fruit".  A vast job of easy pickins for a world soon
to be 'enhanced' by an equally vast emerging multitude
of Chinese and Indian techies.

Yeah, baby!  Bring it on.

Nanocrystals Spark Efficient LEDs

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/09/rnb_090204.asp?trk=nl

...The light-emitting diodes can be as small as a few
nanometers in diameter...

...The nanoscale lights use very little power and can
be made in different colors ***simply***[my emphasis]
by varying the sizes of the nanocrystals. ...

...Nanocrystals are easy to manufacture, durable, and
are very efficient light emitters. ... 

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles







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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 26 05:30:54 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoops! was Nanoscale LED's
In-Reply-To: <a5258c00409050006b227da6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050826053055.37116.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

Uh, sorry about that.  Was going through some old
posts and hit "send" when I meant to hit the "back"
button.

Nevermind.

Jeff D


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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 26 06:07:21 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> What you could possibly do is set up an email
> address - say
> extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward
> email they
> disliked to that address, as a vote against it.
> Instead of killfiling
> someone, you could forward their entire output to
> that address, as a
> permanent mark of disdain!
> 
> I guess you'd also want an
> extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
> excellent posts and favoured postors to.

I like this idea. It's like a hall of shame or a
blooper reel. You idea has both the positive and
negative reinforcement that is the best basis of
heuristic learning. I think this would be appropriate.
 

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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Aug 26 06:13:32 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:13:32 +1000
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat]
	afuturistprediction
References: <8CEDAFC2-BE7E-4D9A-B05B-5E7E45ED942A@bonfireproductions.com><055101c5a910$fce64f10$0d98e03c@homepc><20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org><064201c5a95c$16a366e0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<543EAC01-729C-400D-8513-A1610F7AA8D8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <078001c5aa05$48fd37c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

[Eugen]
>>> > It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. The best
>>> > contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
>>> > for crap.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know that that is true.
>
> I do.  I argued over it at first too but I am convinced by the  evidence
> inside myself and watching the process in various lists more  closely.
>
>>
>> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
>> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
>> the bed quality posters.
>
> That isn't a good way to validate such a hypothesis.

Not saying it is. Just saying that I'd personally weight their input
seriously
in revisiting my own views including my current ones on this, because I
value their contributions to the list seriously. No slight on anyone is
implied.

>> I think Hal said "bad posters drive away good".  But I'm not sure
>> that even Hal or Damien are always the best judges of what is and
>> isn't going anywhere. Nor would I be and I definately don't want
>> to be.
>>
>
> Not sure I see what you meant to say.

Okay, well:

1) Just that on one occassion that seems to come to mind Hal posted
what I took to be an observation about mailing lists. That "bad
posters drive away good" was a me paraphrasing if not quoting
what he said.

2) That no-one is infallible in their judgements about what are good
posts and bad in every individual case. Not me. Not Damien. Not
Hal. And not any one of the individual moderators. Again I'm not
criticising just saying its hard to be right all the time for anyone.

3)  That I don't want to be a moderator (again). Its a tough job!

>>> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
>>>
>>
>> If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
>> isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
>> talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
>> off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
>> attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
>> a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
>> track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
>> posts with good posts.
>>
>
> So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?

Again, as was the case when Eugen said you, I didn't know whether
he was meaning "one's stuff" or "your" Brett's stuff. Both are fair
questions but I'd personally answer those different questions differently.

> The  feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate
> ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive
> feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.

Ah you do mean me. Fair enough. No I'm receptive to all sorts of
feedback.

For instance I'm listening to you in your capacity first as Samantha
Atkins, a person I know and like, second, in your capacity as a list
poster a frequent one whose name I recognize.

Because you haven't put your moderator hat on that I can see for this
post I'm not considering that aspect.  That would be a third available
to you if you chose to invoke it.  But I hope that you can see that as
just as yourself, you could give me feedback which I'd attend to
because I acknowledge you have multiple bases for legitimately
giving it.

You could mail me on or offlist and expect at very least my effort
to give you a hearing (I might not agree) and I'd have to be here
to see it not away somewhere, and I might be busy, but I'd try.

Ultimately, if I was being scoundrelly or behaving badly anyone
could try to take me to task onlist of off with no more authority
that that they were a list poster whose name I recognize. But
the moderators I'd give extra weight to. And ultimately, if it
came right down to it I suppose in the final analysis the Exi
Directors would have moral weigh in the event of a difference
of opinion between moderators.  And legal weight beyond the
moral I'd imagine.

Hope this clarifies at least how I see feedback to me.

I'm certainly not closed down to negative feedback. I am
political though. I don't always conceed the ground when I
think I am right just because someone else doesn't agree
with me.

Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Aug 26 08:14:51 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:14:51 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads 
References: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What you could possibly do is set up an email
>> address - say extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org.
>> People could forward email they disliked to that
>> address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>> someone, you could forward their entire output to
>> that address, as a permanent mark of disdain!

I just want to point out this is not what I meant by
shunning. This sort of technological community thing
is still feedback.

Human nature is such that some will actively go out
of their way to give others a bad reputation if some
system is set up to encourage that they do. 

I'm doing *personally* formally now what I think
most intelligent people mindful of avoiding wasting
their time do informally (or they may also do it
formally). I'm keeping a *personal* database of 
contacts. Its for my use only. I put the categories
in and I only update it when I want to. I put down
my opinion of the IQ and and EQ for posters, as well
as skills etc and I can add whatever other stuff I want
to their variable length record. 

I would continue to do it or not irrespective of 
whether there was a system set up because I can
and have build the personalised system I want for
myself. Its just me using a memory extension. And
its something that I'm treating as a evolving prototype. 

Why am I even bringing this up why not just do it
and keep quiet about it? I could have. 

But I thought others might find the idea interesting.
Its not entirely original. Someone else I though it
was Hal or Harvey years ago posted that they
were keeping stats and folders of individuals posters
valuable posts and that someone or other had earned a 
haircut. And that Gina's Nanogirl posts were automatically
routed into that database for further credit to Gina. 

I can't remember who it was that was doing it, but it
struck me as a good idea, so I'm doing something like
it but with slight modifications. I don't plan to 
record bad stuff because I am not going to try
to dwell on bad stuff I am going to try to focus
my efforts on good stuff because its in my interests
too. I've only so much time in a day. Also the
exceptionally good stuff and posters are a far
smaller amount of data to keep track off and I
don't like data entry.  
 
>> I guess you'd also want an
>> extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>> excellent posts and favoured postors to.
> 
> I like this idea. It's like a hall of shame or a
> blooper reel. You idea has both the positive and
> negative reinforcement that is the best basis of
> heuristic learning. I think this would be appropriate.

Any system that is automated will still require someone
to maintain. Its another beast that someone will have
to tend.  

I've gotten off track though. The point about oxygenating
the flame in threads is that people respond to any feedback
even negative feedback. No feedback can often be
worse. 

If Jack writes crap and Jill says its crap rather than just
ignoring it then Jacks thread which may have only been 
flamebait aimed at drawing out Jill anyway, gets oxygenated
when it otherwise might have burned out quickly. 

If Jack and Jill dislike each other, and there is an automated
system they will be running up each others bad rap with the
some gusto as before. An automated public communal system
isn't the answer in my view. 

Personal database keeping IS the answer in my view. 

- Brett Paatsch

Sorry the above is so verbose. 




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Aug 26 08:55:48 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:55:48 +0200
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050826085548.GY2259@leitl.org>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:46:59AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
> On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
> > offender rather than having some sort of organized
> > balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
> > this be done?
> 
> IANAE, but here are my two cents...
> 
> Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to detect their use.

I am not a computer guy, but there are simple means, they've been
discussed many years ago, on this list.

A way would be to patch Mailman to attach voting URLs at the bottom of
each message with 
unique tracking ID for each user and message, and a table
to keep scores user vs. user, and a settable score threshold 
(zero=no filtering) a poster needs to be over in the table
for messages to come through.

This is something Cryonet is doing, but it's broken (only digest, need
to jump through hoops to obtain authentication code, global scoring function
instead of personal one for each user).

You can add clustering algorithms later on.

I'm soon away for the weekend, so responses will be slow.

-- 
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/20050826/2f2436c0/attachment.bin>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Aug 26 10:47:12 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:47:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
	<07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <05275D93-672C-4F1D-8E59-BB20BAC534FD@mac.com>


On Aug 26, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>
>> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What you could possibly do is set up an email
>>> address - say extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org.
>>> People could forward email they disliked to that
>>> address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>>> someone, you could forward their entire output to
>>> that address, as a permanent mark of disdain!
>>>
>
> I just want to point out this is not what I meant by
> shunning. This sort of technological community thing
> is still feedback.
>
> Human nature is such that some will actively go out
> of their way to give others a bad reputation if some
> system is set up to encourage that they do.

Huh?  What for?  If it is simply feedback positive and negative then  
many will go out of their way to be as fair and even handed or even  
quite kind as they would like to be treated similarly.  Also in a  
mailing list you don't see all the people who are quite pleased or  
even delighted with something you wrote.  It is not only negative  
feedback that doesn't flow so well.

> I'm doing *personally* formally now what I think
> most intelligent people mindful of avoiding wasting
> their time do informally (or they may also do it
> formally). I'm keeping a *personal* database of contacts. Its for  
> my use only. I put the categories
> in and I only update it when I want to. I put down
> my opinion of the IQ and and EQ for posters, as well
> as skills etc and I can add whatever other stuff I want
> to their variable length record.
> I would continue to do it or not irrespective of whether there was  
> a system set up because I can
> and have build the personalised system I want for
> myself. Its just me using a memory extension. And
> its something that I'm treating as a evolving prototype.
> Why am I even bringing this up why not just do it
> and keep quiet about it? I could have.
> But I thought others might find the idea interesting.
> Its not entirely original. Someone else I though it
> was Hal or Harvey years ago posted that they
> were keeping stats and folders of individuals posters
> valuable posts and that someone or other had earned a haircut. And  
> that Gina's Nanogirl posts were automatically
> routed into that database for further credit to Gina.
> I can't remember who it was that was doing it, but it
> struck me as a good idea, so I'm doing something like
> it but with slight modifications. I don't plan to record bad stuff  
> because I am not going to try
> to dwell on bad stuff I am going to try to focus
> my efforts on good stuff because its in my interests
> too. I've only so much time in a day. Also the
> exceptionally good stuff and posters are a far
> smaller amount of data to keep track off and I
> don't like data entry.
>
>>> I guess you'd also want an
>>> extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>>> excellent posts and favoured postors to.
>>>
>> I like this idea. It's like a hall of shame or a
>> blooper reel. You idea has both the positive and
>> negative reinforcement that is the best basis of
>> heuristic learning. I think this would be appropriate.
>>
>
> Any system that is automated will still require someone
> to maintain. Its another beast that someone will have
> to tend.

Doesn't that contradict "automated"?   I think this can be made very  
low maintenance and if the data is well designed various types of  
information could be extracted that would be useful.
>

>
> I've gotten off track though. The point about oxygenating
> the flame in threads is that people respond to any feedback
> even negative feedback. No feedback can often be
> worse.
> If Jack writes crap and Jill says its crap rather than just
> ignoring it then Jacks thread which may have only been flamebait  
> aimed at drawing out Jill anyway, gets oxygenated
> when it otherwise might have burned out quickly.
> If Jack and Jill dislike each other, and there is an automated
> system they will be running up each others bad rap with the
> some gusto as before. An automated public communal system
> isn't the answer in my view.

Why use it that way?  I have never encountered anyone here who  
doesn't sometimes write things I find valuable and worthwhile.  If I  
could effectively mod up what I find good and mod down what I find  
not so good and the poster cares what readers think then over time  
more good posts are likely from even this person I may not generally  
like very much.  Sounds pretty extropic to me.


> Personal database keeping IS the answer in my view.

Do you really want to claim you have *the* answer to this one?

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050826/8350c147/attachment.html>

From hemm at openlink.com.br  Fri Aug 26 12:20:00 2005
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:20:00 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's
References: <20050826052804.51962.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d401c5aa38$7ad3d280$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

The article is no longer available (according to a message on the page). Is there another source?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:28 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's


> Nanocrystals Spark Efficient LEDs
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/09/rnb_090204.asp?trk=nl



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 12:52:46 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:52:46 +0100
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <20050826085548.GY2259@leitl.org>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050826085548.GY2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050826055274066677@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/26/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> A way would be to patch Mailman to attach voting URLs at the bottom of
> each message with
> unique tracking ID for each user and message, and a table
> to keep scores user vs. user, and a settable score threshold
> (zero=no filtering) a poster needs to be over in the table
> for messages to come through.
> 

Over the years, I don't remember extropy-chat having a programmer
available to start patching Mailman, and doing all the testing,
debugging, conversions, etc. that would be required.

But I don't think this would work anyway. The majority on any list are
non-participants. They read (sometimes) the mail and delete it or file
it. That's all. They won't start scoring posts up or down. The scoring
would only be done by the 20 or 30 keen members. And they would have
different opinions and would all have varying amounts of time
available. So an assortment of posts would be scored by a small number
of people of differing opinions. Might as well have a random number
generator.

If we have a few keen members, why not make them list administrators
and use the existing Mailman procedures?

The present list moderation is done on a casual, after-the-event
basis. When threads are over 50 messages long, smoke and flames are
drifting over the battlefield and the field hospital is full of
casualties, then the moderator will appear and tell everyone that they
have been naughty boys and if they don't stop it, he will take their
toys away.

Fine, but all the violent tirades are already in the archives for
googling journalists to find and quote back at us.

Mailman has rules for messages to be put in the 'held' queue. By email
address and/or keyword filters. Moderators are notified and they can
either reject or accept each message. If we have enough moderators and
the rules are loose enough that only an occasional message is held, it
would not be too much of a burden on them. The rules can be gradually
tightened up if too much rubbish still gets through to the list.

List moderation is not a new discovery. The best brains on the web
have been talking about it and trying different options for many
years. But ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

BillK


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Aug 26 12:52:56 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:52:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazee
	nt.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>

Fear of Death and Muddled Thinking -- It Is So Much Worse Than You
Think. Death And Anti-Death, Volume 3: Fifty Years After Einstein, One
Hundred Fifty Years After Kierkegaard, ed. Charles Tandy, Ria
University Press, to appear, 2006.  http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf

   Humans clearly have trouble thinking about death.  This trouble is
   often invoked to explain behavior like delays in writing wills or
   buying life insurance, or interest in odd medical and religious
   beliefs.  But the problem is far worse than most people imagine.  Fear
   of death makes us spend fifteen percent of our wealth on medicine,
   from which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things
   like exercise, which offer large health benefits.




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  Fri Aug 26 14:17:35 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:17:35 -0400
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat]
	a	futuristprediction
Message-ID: <380-220058526141735236@M2W056.mail2web.com>


From: BillK pharos at gmail.com

>The present list moderation is done on a casual, after-the-event
>basis. When threads are over 50 messages long, smoke and flames are
>drifting over the battlefield and the field hospital is full of
>casualties, then the moderator will appear and tell everyone that they
>have been naughty boys and if they don't stop it, he will take their
>toys away.

An exaggeration, although list moderation can be done more effectivley to
be sure.

Natasha

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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Aug 26 14:21:49 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:21:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's
Message-ID: <380-220058526142149597@M2W073.mail2web.com>



http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/082504/Nanocrystals_spark_efficient_LEDs_
Brief_082504.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb329/is_200408/ai_n13198700

Natasha



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Henrique Moraes Machado hemm at openlink.com.br
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:20:00 -0300
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's


The article is no longer available (according to a message on the page). Is
there another source?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:28 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanoscale LED's


> Nanocrystals Spark Efficient LEDs
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/09/rnb_090204.asp?trk=nl

_______________________________________________
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 brian at posthuman.com  Fri Aug 26 15:13:27 2005
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:13:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <430F3197.9010901@posthuman.com>

If anyone would like to see some of this (and many other things) in action, and 
also watch a real "reality show" that spans 35 years (and counting) of some 
random UK citizens lives, I suggest renting the "Up" documentary series. 
Starting with Seven Up and going to 42 Up (49 up is in post-production at the 
moment), it follows some real people from age seven in 1963, checking in with 
them every seven years to see how their views and circumstances change, what 
decisions they made, etc.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Aug 26 15:13:26 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:13:26 -0400
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050825213171bd11a0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>
	<710b78fc050825213171bd11a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9353A044-BF7F-4992-8C3E-8F27D0FB5968@bonfireproductions.com>



The mailer attaches a footer, couldn't it inline a text-only flash  
file that tabs up on a server, and reflect that number based on the  
author, as well as add that tab to the start of the Subject:?

Then we would have author clout (derived from # of posts over value  
of posts), and thread quality (aggregate of total value over number  
of posts), without adding duplicate list load to the server. Would  
also be easier on the user to just click an up or down arrow and hit  
submit at the bottom of each email.

]3


On Aug 26, 2005, at 12:31 AM, Emlyn wrote:

> On 26/08/05, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Emlyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26/08/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My idea is similar, only people vote by filtering the
>>>> offender rather than having some sort of organized
>>>> balloting. You are the computer guy, Eugen, so can
>>>> this be done?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IANAE, but here are my two cents...
>>>
>>> Filters are passive client side things, so there's no way to  
>>> detect their use.
>>>
>>> What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>>> extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>>> disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of  
>>> killfiling
>>> someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>>> permanent mark of disdain!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> IAASA. (I Am a Systems Architect)
>>
>> Emylin, If we choose to implement anything at the list level, we  
>> should
>> implement
>> a way to allow each list member to push the member's killfile  
>> rules back
>> to the list mailer.
>>
>
> Clearly this is a good place from a system design point of view. I've
> suggested the mechanism above though, mostly because I think we are an
> email based group, most of whose members are fairly tied to and happy
> with their email clients.
>
> If experience says anything about the extropy list, it is that you
> must either implement it as an entirely email-based system, or no one
> will use it.
>
>
>>
>> First, the mailer can apply the rules on behalf of each member thus
>> reducing the mailing of posts that would otherwise be killed by the
>> recipient.
>> As a general rule it is far cheaper (in CPU cycles and bandwidth) to
>> kill a post than
>> it is to send it, This is true for the mailer machine. It is
>> overwhelmingly true for the
>> Internet as a whole.
>>
>
> The traffic is so minimal as to make this pretty irrelevant. We
> struggle by now pretty easily (with the extropy list I mean, not
> commenting on the entire email world).
>
>
>>
>> Second, this gives the list mailer the information it needs to  
>> feed the
>> kill ratio back
>> to each poster. Thus, if Eugene posts a message, the list system will
>> respond with a
>> message that says: "This message was sent to 100% of the list, and  
>> 75%
>> say  'thank you'
>> automatically." If an unknown author sends a message that includes  
>> the
>> term "viagra" then
>> the system will respond with a message that says: " this message was
>> sent to 0% of the list.
>>  0% say 'thank you' automatically. Based on these percentages, you  
>> may
>> not post another
>> message for 24 hours."
>>
>> At a meta level, a list member could decide to depend on the  
>> consensus
>> of other members to
>> kill messages. In addition to personal killfile rules, a recipient  
>> could
>> ask the list to establish
>> a rule such as "kill any post that is killed by >50% of the personal
>> killfile rules" or "kill any
>> post that is killed by Natasha's killfile rules."
>>
>>
>
> We also need a system of punishing or rewarding posts I think.
> Killfiles come about because people become exasperated by crappy
> posts. A method of providing feedback earlier might actually minimise
> the use of automated rules.
>
>
>> NOTE: I do not personally use an automated kill system. I when the  
>> inbox
>> is too full, I manually
>> kill messages based on the subject line: this takes about 2  
>> seconds per
>> message. If I knew that my
>> kill rules were to be implemented at the list level and that they  
>> could
>> be used by others, I would
>> create such rules in a heartbeat.
>>
>>
>
> There is already a karma system on the BBS, maybe that is a start?
>
> http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php?board=71
>
> Apparently I have zero karma, which is just as it should be; the
> universe is complex enough without a whole spiritual economy to cope
> with...
>
> -- 
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Aug 26 16:02:19 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:02:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <430F3197.9010901@posthuman.com>
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
	<430F3197.9010901@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826120135.02ed6518@mail.gmu.edu>

At 11:13 AM 8/26/2005, Brian Atkins wrote:
>If anyone would like to see some of this (and many other things) in 
>action, and also watch a real "reality show" that spans 35 years 
>(and counting) of some random UK citizens lives, I suggest renting 
>the "Up" documentary series. Starting with Seven Up and going to 42 
>Up (49 up is in post-production at the moment), it follows some real 
>people from age seven in 1963, checking in with them every seven 
>years to see how their views and circumstances change, what 
>decisions they made, etc.

Those are great movies, I agree.


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 26 16:11:30 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050826161130.68428.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

Some of the data seems to be a bit selective.  For instance, when you
compare death rates for cities with the best water and sewer systems,
do you also control for crime rates and other potentially incidentally
related (save that there are only so many large cities) effects?

Still, it would be interesting to see the medical establishment's
specific criticisms of this.  (Not objection on face value, but the
specific errors they find - if any - in the data.)  Even after that,
you'll probably still have something of an argument for reform of
medical spending.  (For instance, I don't think many people have looked
at the medical effects of large numbers of restricted activity days in
preparation for receiving health care, which might well outweigh the
marginal - possibly nearly zero, at the level you examine - extra
benefits received from having a doctor check for problems more
frequently.)

--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

> Fear of Death and Muddled Thinking -- It Is So Much Worse Than You
> Think. Death And Anti-Death, Volume 3: Fifty Years After Einstein,
> One
> Hundred Fifty Years After Kierkegaard, ed. Charles Tandy, Ria
> University Press, to appear, 2006.  http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf
> 
>    Humans clearly have trouble thinking about death.  This trouble is
>    often invoked to explain behavior like delays in writing wills or
>    buying life insurance, or interest in odd medical and religious
>    beliefs.  But the problem is far worse than most people imagine. 
> Fear
>    of death makes us spend fifteen percent of our wealth on medicine,
>    from which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect
> things
>    like exercise, which offer large health benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Aug 26 16:18:09 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:18:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] women allowed to vote in the land/s of the free
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050826111341.01cc5000@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

1893: New Zealand grants equal voting rights to women.

1901: Women in Australia get the vote, with some restrictions.

1902: Australia grants more voting rights to women.

1919: Woman suffrage is granted in Belarus, Luxemburg and Ukraine.

1920: On August 26, a constitutional amendment is adopted when the state of 
Tennessee ratifies it, granting full woman suffrage in all states of the 
United States. [puff, pant]

=========

It's easy to forget how comparatively recently all these kinds of changes 
happened...



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Aug 26 18:29:44 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:29:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <20050826161130.68428.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20050826161130.68428.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826142019.02d9dcf0@mail.gmu.edu>

At 12:11 PM 8/26/2005, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>Some of the data seems to be a bit selective.  For instance, when you
>compare death rates for cities with the best water and sewer systems,
>do you also control for crime rates and other potentially incidentally
>related (save that there are only so many large cities) effects?

Not including all possibly relevant controls is not the same as being
selective with data.

>Still, it would be interesting to see the medical establishment's
>specific criticisms of this.  (Not objection on face value, but the
>specific errors they find - if any - in the data.)

I doubt they would think I merited a response.  By the way, I've heard
that biologists have decided that they should not debate creationists in
public forums, because doing so just gives creationists credibility.
This is a very standard approach, and so it must work on average, but it
still seems less than cricket to me.


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Aug 26 18:51:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826142019.02d9dcf0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050826185144.83053.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> This is a very standard approach, and so it must work on average,

;)  Just because something is standard doesn't mean it usually works,
and especially that it works well.  It just means that it's standard.

This is especially the case with the practices of any large
institution, where making the higher-ups feel good or the pressures of
getting work done despite irrelevant demands from on high can trump
pointing out that a bad idea is bad and doing something about it: the
individual performance gains from not using bad ideas are overridden by
the costs of getting less than optimal practices changed (especially
when the practices that most commonly get challenged really were
improvements from what the institution originally did, and get defended
as such by the higher-ups who perceive elements of the old ways in any
new suggestions).


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Aug 26 23:30:01 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:30:01 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of Death Much Worse Than You Think
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu><20050826161130.68428.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050826142019.02d9dcf0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <084801c5aa96$148cb830$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> I've heard that biologists have decided that they should not
> debate creationists in public forums, because doing so just
> gives creationists credibility. This is a very standard approach,
> and so it must work on average, but it still seems less than 
> cricket to me.

I can relate to the 'its not cricket' sentiment, but I think
professional biologists (as a class) are managing their time like 
they know they are mortals. [Aside: It the time management 
aspect that I think is not recognized and weighted enough in
your papers on why people disagree. ]

Biology teachers, the university ones I know, prefer to talk to
and encourage students who they think are genuinely engaging
with the *relevant* material. There is a lot of real biology to
learn and a lot of good that can come from teaching the next
generation of biologists, who go on to become doctors and
researchers. 

The same would apply to economics teachers too I imagine.
I suspect all good teachers with a real passion for their subject
will warm to the students that ask intelligently formulated
questions, not like "huh?" and not like "how can we avoid 
seeing intelligent design in this" when the student hasn't really
taken a good look to begin with.

Just like lawyers sometimes take time to do pro bono work,
biologists do sometimes take time to debate creationists some
of them join sceptics societies and such. 

I think fear of death and awareness of mortality are associated. 
Mortals that are aware of their mortality value their time and the
quality of their experiences and relationships.

Brett Paatsch



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Fri Aug 26 23:31:44 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:31:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads 
In-Reply-To: <07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
	<07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <61cf8e0508dc561ba57e241a32e72dde@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Aug 26, 2005, at 4:14 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Someone else I though it
> was Hal or Harvey years ago posted that they
> were keeping stats and folders of individuals posters
> valuable posts and that someone or other had earned a haircut.

It wasn't me.  I have never done this or heard about it.

I have discussed a system that would let readers vote on whether a post 
was good, bad, spam, off-topic, offensive, or whatever.  Then these 
ratings would be available to others reading the list so they can skip 
posts with poor ratings.

On the early Extropians chat list, we discussed a lot of ideas like 
this to automate list functions.  I don't know of any that actually 
materialized, unfortunately.

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Aug 26 23:57:31 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:57:31 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads 
References: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com><07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<61cf8e0508dc561ba57e241a32e72dde@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <085701c5aa99$ec57c360$0d98e03c@homepc>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Aug 26, 2005, at 4:14 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
>> Someone else I though it
>> was Hal or Harvey years ago posted that they
>> were keeping stats and folders of individuals posters
>> valuable posts and that someone or other had earned a haircut.
> 
> It wasn't me.  I have never done this or heard about it.

Hal was my first and best guess, you've strengthened my
suspicion now. If it wasn't Hal I'd be at a loss as to who
it was without fishing through archives. Which bores me. 
 
> I have discussed a system that would let readers vote on whether 
> a post was good, bad, spam, off-topic, offensive, or whatever. 
> Then these ratings would be available to others reading the list
> so they can skip posts with poor ratings.

To try and do double juty and answer some of the questions 
Samantha askes as well.

I'm not, as just another individual poster, opposed to any
consideration, or implementation of that sort of thing, I'd adapt
to it. But I'm not supporting it either because, for me, it wouldn't
constitute an improvement on what I can do without it and I'd
probably not use it if I could step around it.  

Keeping a personal database is some extra work over not doing
it, but because its personal its work I have no responsibility to do
and I can customise it to how I want to the extent that I want to. 
 
I think there is a tendency sometimes for people to try to build
technological systems for others as well when they could just
build them for themselves as personal systems.

I've been a mainframe systems programmer. I don't think there
is any such thing as a software system for users that doesn't
require maintenance because under the word maintenance I
include not just the refitting of potentially low bug software
to other software and the various versions of it that change,
but also the end users strong desire to post the maintainer
and ask "hey hows this work?" or "why did this happen
to me?" rather than RTFM.  

As a systems programmer (Fujitsu mainframes) I would get 
multiple requests daily to reset passwords for people that 
forgot them. 

And as a systems programmer I was also likely to want to
avoid reading the manual if I could ask another systems
programmer the question and get an answer quicker and
easier than RTFMing myself.

So to anyone wanting to just put together a nice little
technical something to help solve a perceived problem I
say, "I don't mind, good luck Jim, but I don't want to 
maintain it and as a friendly word of warning to the wise
are you sure that you do?"  

Brett Paatsch







From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Aug 27 00:03:50 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:03:50 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads 
References: <20050826060721.45311.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com><07c901c5aa16$3bf71c60$0d98e03c@homepc><61cf8e0508dc561ba57e241a32e72dde@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<085701c5aa99$ec57c360$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <086201c5aa9a$ce13b250$0d98e03c@homepc>

> To try and do double juty and ....

Good grief, I spelt duty, juty. 

MEDIC !!! ;-)

Brett

(Its phonetical misspelling you see doc)





From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Aug 27 00:06:33 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:06:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] women allowed to vote in the land/s of the
  free
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050826111341.01cc5000@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050826111341.01cc5000@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050826190004.04b71a28@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 11:18 AM 8/26/2005, you wrote:
>1893: New Zealand grants equal voting rights to women.
>
>1901: Women in Australia get the vote, with some restrictions.
>
>1902: Australia grants more voting rights to women.
>
>1919: Woman suffrage is granted in Belarus, Luxemburg and Ukraine.
>
>1920: On August 26, a constitutional amendment is adopted when the state 
>of Tennessee ratifies it, granting full woman suffrage in all states of 
>the United States. [puff, pant]
>
>=========
>
>It's easy to forget how comparatively recently all these kinds of changes 
>happened...

Brings things into perspective doesn't it.

I wondered if the young women today give this much thought; so I googled a 
bit and came upon this statement: "Young women who are drawn to political 
activism do not, for the most part, join women's groups. They are much more 
likely to join anticorporate, antiglobalization, or social justice groups" 
which is found in the essay, "Feminist  Consciousness After the Women's 
Movement" (Epstein) http://www.monthlyreview.org/0902epstein.htm as one 
viewpoint on the subject.

N

<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/20050826/febcd816/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Aug 27 02:08:24 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:08:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Victory through emotional engagement
Message-ID: <08af01c5aaac$34c500b0$0d98e03c@homepc>

In the weeks before the evacuation of settlers, a team of psychologists 
armed Israeli troops with the ability to combine determination with 
sensitivity, writes Abraham Rabinovich

August 27, 2005 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16397672%255E2703,00.html


--------
- Brett Paatsch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050827/fa2a9d5e/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Aug 27 09:37:27 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:37:27 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Beginners Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize - by
	Nobel Laureate
Message-ID: <092301c5aaea$eff97760$0d98e03c@homepc>

The linked article, entitled Theoretical creation
of a worldbeater, is an editted extract of the book
The Beginners Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize
 by Peter Doherty.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16393063%255E30417,00.html

Peter Dohery won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 
1996 for discovering the nature of cellular immune
defence.


Here's an 18 point summary of the article:

1) Try to solve major problems and make really big discoveries

2) Be realistic and play to your strengths

3) Acquire the basic skills and work with the right people

4) Learn to write clearly and concisely

5) Work in an appropriate field

6) Find and cultivate your true passion

7) Focus and don't be a dilettante

8) Be selective about where you work

9) Value evidence and learn to see what is in front of your nose

10) Think outside the box

11) Talk about the problem

12) Tell the truth

13) Be generous and culturally aware

14) Be persistent and tenacious, but be prepared to fail

15) Your time is precious

16) Avoid prestigious administrative roles

17) Take care of yourself and live a long time

18) Have fun, behave like a winner

----

Perhaps posting/reading the ExI chat list could help
with points 1, 4,  9, 10, and 11. Perhaps 5, 7, and 15
could be read as cautions against do just that. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050827/7a37f940/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Sat Aug 27 11:45:22 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:45:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
Message-ID: <p06210200bf3601a05bf1@[23.237.66.13]>

Emlyn:
>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>permanent mark of disdain!

>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>excellent posts and favoured postors to.


Dear Emlyn,

I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the cogs of
the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
job? Reputation and Feeback.

Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
remove that poster.

In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in-action:
look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.

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/
********************************************************************
"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe



From benboc at lineone.net  Fri Aug 26 23:48:29 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:48:29 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <200508261800.j7QI08u09607@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508261800.j7QI08u09607@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <430FAA4D.5030002@lineone.net>

The Avantguardian wrote:

"There is no way for the writer to sense how many
killfiles he is in, but can the listserver do it? Does
the computer that filters out an email give any kind
of feedback that it is doing so? If so the listserver
itself could "moderate" threads by responding to the
democratic behavior of list members. Thus if the
server realizes that less than an arbitrary quorum of
listmembers want to read a person's post, it can just
stop posting that persons's crap."

That's not going to work anyway, even if such a system is possible (and 
i hope it isn't). People like me get a daily(-ish) digest, and simply 
skim over 8/10ths of the posts in each email, looking for the 
interesting stuff amongst the increasing amount of crap. It has been 
rare for me to dump a whole email digest, because they usually have at 
least one interesting post. Although that seems to be changing recently, 
causing me to consider (again!) unsubscribing from the list.
I have better things to do with my time than get irritated by having to 
skim past yet another dozen posts about american politics or the war in 
iraq.

I do like Emlyn's idea. I'd like to see that implemented, or something 
similar, and see if it improves things.


BillK wrote:
"But I don't think this would work anyway. The majority on any list are
non-participants. They read (sometimes) the mail and delete it or file
it. That's all. They won't start scoring posts up or down. "

I'm fairly non-participatory, certainly not a regular or frequent 
poster, but i would definitely contribute to the scoring process, 
because i would know that i was helping to improve things, and that i 
would benefit from it.

"If we have a few keen members, why not make them list administrators
and use the existing Mailman procedures?"

Then the administration reflects only the preferences of those few keen 
members.
There must be more people like me, who would run like a cat with it's 
tail on fire at the mention of doing any list admin, but would happily 
give feedback on individual posts. Maybe not ALL of the posts, but 
enough to be useful. Maybe the silent majority could break their silence 
and comment on this? How many people would vote on post quality, for the 
sake of improving it?

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

"The mailer attaches a footer...<snip> ...Would
also be easier on the user to just click an up or down arrow and hit
submit at the bottom of each email."

How would this system work with daily digests? It would be no good me 
voting on 27 posts all in one email.
Any voting system would have to take digests into account.

ben


From riel at surriel.com  Sat Aug 27 17:16:40 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:16:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON: Chip market responds to high oil prices...
In-Reply-To: <200508250319.j7P3J3u11963@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508250319.j7P3J3u11963@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508271314150.9670@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Gary Miller wrote:

> Too bad that 95% of the software on the home market is not multithreaded 
> and can't benefit greatly from dual core technology.

The software can benefit from the increased number of functional
units, though.  With just a little compiler help (trying to touch
different registers in adjacant instructions) the instruction
scheduler can be effective.

Of course, that makes it kind of necessary to use the 64 bit
features of the CPU, since 32 bit mode is register starved.

-- 
"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 riel at surriel.com  Sat Aug 27 17:43:49 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] China/Iran developing mutual defense deal.
In-Reply-To: <34A99DEE-5FD9-4809-A54F-535DFB23B139@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050823183958.58334.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<34A99DEE-5FD9-4809-A54F-535DFB23B139@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508271339240.9670@imladris.surriel.com>

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

> Well it is easy to see that this is quid-pro-quo over Taiwan, given the 
> plans of the US.

I doubt that.  The Chinese are strengthening economic and
political ties everywhere they can, as are many of the
other large countries that were excluded from the US-EU
trading axis in the past.

China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Iran, several African countries and a number of Asian
countries are all negotiating better trade terms with
each other and strengthening political ties.

> Next up: Opec dissolves.

I suspect the focus is more on WTO than OPEC.  In the
past the WTO has been used to set unfair trade terms
on less powerful countries, using divide and conquer
strategies.

Today the more influential of the disadvantaged countries
are now negotiating directly with each other, outside of
WTO meetings, and deciding on methods to reduce the
influence of the US and EU on their international trade.

-- 
"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 dgc at cox.net  Sat Aug 27 21:39:15 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:39:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tiny autonomous aircraft, again.
In-Reply-To: <20050824195205.2763.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050824195205.2763.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4310DD83.5050406@cox.net>

Please have a look that the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4185648.stm

The main points are:
   tiny: (6 inches)
   autonomous
   quiet
   reconfigurable wing geometry.

We've seen this all before, but it appears to be getting very real. In 
my opinion, near-term deployment would use human remote pilots. The 
autonomy stuff is sexy but not fundamental. The researchers focus on 
autonomous flight. That's a nice academic goal, but in reality, 
real-time evaluation of the information will require a human, so you may 
as well have a human pilot to perform both functions.

These little "birds" would be a great adjunct to a pervasive system of 
fixed cameras.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Aug 28 01:13:48 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
Message-ID: <ABB1604A-E2AB-4F49-9746-174B8693C6CE@mac.com>

Awfully quiet for a Saturday.

- s



From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Sun Aug 28 02:37:03 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:37:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Nice Pronoiac Conspiracy Theory
Message-ID: <5366105b050827193766598bca@mail.gmail.com>

Saturday, 27 August 2005

Hello all:

I should pack for England, but computers make it so easy to procrastinate.

Business 2.0 has a nice rumor about Google might do with all its cash.

http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,1093558,00.html

I have a nice rant about it on my blog. Work should allow me the
chance to meet up with those in England next month. Please contact me
off-list if you've interest.

-- 
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  Sun Aug 28 05:26:15 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:26:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New animation
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazeent.com><6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu>
	<430F3197.9010901@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <001401c5ab91$2396cc20$0300a8c0@Nano>

You guys should like this, it's a pun on one of my favorite themes - 

http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/thenurse.htm

At my animation blog:
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2005/08/even-more-rendering.html
Yes, I'm inviting your comments : )



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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050827/e2869490/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Aug 28 05:41:54 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 07:41:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerando Technical Companion on Wikibooks
Message-ID: <470a3c52050827224139c0f72c@mail.gmail.com>

The Wikibooks <http://en.wikibooks.org/> repository, a collection of 
open-content textbooks that anyone can edit, has a "Accelerando Technical 
Companion <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Accelerando_Technical_Companion>". This 
is a technical companion to Charlie
Stross<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Stross>'s
latest novel, Accelerando<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_%28novel%29>.
Stross's book can be quite dense in unusual technical terms and concepts, 
which can sometimes be quite confusing to readers unfamiliar with them. The 
purpose of this companion is to help alleviate any confusions the reader may 
have, as well as to introduce new confusions by giving the reader an idea of 
the current state and expected future of the technologies described in the 
novel. Wherever possible, brief information on relevant research papers is 
provided. Accelerando is not a "post-Singularity" novel but rather a 
"through-Singularity" novel as it takes the reader from our days (the first 
chapter "Lobsters" can be situated around 2010) through a Singularity to a 
sketched post-Singularity world. In the novel Stross focuses more on the 
social impact of technologies pushing to a Singularity and only hints at the 
technologies themselves. The aim of this technical companion is filling the 
gaps and providing Accelerando readers with a technical background.
I am reading the free downloadable book (and waiting for the hardcover 
edition which I have purchased), so I am trying to contribute to the 
Technical Companion. I believe many readers prefer starting with a fine 
novel, rather than with a technical book or report, to read on the 
technologies that will change our lives.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050828/d6fccfd8/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Sat Aug 27 12:29:58 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:29:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
Message-ID: <p06210200bf360d000654@[23.237.66.13]>

(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)

Emlyn:
>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>permanent mark of disdain!

>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>excellent posts and favoured postors to.


Dear Emlyn,

I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the cogs of
the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
job? Reputation and Feeback.

Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
remove that poster.

In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in-action:
look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.

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/
********************************************************************
"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Aug 28 17:36:14 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:36:14 +0200
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050826055274066677@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050826085548.GY2259@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e050826055274066677@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050828173614.GV2259@leitl.org>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 01:52:46PM +0100, BillK wrote:
> On 8/26/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > A way would be to patch Mailman to attach voting URLs at the bottom of
> > each message with
> > unique tracking ID for each user and message, and a table
> > to keep scores user vs. user, and a settable score threshold
> > (zero=no filtering) a poster needs to be over in the table
> > for messages to come through.
> > 
> 
> Over the years, I don't remember extropy-chat having a programmer
> available to start patching Mailman, and doing all the testing,
> debugging, conversions, etc. that would be required.

I wasn't describing a particular project related to ExI, just 
a basic functionality required to scratch the itch. 

We have at least two stellar system analysts, and many coders 
here, actually.
 
> But I don't think this would work anyway. The majority on any list are
> non-participants. They read (sometimes) the mail and delete it or file

It doesn't matter: the machinery described allows each user to rank
all messages according to her quality metric. It already works for 
a single participating user.

> it. That's all. They won't start scoring posts up or down. The scoring
> would only be done by the 20 or 30 keen members. And they would have

20 or 30 would be actually enough to start doing some clustering. 
With some added cogs and wheels, a person could subscribe to a particular
cluster's filtering metric.

> different opinions and would all have varying amounts of time
> available. So an assortment of posts would be scored by a small number
> of people of differing opinions. Might as well have a random number
> generator.

The metric isn't a scalar but a vector. A single scalar would
be a special case (a single cluster).
 
> If we have a few keen members, why not make them list administrators
> and use the existing Mailman procedures?

Because a commitee breaks the execution. You'd get Slashdot, where
idiots grade morons. 
 
> The present list moderation is done on a casual, after-the-event
> basis. When threads are over 50 messages long, smoke and flames are
> drifting over the battlefield and the field hospital is full of
> casualties, then the moderator will appear and tell everyone that they
> have been naughty boys and if they don't stop it, he will take their
> toys away.

This is a) too slow b) not fascist enough. 
 
> Fine, but all the violent tirades are already in the archives for
> googling journalists to find and quote back at us.

Tirades are useless. Perpetratos need to be warned offlist, and issued
a temporary suspension, or, in hopeless, chronic cases, a permanent ban.
 
> Mailman has rules for messages to be put in the 'held' queue. By email
> address and/or keyword filters. Moderators are notified and they can

Keyword filters are worse than useless.

> either reject or accept each message. If we have enough moderators and

New users on moderation by default is a good basic rule.

> the rules are loose enough that only an occasional message is held, it
> would not be too much of a burden on them. The rules can be gradually
> tightened up if too much rubbish still gets through to the list.
> 
> List moderation is not a new discovery. The best brains on the web

Complete moderation will kill a list quickly and surely, until
moderation worst case event is a few hours. Exceptions validate
the rule.

> have been talking about it and trying different options for many
> years. But ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

-- 
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/20050828/012221de/attachment.bin>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Aug 28 20:43:40 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf360d000654@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200bf360d000654@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other intelligent system 
to value posters and threads and encourage optimum discussions and 
debates.  And I think that Board should discuss this with the list moderators.

Natasha


>(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
>
>Emlyn:
>>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>>permanent mark of disdain!
>
>>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>>excellent posts and favoured postors to.
>
>
>Dear Emlyn,
>
>I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
>think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
>because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
>think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
>readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
>sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
>good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
>very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the cogs of
>the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
>purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
>job? Reputation and Feeback.
>
>Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
>list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
>is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
>thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
>negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
>wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
>encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
>More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
>strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
>strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
>continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
>her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
>ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
>list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
>remove that poster.
>
>In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
>reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
>Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
>The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
>data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in-action:
>look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
>less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
>to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
>
>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/
>********************************************************************
>"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

<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/20050828/05e59462/attachment.html>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 28 21:52:58 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:52:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>

In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set up a 
forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you 
karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking about. Of 
course then you lose the simplicity of email.

BAL

>From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>CC: board at extropy.org
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
>Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
>
>I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other intelligent system 
>to value posters and threads and encourage optimum discussions and debates. 
>  And I think that Board should discuss this with the list moderators.
>
>Natasha
>
>
>>(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
>>
>>Emlyn:
>>>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>>>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>>>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of killfiling
>>>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as a
>>>permanent mark of disdain!
>>
>>>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to send
>>>excellent posts and favoured postors to.
>>
>>
>>Dear Emlyn,
>>
>>I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
>>think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
>>because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
>>think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
>>readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
>>sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
>>good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
>>very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the cogs of
>>the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
>>purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
>>job? Reputation and Feeback.
>>
>>Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
>>list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
>>is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
>>thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
>>negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
>>wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
>>encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
>>More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
>>strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
>>strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
>>continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
>>her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
>>ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
>>list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
>>remove that poster.
>>
>>In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
>>reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
>>Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
>>The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
>>data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in-action:
>>look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
>>less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
>>to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
>>
>>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/
>>********************************************************************
>>"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
>>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>_______________________________________________
>>extropy-chat mailing list
>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
><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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sun Aug 28 22:00:57 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:00:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerando Technical Companion on Wikibooks
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050827224139c0f72c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050827224139c0f72c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05082815005a4eef04@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for noticing it and contributing. :) I think most of the
content  currently in the Technical Companion is focused on the first
few chapters -- additional info from later chapters would be greatly
appreciated.

On 8/27/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Wikibooks repository, a collection of open-content textbooks that anyone
> can edit, has a "Accelerando Technical Companion ". This is a technical
> companion to Charlie Stross 's latest novel, Accelerando . Stross's book can
> be quite dense in unusual technical terms and concepts, which can sometimes
> be quite confusing to readers unfamiliar with them. The purpose of this
> companion is to help alleviate any confusions the reader may have, as well
> as to introduce new confusions by giving the reader an idea of the current
> state and expected future of the technologies described in the novel.
> Wherever possible, brief information on relevant research papers is
> provided. Accelerando is not a "post-Singularity" novel but rather a
> "through-Singularity" novel as it takes the reader from our days (the first
> chapter "Lobsters" can be situated around 2010) through a Singularity to a
> sketched post-Singularity world. In the novel Stross focuses more on the
> social impact of technologies pushing to a Singularity and only hints at the
> technologies themselves. The aim of this technical companion is filling the
> gaps and providing Accelerando readers with a technical background.
>  I am reading the free downloadable book (and waiting for the hardcover
> edition which I have purchased), so I am trying to contribute to the
> Technical Companion. I believe many readers prefer starting with a fine
> novel, rather than with a technical book or report, to read on the
> technologies that will change our lives.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 01:12:35 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:42:35 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050828181261d342fb@mail.gmail.com>

On 29/08/05, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set up a
> forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you
> karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking about. Of
> course then you lose the simplicity of email.
> 
> BAL

I personally think that losing the simplicity of email is a problem,
having seen the history of the exi list, but I could be wrong. Do
other people think that would be a problem, or are we likely to use a
web based mechanism (web/email hybrid) if it is set up well enough?

-- 
Emlyn

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 29 03:29:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050829032906.10386.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

We have that, the YABB system, but posts to it don't appear on the
list, and some people abused it to whack those with politics they
disagree with (and I'm not talking about myself getting whacked, people
like Spike were given massive negative karmas by some people intent on
an agenda.)

--- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:

> In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set up
> a 
> forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you 
> karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking
> about. Of 
> course then you lose the simplicity of email.
> 
> BAL
> 
> >From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >CC: board at extropy.org
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
> >Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
> >
> >I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other intelligent
> system 
> >to value posters and threads and encourage optimum discussions and
> debates. 
> >  And I think that Board should discuss this with the list
> moderators.
> >
> >Natasha
> >
> >
> >>(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
> >>
> >>Emlyn:
> >>>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
> >>>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
> >>>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of
> killfiling
> >>>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address, as
> a
> >>>permanent mark of disdain!
> >>
> >>>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org, to
> send
> >>>excellent posts and favoured postors to.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dear Emlyn,
> >>
> >>I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
> >>think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
> >>because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
> >>think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
> >>readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
> >>sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
> >>good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
> >>very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the cogs
> of
> >>the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
> >>purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
> >>job? Reputation and Feeback.
> >>
> >>Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
> >>list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
> >>is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
> >>thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
> >>negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
> >>wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
> >>encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
> >>More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
> >>strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
> >>strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he
> can
> >>continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
> >>her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
> >>ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
> >>list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
> >>remove that poster.
> >>
> >>In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
> >>reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
> >>Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
> >>The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
> >>data, does it not? For the simplest example of
> reputations-in-action:
> >>look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
> >>less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
> >>to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
> >>
> >>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/
>
>>********************************************************************
> >>"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
> >>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>extropy-chat mailing list
> >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> ><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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 04:19:33 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:49:33 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <20050829032906.10386.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
	<20050829032906.10386.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05082821191a6ecbe1@mail.gmail.com>

On 29/08/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We have that, the YABB system, but posts to it don't appear on the
> list

ie: we don't have it

-- 
Emlyn

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Aug 29 05:29:59 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:29:59 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
References: <ABB1604A-E2AB-4F49-9746-174B8693C6CE@mac.com>
Message-ID: <0ac201c5ac5a$b2bb2350$0d98e03c@homepc>

Samantha wrote:

> Awfully quiet for a Saturday.

It was. But now the regular crowd's shuffled in :-)

Brett Paatsch
(sometime Billy Joel fan)




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Aug 29 06:53:25 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:53:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050829065325.GB2259@leitl.org>

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 05:52:58PM -0400, Brian Lee wrote:
> In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set up a 
> forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you 

A mailing list is not a web forum. 

More importantly, in Slash mana is a scalar, not a vector.

> karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking about. 
> Of course then you lose the simplicity of email.

-- 
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/20050829/a917825c/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Aug 29 08:30:02 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:30:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050828181261d342fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
	<710b78fc050828181261d342fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050829083002.GF2259@leitl.org>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:42:35AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:

> I personally think that losing the simplicity of email is a problem,
> having seen the history of the exi list, but I could be wrong. Do
> other people think that would be a problem, or are we likely to use a
> web based mechanism (web/email hybrid) if it is set up well enough?

> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

There are already two web interfaces to the list. One is above this
line. Another one is http://bbs.extropy.org/
Right now there's only one online user: me.

-- 
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/20050829/9db8af8f/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Aug 29 09:51:34 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:51:34 +0200
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <9353A044-BF7F-4992-8C3E-8F27D0FB5968@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>
	<710b78fc050825213171bd11a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<9353A044-BF7F-4992-8C3E-8F27D0FB5968@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050829095134.GO2259@leitl.org>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
> 
> 
> The mailer attaches a footer, couldn't it inline a text-only flash  
> file that tabs up on a server, and reflect that number based on the  
> author, as well as add that tab to the start of the Subject:?

Why not just human myoelectricity, and a form of fusion? Doubleplusgood jargon-fu,
though.
 
> Then we would have author clout (derived from # of posts over value  
> of posts), and thread quality (aggregate of total value over number  
> of posts), without adding duplicate list load to the server. Would  

This is 2005. A dedicated server costs you about $20/month, some 200 GB/month
traffic included. That's enough hardware to host about a hundred of lists 
with server-side prestige tracking, and the usual (web server/mail server/web forum) 
in the bargain.

> also be easier on the user to just click an up or down arrow and hit  
> submit at the bottom of each email.

If the server generates a one-time expiring token for each email sent out, attaching
an URL a la http://extropy.com/vote/6c987bc1a463fa0ebfc921d946a69fc7a893003f 
to the bottom of each post which takes each user to a ranking page that
would work both in plain text and rich mail, be not too annoying and be 
fairly manipulation-proof.

Rich content could include voting with nice semantics like [--][-][0][+][++],
which is enough resolution to rank a post.
 
-- 
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/20050829/bd6e34cc/attachment.bin>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 29 13:24:04 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:24:04 -0400
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] a
	futurist prediction
In-Reply-To: <20050829095134.GO2259@leitl.org>
References: <20050825085455.GZ2259@leitl.org>
	<20050826005024.23804.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05082518166c27a1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<430E7DD3.8020008@cox.net>
	<710b78fc050825213171bd11a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<9353A044-BF7F-4992-8C3E-8F27D0FB5968@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050829095134.GO2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <6633D504-EF29-49AA-8FDD-BFDA3C514F06@bonfireproductions.com>


On Aug 29, 2005, at 5:51 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The mailer attaches a footer, couldn't it inline a text-only flash
>> file that tabs up on a server, and reflect that number based on the
>> author, as well as add that tab to the start of the Subject:?
>>
>
> Why not just human myoelectricity, and a form of fusion?  
> Doubleplusgood jargon-fu,
> though.

Hah. Thanks. I had also considered Kirlian input fields from the USB  
chain. Kidding aside, mailman will allow html, and that footer could  
be put somewhere on one of the sites mentioned as a  
featherweight .swf - its just setting up that swf properly to grab  
info from the message that would be a trick.


>
>> Then we would have author clout (derived from # of posts over value
>> of posts), and thread quality (aggregate of total value over number
>> of posts), without adding duplicate list load to the server. Would
>>
>
> This is 2005. A dedicated server costs you about $20/month, some  
> 200 GB/month
> traffic included. That's enough hardware to host about a hundred of  
> lists
> with server-side prestige tracking, and the usual (web server/mail  
> server/web forum)
> in the bargain.

However, from what I am hearing, we have "like eight servers" doing a  
variety of things already. one of them could handle a 50 character  
string each time someone clicks a button. It would be less work than  
any of the multiple-list versions of implementation, and probably  
less of a hack on mailman, don't you think?

We also get to keep the non-linear format of email, which is good for  
us off-netters and trainbound types.


>> also be easier on the user to just click an up or down arrow and hit
>> submit at the bottom of each email.
>>
>
> If the server generates a one-time expiring token for each email  
> sent out, attaching
> an URL a la http://extropy.com/vote/ 
> 6c987bc1a463fa0ebfc921d946a69fc7a893003f
> to the bottom of each post which takes each user to a ranking page  
> that
> would work both in plain text and rich mail, be not too annoying  
> and be
> fairly manipulation-proof.

Ah - too much work serverside, don't you think? use the existing  
email header data as a token - say the message ID. I mean this list  
has huge headers, may as well do some recycling. As far as  
manipulation proof, only accept the click once from a said message id.


>
> Rich content could include voting with nice semantics like [--][-] 
> [0][+][++],
> which is enough resolution to rank a post.

I love that. That is a great idea. Does it have enough range though?  
I think the allusion alone carries it imho.


]3ret


> -- 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050829/4bbf13f9/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 29 13:31:24 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:31:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] China/Iran developing mutual defense deal.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508271339240.9670@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <20050823183958.58334.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<34A99DEE-5FD9-4809-A54F-535DFB23B139@bonfireproductions.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508271339240.9670@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <0500FD81-78A7-4239-99D1-D5A262E9D492@bonfireproductions.com>



If you have a look at Mike Lorrey's  great points on August 18, 2005  
2:02:16 PM EDT, in the Subject :  [extropy-chat] [Politics] Real  
Politick, then play this game 5 turns forward, I think you have to  
really ask yourself the motivations of China.

What you are saying is true, but not to the exclusion of the  
possibility I mention, imho - The more study of what is going on the  
more the situations resemble one another. And if Iran continues to  
sell decade-spanning blocks of pro-rated resources to single  
entities, then OPEC becomes moot. As China's interest i.e. investment  
grows, and its obligations via policy do the same, the situation  
becomes a portrait of Taiwan. The postures on both sides are  
increasingly similar each month. Unless you think that China giving  
financial support and military protection to Iran will spell the end  
of China's nuclear program?


Not sure if this belongs on 'the other' extropy politics (?) list.


]3



On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>> Well it is easy to see that this is quid-pro-quo over Taiwan,  
>> given the
>> plans of the US.
>>
>
> I doubt that.  The Chinese are strengthening economic and
> political ties everywhere they can, as are many of the
> other large countries that were excluded from the US-EU
> trading axis in the past.
>
> China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
> Iran, several African countries and a number of Asian
> countries are all negotiating better trade terms with
> each other and strengthening political ties.
>
>
>> Next up: Opec dissolves.
>>
>
> I suspect the focus is more on WTO than OPEC.  In the
> past the WTO has been used to set unfair trade terms
> on less powerful countries, using divide and conquer
> strategies.
>
> Today the more influential of the disadvantaged countries
> are now negotiating directly with each other, outside of
> WTO meetings, and deciding on methods to reduce the
> influence of the US and EU on their international trade.
>
> -- 
> "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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050829/45730210/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Aug 29 14:48:52 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:48:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?
Message-ID: <00da01c5aca8$c63eba10$0100a8c0@kevin>


Has there been any real serious thought to the idea of operating our entire manned space program with midgets (or people with dwarfism, or little people, or whatever word you prefer to think of as less offensive since my intention is not to offend)? 

I know some will think I am joking or be put off by the idea, but I am completely serious. I was thinking the other night about how we would first begin to alter ourselves to make ourselves more fit for space travel and the first thing that came to mind was to reduce the plumbing, life-support, and livable space requirements. One way to do that would be to engineer people to be much smaller than normal. Then it dawned on me that we already have fully capable miniature humans among us and there is no need for such an ambitious plan. Half-size humans would greatly reduce all the living requirements for people on long duration space missions and would therefore reduce the cost and launch weight as well, wouldn't it?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that midgets may very well be the perfect human astronaut - or as close as we can get naturally. I am left to wonder if their compact size would make them less succeptable to the effects of long duration spaceflight. Also, they could probably move around better in zero-G without those long dangly limbs. 

I know that the required height in the US program is 64-76 inches. At 62 inches even I am too short to be a shuttle commander. I am sure the reason is that the entire shuttle was designed around people of that height. A payload specialist requirements are a bit more generous with a minimum of 58 inches, but why is that minimum still so tall? Is it simply because of the design of the couches and harnesses? 

Maybe NASA is afraid to propose such a thing. Are they afraid to offend? I would think it would be an honor. Many midgets have trouble getting jobs because of discrimination. They aren't even protected in the constitution - it doesn;t say "race, religion, color, creed, sex, or height". 

Have midgets been simply overlooked? Maybe they have been discriminated against because of their small size despite the fact that they would be better for the job? This could be because of the original public-relations strategy used by the US government early in the space program which has carried over to today. John Glen was 5'10" and I am sure the rest of the original Mercury 7 were close to 6 ft as well.

Or am I wrong about the reduced requirements?  Is there no substantial savings by launching 3 foot humans over 6 foot humans? Are their air.water/food requirements the same as an average height human being? I can find very little information about this. I did find an interesting article about the etymology of the words "dwarf" and "midget" here: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/bigenough/special_dwarfism_ety.html. But I can find very little reliable information regarding the issues that would make the real difference in space travel. One thing I did note was that the word "modget" turns up a lot of derogatory information and the words "dwarf" "dwarfs" and "dwarfism" turn up a lot of sci-fi/fantasy info. Neither gives much good information.

So if anyone has some decent links for informatoin on this topic, please share it. I am also interested in your comments. Am I justway off here, or is this something we should take a serious look at?







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050829/81e8b024/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Aug 29 15:20:56 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:20:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?
Message-ID: <p06210200bf38d7eaab71@[150.146.134.133]>

If you grep on 'midgets' or 'legless women' and spike, you will
find a lot of discussion on that topic in past years here.

Amara


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Mon Aug 29 15:58:24 2005
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:58:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <20050829083002.GF2259@leitl.org>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050828154138.0492fca0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>	<BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>	<710b78fc050828181261d342fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050829083002.GF2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <431330A0.2030807@mydruthers.com>

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:42:35AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Eugen said:
> There are already two web interfaces to the list. One is above this
> line. Another one is http://bbs.extropy.org/
> Right now there's only one online user: me.

When I want to look for messages that haven't passed my filters, I go to 
the javien site, which has the messages nicely threaded:

http://forum.javien.com/index.php

Chris
-- 
C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings:
       "A sense of age, of profound truths.  Respect for something
       hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time.
       It persuades us that things we do may last and matter."

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org
http://mydruthers.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 29 19:02:37 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <00da01c5aca8$c63eba10$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050829190237.89768.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dwarfs are Spike's favorite sort of astronaut, particularly legless
female dwarfs.

SF writer Merideth Baxter Bujold proposed genetically engineering
people with arms in place of legs for zero g living in her novel
"Falling Free", in which a group of kids are engineered by a space
corporation in solar orbit until artificial gravity is invented, so
they are thus obsolete. The corp has plans to eliminate the kids, so
instead they take control of their space station and fly it off (using
the gravity control technology as a space drive, AFAIKR) into
interstellar space. Descendants appear in later episodes of the Miles
Vorkosigan series.

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> 
> Has there been any real serious thought to the idea of operating our
> entire manned space program with midgets (or people with dwarfism, or
> little people, or whatever word you prefer to think of as less
> offensive since my intention is not to offend)? 
> 
> I know some will think I am joking or be put off by the idea, but I
> am completely serious. I was thinking the other night about how we
> would first begin to alter ourselves to make ourselves more fit for
> space travel and the first thing that came to mind was to reduce the
> plumbing, life-support, and livable space requirements. One way to do
> that would be to engineer people to be much smaller than normal. Then
> it dawned on me that we already have fully capable miniature humans
> among us and there is no need for such an ambitious plan. Half-size
> humans would greatly reduce all the living requirements for people on
> long duration space missions and would therefore reduce the cost and
> launch weight as well, wouldn't it?
> 
> The more I thought about it, the more I realized that midgets may
> very well be the perfect human astronaut - or as close as we can get
> naturally. I am left to wonder if their compact size would make them
> less succeptable to the effects of long duration spaceflight. Also,
> they could probably move around better in zero-G without those long
> dangly limbs. 
> 
> I know that the required height in the US program is 64-76 inches. At
> 62 inches even I am too short to be a shuttle commander. I am sure
> the reason is that the entire shuttle was designed around people of
> that height. A payload specialist requirements are a bit more
> generous with a minimum of 58 inches, but why is that minimum still
> so tall? Is it simply because of the design of the couches and
> harnesses? 
> 
> Maybe NASA is afraid to propose such a thing. Are they afraid to
> offend? I would think it would be an honor. Many midgets have trouble
> getting jobs because of discrimination. They aren't even protected in
> the constitution - it doesn;t say "race, religion, color, creed, sex,
> or height". 
> 
> Have midgets been simply overlooked? Maybe they have been
> discriminated against because of their small size despite the fact
> that they would be better for the job? This could be because of the
> original public-relations strategy used by the US government early in
> the space program which has carried over to today. John Glen was
> 5'10" and I am sure the rest of the original Mercury 7 were close to
> 6 ft as well.
> 
> Or am I wrong about the reduced requirements?  Is there no
> substantial savings by launching 3 foot humans over 6 foot humans?
> Are their air.water/food requirements the same as an average height
> human being? I can find very little information about this. I did
> find an interesting article about the etymology of the words "dwarf"
> and "midget" here:
> http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/bigenough/special_dwarfism_ety.html.
> But I can find very little reliable information regarding the issues
> that would make the real difference in space travel. One thing I did
> note was that the word "modget" turns up a lot of derogatory
> information and the words "dwarf" "dwarfs" and "dwarfism" turn up a
> lot of sci-fi/fantasy info. Neither gives much good information.
> 
> So if anyone has some decent links for informatoin on this topic,
> please share it. I am also interested in your comments. Am I justway
> off here, or is this something we should take a serious look at?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 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 29 19:06:58 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:06:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <0ac201c5ac5a$b2bb2350$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <ABB1604A-E2AB-4F49-9746-174B8693C6CE@mac.com>
	<0ac201c5ac5a$b2bb2350$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <2DE9D54D-8DEA-4395-BF26-BED694486444@mac.com>

Something appears to have been wrong with the list.  I sent a note to  
Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday.  I got no reply.  This  
isn't the first time.

- s

On Aug 28, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Samantha wrote:
>
>
>> Awfully quiet for a Saturday.
>>
>
> It was. But now the regular crowd's shuffled in :-)
>
> Brett Paatsch
> (sometime Billy Joel fan)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 29 19:08:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:08:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F1854BA9A552D82E693BF5EB4AC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <074EF7FD-2832-4FB0-825E-08AD34D7D428@mac.com>

No you don't.  Look at my email forwarding with decorations idea as  
well as the ideas of others already expressed in this thread.

On Aug 28, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Brian Lee wrote:

> In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set  
> up a forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you  
> karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking  
> about. Of course then you lose the simplicity of email.
>
> BAL
>
>
>> From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> CC: board at extropy.org
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
>> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
>>
>> I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other  
>> intelligent system to value posters and threads and encourage  
>> optimum discussions and debates.  And I think that Board should  
>> discuss this with the list moderators.
>>
>> Natasha
>>
>>
>>
>>> (sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
>>>
>>> Emlyn:
>>>
>>>> What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>>>> extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>>>> disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of  
>>>> killfiling
>>>> someone, you could forward their entire output to that address,  
>>>> as a
>>>> permanent mark of disdain!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org,  
>>>> to send
>>>> excellent posts and favoured postors to.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Emlyn,
>>>
>>> I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
>>> think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
>>> because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
>>> think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
>>> readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
>>> sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
>>> good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
>>> very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the  
>>> cogs of
>>> the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
>>> purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
>>> job? Reputation and Feeback.
>>>
>>> Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
>>> list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
>>> is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
>>> thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
>>> negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
>>> wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
>>> encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
>>> More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
>>> strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
>>> strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
>>> continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
>>> her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
>>> ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
>>> list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
>>> remove that poster.
>>>
>>> In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
>>> reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
>>> Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
>>> The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
>>> data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in- 
>>> action:
>>> look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
>>> less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
>>> to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
>>>
>>> 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/
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> "Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
>>>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>
>>
>> <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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Aug 29 19:57:53 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:57:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
Message-ID: <380-220058129195753924@M2W103.mail2web.com>

Hi s. -

I immediately contacted David. Then I got another message stating that the
list was just slow on Saturday so I did not pursue it further.

By the way, Spike has been out of town on vaction this past week.

Best,
Natasha

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:06:58 -0700
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore


Something appears to have been wrong with the list.  I sent a note to  
Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday.  I got no reply.  This  
isn't the first time.

- s

On Aug 28, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Samantha wrote:
>
>
>> Awfully quiet for a Saturday.
>>
>
> It was. But now the regular crowd's shuffled in :-)
>
> Brett Paatsch
> (sometime Billy Joel fan)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 29 20:22:05 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:22:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <074EF7FD-2832-4FB0-825E-08AD34D7D428@mac.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F34E848341022BE56F09E52B4AF0@phx.gbl>

I saw the suggestions and read them and they seem pretty valid. But the 
schemes I saw are non-intuitive and the "web forum" is a pretty well 
established artifact. There's no need to try to shove the whole forum 
concept into a listserv. If you want listserv stick with email. If you want 
karma and buddies and hard topics, etc switch to a forum.

BAL

>From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
>Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:08:20 -0700
>
>No you don't.  Look at my email forwarding with decorations idea as  well 
>as the ideas of others already expressed in this thread.
>
>On Aug 28, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
>
>>In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set  up a 
>>forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you  
>>karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking  about. 
>>Of course then you lose the simplicity of email.
>>
>>BAL
>>
>>
>>>From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
>>>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>>>CC: board at extropy.org
>>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
>>>Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
>>>
>>>I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other  intelligent 
>>>system to value posters and threads and encourage  optimum discussions 
>>>and debates.  And I think that Board should  discuss this with the list 
>>>moderators.
>>>
>>>Natasha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
>>>>
>>>>Emlyn:
>>>>
>>>>>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
>>>>>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
>>>>>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of  killfiling
>>>>>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address,  as a
>>>>>permanent mark of disdain!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org,  to send
>>>>>excellent posts and favoured postors to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear Emlyn,
>>>>
>>>>I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
>>>>think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
>>>>because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
>>>>think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
>>>>readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
>>>>sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
>>>>good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
>>>>very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the  cogs of
>>>>the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
>>>>purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
>>>>job? Reputation and Feeback.
>>>>
>>>>Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
>>>>list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
>>>>is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
>>>>thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
>>>>negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
>>>>wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
>>>>encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
>>>>More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
>>>>strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
>>>>strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
>>>>continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
>>>>her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
>>>>ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
>>>>list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
>>>>remove that poster.
>>>>
>>>>In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
>>>>reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
>>>>Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
>>>>The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
>>>>data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in- action:
>>>>look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
>>>>less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
>>>>to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>>********************************************************************
>>>>"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
>>>>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>>
>>><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
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 benboc at lineone.net  Mon Aug 29 21:20:59 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:20:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <200508291811.j7TIBMO00925@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508291811.j7TIBMO00925@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <43137C3B.3040807@lineone.net>

As far as i'm aware, dwarfism is a medical condition, not just a 
variation of height. I think there are at least potential cardiac 
problems, possibly other things too. Dwarfs tend to live shorter lives 
than most people. I think it would be inadvisable to send dwarfs (isn't 
it 'dwarves', or is that just in fantasy stories?) into space. Would 
they be able to hack the training?. I have a feeling that it might not 
be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or whatever they do in those 
centrifuges.

Anyway, i'd doubt that the saving in consumables would offset the cost 
of redesigning just about everything on a spacecraft to suit smaller people.

Chopping the astronauts' legs off seems a better solution. Legs are 
pretty useless in free fall. You could stitch them back on again when 
they land. Maybe.

ben


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Aug 29 22:53:10 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:53:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <380-220058129195753924@M2W103.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220058129195753924@M2W103.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <A46853D7-228E-4B94-8B66-F6656B024C49@mac.com>

It was more than slow as Saturday's ping did not go through.  This  
was mentioned in the mail I sent you.  If by slowness you mean simply  
no one attempting to post then this was obviously not the case.  If  
by slowness you mean the list taking over a day to post messages then  
this is called the list being down not simply a slow mail day.   
Examination of mail headers shows that many messages were sent that  
did not get through until much later.  I  think it is very  
unacceptable for extropians of all people to have a mailing list that  
sometimes just isn't there.  If it is a matter of money then I would  
be happy to contribute.

- s

On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:57 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

> Hi s. -
>
> I immediately contacted David. Then I got another message stating  
> that the
> list was just slow on Saturday so I did not pursue it further.
>
> By the way, Spike has been out of town on vaction this past week.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:06:58 -0700
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
>
>
> Something appears to have been wrong with the list.  I sent a note to
> Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday.  I got no reply.  This
> isn't the first time.
>
> - s
>
> On Aug 28, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>
>> Samantha wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Awfully quiet for a Saturday.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was. But now the regular crowd's shuffled in :-)
>>
>> Brett Paatsch
>> (sometime Billy Joel fan)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>



From riel at surriel.com  Mon Aug 29 23:33:33 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <43137C3B.3040807@lineone.net>
References: <200508291811.j7TIBMO00925@tick.javien.com>
	<43137C3B.3040807@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508291933140.29518@imladris.surriel.com>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, ben wrote:

> Chopping the astronauts' legs off seems a better solution. Legs are 
> pretty useless in free fall. You could stitch them back on again when 
> they land. Maybe.

Yeah, but would you hire anyone who applies for such a job ? ;)

-- 
"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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Aug 29 23:35:57 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:35:57 -0400
Subject: Fwd: [extropy-chat] China/Iran developing mutual defense deal.
References: <0500FD81-78A7-4239-99D1-D5A262E9D492@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <1CF88D5E-8D60-4CB6-ADCE-2014301FBD46@bonfireproductions.com>



Eugen made a great point to me that some in this thread may be  
without Mike's email, so here it is:

>
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The US is actually legally obligated under international treaty to
>> police Taiwan-PRC relations. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952,
>> brokered between the Communists, Nationalists, by the US, puts a
>> burden
>> on the US to ensure a peaceful reconciliation between Taiwan and the
>> mainland. The US also has the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty binding it
>> to
>> Taiwans defense. Technically, the US, in a legal sense, has occupied
>> Taiwan, on paper, since the 50's, and under the peace treaty, it is
>> occupier and guarrantor of the defense of the people of Taiwan. It is
>> an unincorporated but unannexed territory of the US. (see:
>> http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ustaiwan/intro.htm )
>>
>
> Furthermore, since the US severed official diplomatic relations with
> the Republic of China government in the 1970's (as would be fitting,
> the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with its territories and
> protectorates), the Congress set defense of Taiwan into US law in the
> Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (see:
> http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra01.htm ). So it is a matter of law,
> multiple ways, that the President and Congress are legally  
> obligated to
> defend Taiwan against Chinese agression.
>
> Rep. Tancredo of CO wants to pass a bill to rescind the TRA and  
> declare
> recognise the Taiwanese govt as a soveriegn nation. While it seems on
> its face to be an act of agression against China by the US to do  
> so, it
> actually is the reverse, because it will negate US obligations to
> defend Taiwan and hang them out to dry.
>
> 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
>






>
>> If you have a look at Mike Lorrey's  great points on August 18,  
>> 2005 2:02:16 PM EDT, in the Subject :  [extropy-chat] [Politics]  
>> Real Politick, then play this game 5 turns forward, I think you  
>> have to really ask yourself the motivations of China.
>>
>> What you are saying is true, but not to the exclusion of the  
>> possibility I mention, imho - The more study of what is going on  
>> the more the situations resemble one another. And if Iran  
>> continues to sell decade-spanning blocks of pro-rated resources to  
>> single entities, then OPEC becomes moot. As China's interest i.e.  
>> investment grows, and its obligations via policy do the same, the  
>> situation becomes a portrait of Taiwan. The postures on both sides  
>> are increasingly similar each month. Unless you think that China  
>> giving financial support and military protection to Iran will  
>> spell the end of China's nuclear program?
>>
>>
>> Not sure if this belongs on 'the other' extropy politics (?) list.
>>
>>
>> ]3
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well it is easy to see that this is quid-pro-quo over Taiwan,  
>>>> given the
>>>> plans of the US.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that.  The Chinese are strengthening economic and
>>> political ties everywhere they can, as are many of the
>>> other large countries that were excluded from the US-EU
>>> trading axis in the past.
>>>
>>> China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
>>> Iran, several African countries and a number of Asian
>>> countries are all negotiating better trade terms with
>>> each other and strengthening political ties.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Next up: Opec dissolves.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect the focus is more on WTO than OPEC.  In the
>>> past the WTO has been used to set unfair trade terms
>>> on less powerful countries, using divide and conquer
>>> strategies.
>>>
>>> Today the more influential of the disadvantaged countries
>>> are now negotiating directly with each other, outside of
>>> WTO meetings, and deciding on methods to reduce the
>>> influence of the US and EU on their international trade.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> "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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20050829/79ac9c0d/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 00:13:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508291933140.29518@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20050830001312.73145.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, ben wrote:
> 
> > Chopping the astronauts' legs off seems a better solution. Legs are
> 
> > pretty useless in free fall. You could stitch them back on again
> when 
> > they land. Maybe.
> 
> Yeah, but would you hire anyone who applies for such a job ? ;)

Who says you need to put it in the help wanted ad? "We don't want an
arm and a leg of commitment and effort, just two legs."

better yet, find legless people and train them for the job.

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 ken at javien.com  Tue Aug 30 00:53:25 2005
From: ken at javien.com (Ken Kittlitz)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:25 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Foresight Exchange Code Base Now Open Source
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050829185314.056e5260@127.0.0.1>

The Foresight Exchange <http://www.ideosphere.com>, a prediction market 
inspired by Robin Hanson's writings on Idea Futures, has been mentioned on 
this list quite often over the years. I'm pleased to announce that the code 
that powers the exchange is now open source, and can be downloaded from: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ideafutures

Press release: http://www.foresighttechnologies.com/
---
Ken Kittlitz          http://www.javien.com



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 02:15:54 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:45:54 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F34E848341022BE56F09E52B4AF0@phx.gbl>
References: <074EF7FD-2832-4FB0-825E-08AD34D7D428@mac.com>
	<BAY103-F34E848341022BE56F09E52B4AF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050829191572c61665@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, that's so defeatist! I think that a simple karma system could be
implemented pretty merrily on top of a listserv. I'm thinking now (I
think Eugen might have suggested this) urls in the email at the bottom
for "Thumbs up", "Thumbs down", so that clicking the link would bring
up a web browser saying "thanks your vote has been recorded" - that
simple. Maybe you put a unique id on each email (does that already
exist somewhere accessible in existing listserv software?), the links
give just include that id as a parameter. Thus the mechanism works in
individual and digest mode correctly.

Plus, you can still have the concept of "exi-crap" and "exi-great"
addresses to wholesale forward emails to, so that things are
automatable. They'd count as clicking "Thumbs up" or "Thumbs down".

You might then include some metrics in the posts themselves, although
they are necessarily historical (ie: they rate the postor, not the
post). You could always have a website with more detailed information
available (which can sit and show its info to the "0 users currently
logged in".

-- 
Emlyn

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


On 30/08/05, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the suggestions and read them and they seem pretty valid. But the
> schemes I saw are non-intuitive and the "web forum" is a pretty well
> established artifact. There's no need to try to shove the whole forum
> concept into a listserv. If you want listserv stick with email. If you want
> karma and buddies and hard topics, etc switch to a forum.
> 
> BAL
> 
> >From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
> >Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:08:20 -0700
> >
> >No you don't.  Look at my email forwarding with decorations idea as  well
> >as the ideas of others already expressed in this thread.
> >
> >On Aug 28, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
> >
> >>In order to create a reputation based list, you really need to set  up a
> >>forum site a la slashdot/kur5hin/plastic/etc. This gives you
> >>karma/whuffie/whatever, filtering and all the stuff you're talking  about.
> >>Of course then you lose the simplicity of email.
> >>
> >>BAL
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
> >>>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >>>CC: board at extropy.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
> >>>Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:43:40 -0500
> >>>
> >>>I'd like to implement a reputation system, or some other  intelligent
> >>>system to value posters and threads and encourage  optimum discussions
> >>>and debates.  And I think that Board should  discuss this with the list
> >>>moderators.
> >>>
> >>>Natasha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>(sending it a second time, I haven't seen it appear yet)
> >>>>
> >>>>Emlyn:
> >>>>
> >>>>>What you could possibly do is set up an email address - say
> >>>>>extropy-crap at lists.extropy.org. People could forward email they
> >>>>>disliked to that address, as a vote against it. Instead of  killfiling
> >>>>>someone, you could forward their entire output to that address,  as a
> >>>>>permanent mark of disdain!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I guess you'd also want an extropy-great at lists.extropy.org,  to send
> >>>>>excellent posts and favoured postors to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear Emlyn,
> >>>>
> >>>>I think that this is a great idea. I would use it.  And I don't
> >>>>think that this strategy is difficult for the average user either,
> >>>>because it would just take a few seconds to 'express yourself'. I
> >>>>think that the posters who poison the list should know that the
> >>>>readers don't like their words. I think that large feedback is
> >>>>sorely needed here, in order to improve list quality and encourage
> >>>>good people to return, and I think that assigning reputation is a
> >>>>very good first step. Reputation, in free places, greases the  cogs of
> >>>>the human interchange machinery. How else can buyers evaluate a
> >>>>purchase, and how else can sellers know when they are doing a good
> >>>>job? Reputation and Feeback.
> >>>>
> >>>>Presently, if you are a 'seller' of a message on the extropy-chat
> >>>>list, you'll put your message out there. Feedback for messages here
> >>>>is occasionally a conversational thread, but more often, a flaming
> >>>>thread. Flaming threads require alot more time than assigning 0 or
> >>>>negative to the reputation of the seller, and many opt-out of
> >>>>wanting to spend that time. A simple reputation assignment
> >>>>encourages more to express their opinion of that person's words.
> >>>>More opinions gives more information to the seller that their
> >>>>strategy is effective or not. If the seller discovers that their
> >>>>strategy for 'selling their message' is not effective, then s/he can
> >>>>continue, but it should be clear to her/him that s/he is wasting
> >>>>her/his time on the list (and that person is being willfully
> >>>>ignorant). And/or the list owners (Extropy _is_ the owner of the
> >>>>list), have a very good reason, based on reliable information, to
> >>>>remove that poster.
> >>>>
> >>>>In the early 1990s days of the extropians list, we discussed
> >>>>reputation systems often (in fact Robin's sig line was "Stake Your
> >>>>Reputation"). Think carefully about how important are reputations.
> >>>>The best decisions one makes for one's life in some way uses this
> >>>>data, does it not? For the simplest example of reputations-in- action:
> >>>>look to Ebay: would you want to buy a product from someone who had
> >>>>less than a 98% customer satisfaction? The feedback from Ebay users
> >>>>to push the number so high is astounding when you think about it.
> >>>>
> >>>>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/
> >>>>********************************************************************
> >>>>"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."
> >>>>  ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>extropy-chat mailing list
> >>>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>><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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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 megao at sasktel.net  Tue Aug 30 03:12:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:12:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830001312.73145.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050830001312.73145.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4313CE9C.8010005@sasktel.net>

Better yet scout out astronauts from the current youth of vietnam, 
cambodia and china.
Several generations of hardship have naturally selected I'd bet for 
small stature and effecient metabolism.
The worse the living conditions the more natural selection has happened, 
unlike in the developed world where
natural selection has been nearly eliminated for the last 100 years.

Lets wait for the technology to allow the regrowth of lost limbs before 
hacking off the stuff that still works.
However after the technology is there perhaps legs can be cut off and 
the stumps reprogrammed to grow
whatever extremities are required... to order; and the lost limbs can be 
cryopreserved to provide tissues
from which to re-engineer these new extremities.


Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, ben wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Chopping the astronauts' legs off seems a better solution. Legs are
>>>      
>>>
>>>pretty useless in free fall. You could stitch them back on again
>>>      
>>>
>>when 
>>    
>>
>>>they land. Maybe.
>>>



From amara at amara.com  Tue Aug 30 05:17:29 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:17:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
Message-ID: <p06210201bf399a9d04c4@[23.237.66.13]>


I sent a message to David McFadzean my Sunday morning (US' Saturday night)
that the list was down (obviously), so some of us were trying to notify.
Maybe he away, but perhaps there can be backup folks to contact when
this happens. A group that advocates technology needs to put on a face
that their own technology works, I think.

(I would be interested to know what happened too)

Amara


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 05:50:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf399a9d04c4@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050830055031.59559.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> 
> I sent a message to David McFadzean my Sunday
> morning (US' Saturday night)
> that the list was down (obviously), so some of us
> were trying to notify.
> Maybe he away, but perhaps there can be backup folks
> to contact when
> this happens. A group that advocates technology
> needs to put on a face
> that their own technology works, I think.
> 
> (I would be interested to know what happened too)
> 

Care to wager it was a routine maintenance/upgrade
reboot? It was only one day after all, and servers
need some love too. ;)

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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Aug 30 05:52:30 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf399a9d04c4@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050830055230.62967.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> A group that advocates technology needs to put on a
> face
> that their own technology works, I think.

This brings up one of the less easily countered common type of
objections I keep hearing from Luddites: "Even assuming this tech
you're advocating does great things when it works, what do we do when
we rely on tech and it fails?"

In practice, this is rarely an issue for truly critical systems.
Computers responsible for critical public safety are usually (though
not always) far better protected than Hollywood would have people
believe.  Cars can break down, but there's an established procedure for
what to do when that happens, and an established safety net for
affected drivers.  Cell phones drop out of range all the time without
causing heart attacks (except for certain individuals who'd be in need
of stress management therapy anyway).  And our food system is robust
enough that even the slightest outbreak of poisoning or significant
shortage is a major news item (which, ironically, is why we hear about
them).

In theory, though...safety systems can be one of the last bits
developed, for any new technology.  What do we do when, not if, GMO
crops cross-fertilize normal crops?  (Answer: the exact same thing we
do when different varieties of "ordinary" crops cross-fertilize.
Indeed, this was one pre-modern-era method of creating GMOs, so even
introducing novel types of genes seems unlikely to cause harm.)  What
do we do if some computer virus manages to infect and wreck all of a
city's 3D plotters and other nanotech manufacturing equipment, bringing
its manufacturing base to a halt?  (Answer: import from other cities,
and/or fall back to the old ways if necessary until replacement systems
can be imported.  And fire the guy who thought it was a good idea to
remotely control these systems without some minimal on-site
verification, thus giving an excuse to connect these systems to the
Internet without protection in the first place.)  What do we do if we
create a friendly (or even Friendly) AI, entrust our economic systems
to it as it becomes (apparently) more intelligent than we can
comprehend, then simply stops?  (Answer: never trust a single point of
failure, even a super-bright post-Singularity AI.  Any AI intelligent
enough to run the world, which actually wanted to do so for the good of
humanity, would realize this possibility and create nominally competing
backups.)

Moreover, in practice, a lot of new tech isn't that reliable - then
again, if it was, it'd likely already be used by the critical systems.
For instance, neural networks and genetic algorithms can produce code
that kind of favors a certain condition...but change the conditions
significantly (with unexpected parameters that are always there in real
life), and you have to retrain them.  Require 99.999% reliability, and
the training takes a very long time - each time.  Not to mention that
they tend to ferret out unstated assumptions about how things should or
should not be done, thus requiring them to become stated (after
discovery), which then requires retraining (though usually not entirely
from scratch).

More mundanely, power fails.  Communications get interrupted and/or
garbled.  User errors happen.  And so forth.  Solve any one of those
problems, and the economic opportunities would be extreme - even
without consideration of how they could contribute to transhumanistic
ends.  These things are perceived, usually incorrectly, to have no
parallel in the "old" ways...but even if the perception is incorrect, I
wonder - might there be a way to make some technology 100% reliable?


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Aug 30 06:17:00 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:17:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <20050830055031.59559.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050830055031.59559.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9B478471-8027-45D5-A4BD-5939D7AFAA10@mac.com>

It is not hard to have 24/7 email list.  Certainly no maintenance  
that is standard last a day.  Out of band planned maintenance should  
only happen on a system with a warning beforehand.  An unplanned  
outage, especially of such long  of such long duration, calls for  
some examination.   The last time this happened the list was MIA for  
days.  That wasn't that long ago.  So while I hugely appreciate that  
the list has been maintained for free by David McFadzean and give him  
major kudos,  I think we should figure out how we can make the list  
more dependable.

- samantha

On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:50 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I sent a message to David McFadzean my Sunday
>> morning (US' Saturday night)
>> that the list was down (obviously), so some of us
>> were trying to notify.
>> Maybe he away, but perhaps there can be backup folks
>> to contact when
>> this happens. A group that advocates technology
>> needs to put on a face
>> that their own technology works, I think.
>>
>> (I would be interested to know what happened too)
>>
>>
>
> Care to wager it was a routine maintenance/upgrade
> reboot? It was only one day after all, and servers
> need some love too. ;)
>
> 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 amara at amara.com  Tue Aug 30 06:21:30 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:21:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech
Message-ID: <p06210200bf39aa63b745@[23.237.66.13]>

Adrian:
>Answer: never trust a single point of failure

If I talk specifically of this list -

Right, so at least build in some redundancy. And if the system is
undergoing maintenance, then announce it. The list was down for ~1.5
days on a weekend. No word that maintenance was scheduled, and I
knew of only one person that handles the list. This can be improved.
To 100% reliability? No, nothing is 100% reliable (just like nothing
is 100% safe). But one can make it better.

Amara


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Aug 30 07:13:14 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:13:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <43137C3B.3040807@lineone.net>
References: <200508291811.j7TIBMO00925@tick.javien.com>
	<43137C3B.3040807@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20050830071314.GI2259@leitl.org>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:20:59PM +0100, ben wrote:
> As far as i'm aware, dwarfism is a medical condition, not just a 
> variation of height. I think there are at least potential cardiac 
> problems, possibly other things too. Dwarfs tend to live shorter lives 
> than most people. I think it would be inadvisable to send dwarfs (isn't 
> it 'dwarves', or is that just in fantasy stories?) into space. Would 
> they be able to hack the training?. I have a feeling that it might not 
> be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or whatever they do in those 
> centrifuges.

Lucia Zarate was the smallest woman ever recorded. At her birth in 1864, she weighed only eight ounces and was seven inches long. By adulthood she was less than twenty inches tall and weighed less than five pounds. She was described as bright and animated. She first came to the US at twelve years old and was one of the highest-paid dwarves of all time. Lucia died of exposure when the train she was on became stalled in the Rocky Mountains during a heavy snowstorm. 

http://www.google.com/search?hs=kAK&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=lucia+zarate&btnG=Search

http://www.primordialdwarfism.com/fulltext-1.pdf

It would be truly remarkable if she had a normal IQ in such
a small package, though.

-- 
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/20050830/c870222a/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 07:29:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830071314.GI2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050830072951.62259.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:20:59PM +0100, ben wrote:
> > As far as i'm aware, dwarfism is a medical condition, not just a 
> > variation of height. I think there are at least potential cardiac 
> > problems, possibly other things too. Dwarfs tend to live shorter
> lives 
> > than most people. I think it would be inadvisable to send dwarfs
> (isn't 
> > it 'dwarves', or is that just in fantasy stories?) into space.
> Would 
> > they be able to hack the training?. I have a feeling that it might
> not 
> > be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or whatever they do in
> those 
> > centrifuges.
> 
> Lucia Zarate was the smallest woman ever recorded. At her birth in
> 1864, she weighed only eight ounces and was seven inches long. By
> adulthood she was less than twenty inches tall and weighed less than
> five pounds. She was described as bright and animated. She first came
> to the US at twelve years old and was one of the highest-paid dwarves
> of all time. Lucia died of exposure when the train she was on became
> stalled in the Rocky Mountains during a heavy snowstorm. 
> 
>
http://www.google.com/search?hs=kAK&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=lucia+zarate&btnG=Search
> 
> http://www.primordialdwarfism.com/fulltext-1.pdf
> 
> It would be truly remarkable if she had a normal IQ in such
> a small package, though.

True, but such really isn't necessary for modern spacecraft.
Particularly wrt russian designs, spacecraft treat crew primarily as
passengers with a large degree of automation.

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 eugen at leitl.org  Tue Aug 30 09:08:59 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:08:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxygenating the flame in threads
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050829191572c61665@mail.gmail.com>
References: <074EF7FD-2832-4FB0-825E-08AD34D7D428@mac.com>
	<BAY103-F34E848341022BE56F09E52B4AF0@phx.gbl>
	<710b78fc050829191572c61665@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050830090859.GR2259@leitl.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 11:45:54AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:

> Oh, that's so defeatist! I think that a simple karma system could be
> implemented pretty merrily on top of a listserv. I'm thinking now (I
> think Eugen might have suggested this) urls in the email at the bottom
> for "Thumbs up", "Thumbs down", so that clicking the link would bring

It is very easy. 

But someone's got to do it. Someone who knows the Mailman code base,
and preferrably someone who can get the patch commited to the main tree. 

Online people can't be arsed, usually.

> up a web browser saying "thanks your vote has been recorded" - that
> simple. Maybe you put a unique id on each email (does that already

SHA-1 hash on mail body + headers + salt. Just a random UID would be enough actually. 
UID expiration done with a FIFO, automatic purging once voted, a (sparse, if
hosting many large lists and tight on memory) array for mana accounting 
(increment/decrement for yea/nay in the simplest case).  

> exist somewhere accessible in existing listserv software?), the links
> give just include that id as a parameter. Thus the mechanism works in
> individual and digest mode correctly.

Yep.
 
-- 
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/20050830/3bc69b4d/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Aug 30 10:32:48 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:32:48 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech
In-Reply-To: <20050830055230.62967.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <p06210201bf399a9d04c4@[23.237.66.13]>
	<20050830055230.62967.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830103248.GX2259@leitl.org>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:52:30PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> --- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> > A group that advocates technology needs to put on a
> > face
> > that their own technology works, I think.

High-Availability is something with a hefty price tag currently.
Not a problem for a business, but ExI is not such a business.
We're operating on David's hospitality, on an aged hardware badly
needing retiring, and his gracious free administration. Major kudos
to David for that. 

I've promised a HA system to migrate ExI services to, but unfortunately
things are delayed on my end. The technology is complicated, setup
is expensive, and I don't have a properly configured, idling spare 
as a stopgap, even in a non-HA configuration. I'm sorry for this, but 
some external things changed. 

So we will have to infringe on David's hospitality for a brief while
longer, unless we have a total hardware failure, or somebody else steps
with a hardware/monetary donation to rectify the situation.  
 
> This brings up one of the less easily countered common type of
> objections I keep hearing from Luddites: "Even assuming this tech
> you're advocating does great things when it works, what do we do when
> we rely on tech and it fails?"

Which technology? Some of our technology is more reliable than others.
Some are more mission critical than others. Reliability is a mature
engineering discipline, even for brittle IT systems. Procedures to
select the best available technology are frequently defective, though.

That overall failure is not technology's fault, it's a human failure. 
 
> In practice, this is rarely an issue for truly critical systems.
> Computers responsible for critical public safety are usually (though
> not always) far better protected than Hollywood would have people

What is the basis for this statement? If you read RISKS, the average
situation is not so very good.

> believe.  Cars can break down, but there's an established procedure for
> what to do when that happens, and an established safety net for
> affected drivers.  Cell phones drop out of range all the time without

Car accidents and pollution are a major source of mortality. We're just
got used to what is essentially an unacceptable situation. 

> causing heart attacks (except for certain individuals who'd be in need
> of stress management therapy anyway).  And our food system is robust
> enough that even the slightest outbreak of poisoning or significant
> shortage is a major news item (which, ironically, is why we hear about
> them).

The food infrastructure is quite vulnerable to an attack. The reason
this hasn't happened is not becaused it's intrinsically safe.
We've seen some quite spectacular failures in the recent years, actually,
even without an attack. 
 
> In theory, though...safety systems can be one of the last bits
> developed, for any new technology.  What do we do when, not if, GMO
> crops cross-fertilize normal crops?  (Answer: the exact same thing we

There are events which are irreversible with current level of technology.
If there's an organism or a gene at large in the global ecosystem,
there's no way to recall it save of finding an operating upon every 
single instance of it.

We obviously don't have such technology yet. Such a powerful
technology would have obviously its own risks as well. 

> do when different varieties of "ordinary" crops cross-fertilize.
> Indeed, this was one pre-modern-era method of creating GMOs, so even
> introducing novel types of genes seems unlikely to cause harm.)  What

I am unconvinced by this breezy assertion. I would agree that catastrophic
events are rare (we haven't had any yet), but our abilities to
manipulate and engineer biology are quite primitive, and there are some
safety precautions in place.

> do we do if some computer virus manages to infect and wreck all of a
> city's 3D plotters and other nanotech manufacturing equipment, bringing
> its manufacturing base to a halt?  (Answer: import from other cities,

Answer: do not build systems which are susceptible to such an attack.
It's a good recipe to become a stratum in the fossil record.  

> and/or fall back to the old ways if necessary until replacement systems
> can be imported.  And fire the guy who thought it was a good idea to
> remotely control these systems without some minimal on-site
> verification, thus giving an excuse to connect these systems to the
> Internet without protection in the first place.)  What do we do if we

Firing the guy is perhaps a bit late. He's dead, and so are a few millions,
or a few billions, if we have been particularly foolish. Nothing is
as ridiculous as some guy on TV saying "I'll be personally responsible
in case of a failure". Haha, soo funny. So he's the guy who blew up
the Bhopal factory. What do we do now?  

> create a friendly (or even Friendly) AI, entrust our economic systems
> to it as it becomes (apparently) more intelligent than we can
> comprehend, then simply stops?  (Answer: never trust a single point of

Optimists are lousy failure modelers. You need to sample all failure
modes exhaustively, including all worst cases. 

> failure, even a super-bright post-Singularity AI.  Any AI intelligent
> enough to run the world, which actually wanted to do so for the good of
> humanity, would realize this possibility and create nominally competing
> backups.)

Superintelligence is a great recipe for human primate extinction. 
 
> Moreover, in practice, a lot of new tech isn't that reliable - then
> again, if it was, it'd likely already be used by the critical systems.
> For instance, neural networks and genetic algorithms can produce code
> that kind of favors a certain condition...but change the conditions

Evolutionary and neuronal systems are typically one thing: gracefully
failing/degrading. No single point of failure too, by evolutionary design.  

> significantly (with unexpected parameters that are always there in real
> life), and you have to retrain them.  Require 99.999% reliability, and
> the training takes a very long time - each time.  Not to mention that

Aargh. You're confusing reliability and determinism. It's probably
not a good thing to do numerics or cryptography with evolved systems.
They really kick ass as control paradigm though.

> they tend to ferret out unstated assumptions about how things should or
> should not be done, thus requiring them to become stated (after
> discovery), which then requires retraining (though usually not entirely
> from scratch).
> 
> More mundanely, power fails.  Communications get interrupted and/or

Power failure is a human design failure. Communication don't get interrupted,
if you installed redundant routes with failover, and don't get garbled, 
because the communication protocol deals with that. Bugs in redundancy
failover and quorum sensing are also designer's fault. Choosing an
underengineered system is head honcho's is financier's fault. 

If it doesn't work, it's a human failure. Failure to factor in
human failure is a human failure, too.   

> garbled.  User errors happen.  And so forth.  Solve any one of those
> problems, and the economic opportunities would be extreme - even
> without consideration of how they could contribute to transhumanistic
> ends.  These things are perceived, usually incorrectly, to have no
> parallel in the "old" ways...but even if the perception is incorrect, I
> wonder - might there be a way to make some technology 100% reliable?

Nothing ever is 100%. But 99.999% is a pretty good approximation.
Which specific technology and failure modes do you have in mind?

-- 
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/20050830/3679ad50/attachment.bin>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 11:03:36 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech
In-Reply-To: <20050830055230.62967.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830110336.9263.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

  These things are perceived, usually
> incorrectly, to have no
> parallel in the "old" ways...but even if the
> perception is incorrect, I
> wonder - might there be a way to make some
> technology 100% reliable?

No Adrian, I believe that statistical mechanics
forbids 100% reliability. If perfection were possible
there would be no guassian curve, statistics, or error
propagation. The universe seems to require some things
be random or indeterminate depending on whether you
believe there is such a thing as randomness or if you
believe that what masquerades as randomness is
ignorance of the underlying order.

In either case, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and
the importance of initial conditions in chaos theory
conspire to thwart our certainty about anything. Of
course you are free to BELIEVE that there are things
out there that have a probability of 0 or 1, but then
that's faith. Which isn't necessarily bad, whether it
be faith in the underlying order to the universe or
that a lightbulb won't burn out when you switch it on.
Everybody invests a little faith in their lights which
is why they are so disappointed when they don't come
on. Most of the time I board an airplane, I have faith
it won't for whatever reason crash. Otherwise I could
not board it. But I KNOW that there is a definite
finite probability that it might crash just like
switching on a lightbulb can sometimes fail.
Technology and physiology both eventually fail.
Vigilance, fastidiousness, and redundancy are the only
solutions to entropy. And no matter how well one lays
ones plans, foolproofs ones technology, hones ones
measurements, and tightens ones estimates, the
universe always gets the final say. But in the end I
am comfortable with that because the universe usually
rules in my favor.
       

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 30 11:37:49 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830072951.62259.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830113749.81023.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Would 
> > > they be able to hack the training?. I have a
> feeling that it might
> > not 
> > > be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or
> whatever they do in
> > those 
> > > centrifuges.

I disagree with the dwarf idea. I mean I would not
stop a dwarf that wanted to be an astronaut, but I
wouldn't engineer them for space travel. There are
admittedly some advantages to being small in space,
there are lots of disadvantages as well. Mass has
usefulness.

Unless the mass of crew is a significant issue for
feul economy purposes, in which case you are probably
better off sending unmanned probes until you get a
better propulsion system, then I think normal sized
astronauts or even large ones would be more "stable"
at 0g. 

If one is going to engineer astronauts, I say give
them more DNA repair enzymes for radiation resistance,
an anaerobic alternative glycolysis pathway like
yeast, and the wood chuck's hibernation or the
hummingbird's torpor. That way they would only consume
life-support at significant levels when they were
awake and working. But the best solution is to pack a
mini-ecosystem in the spaceship so the waste gets
recycled during "naps" and there are always supplies
when the astronauts wake up. During a long
interstellar trip, I think sleeping giants would be
more efficient than bored dwarves.  
 

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  Tue Aug 30 12:22:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Soyuz and the seven dwarves
In-Reply-To: <20050830113749.81023.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830122209.85251.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>

[Crackling noises.]

Bianco Neve, this is Houston Control over...

[More crackling noises and indistinct shouting.]

Bianco Neve, you have veered off trajectory heading
zero-one-one-niner, do you read me over?

[More shouting and other strange noises.]

[yawn...] Roger that Houston Control this is
Lieutenant Sleepy over.

Bianco Neve, what is your mission status? Report over.

Well, Houston Control, we had a situation here...
Dopey accidently hit the port thrusters while Happy
was EVA. 

Roger that Bianco Neve, why haven't you corrected
course over?

Well Houston Control, Grumpy lost his temper and threw
a jar of Tang at Dopey but it missed shattered on the
instrument panel and now there is orange powder
everywhere. To make matters worse it set off Sneezy's
allergies and now he is richochetting off of the
interior hull and Doc is trying to administer some
cortisone. [sigh} I am supposed to be offshift right
now, Houston Control, please advise over . . .  

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 spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug 30 14:16:36 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:16:36 -0700
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat]
	afuturistprediction
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050825031319b96e27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508301418.j7UEImO05181@tick.javien.com>

> 
> 'bed quality poster' ????!!!!   ^_^
> 
> Is this a compliment or an insult?
> 
> There are rumors about Damien, of course. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. ;)
> 
> Where's Spike, when you need a good joke?
> 
> BillK


I was away on vacation, motorcycles and backpacking (wooohooo,
what a combination!) at Mt. Rainier.  I had an insight about
trees, but I am not sure it has any extropian significance.

I might post about it anyway.  {8^D

spike






From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 14:21:19 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:21:19 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Walking on the Moon 3D
Message-ID: <470a3c520508300721780bf05f@mail.gmail.com>

Wired <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/hanks.html>: Tom Hanks' 
latest space odyssey, Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D, will 
be released by Imax in September. Hanks, who starred in the 1995 
white-knuckle feature Apollo 13 and produced and narrated HBO's acclaimed 
miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, is coproducer and narrator of this 
3-D re-creation of six lunar landings. "This is a movie about the world's 
greatest road trip," he told the crew. "We're going to put people up there 
with them."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050830/3d433410/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug 30 14:21:00 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:21:00 -0700
Subject: Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re:
	[extropy-chat]afuturistprediction
In-Reply-To: <065701c5a95e$ab21dbb0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <200508301423.j7UEN6O05922@tick.javien.com>

> >
> > Where's Spike, when you need a good joke?
> 
> Or, a judicious moderator! Multi-talented is Spike.
> 
> Brett Paatsch

You are too kind Brett.  I am waaay behind on posts, 
ten days.   I have been away since a week
ago last Friday.  I figure it will take me a
day or two to get caught up.  In the mean time
do judiciously moderate yourselves.  I scanned
quickly thru the usual suspects last night,
and it looks like they were not outta line.  If
they keep behaving thus, they may fall off the
usual suspects list and I will need to derive
a new watch list.  {8^D

spike







From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Aug 30 15:03:43 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:03:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long durationspaceflight?
References: <20050830113749.81023.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006201c5ad74$03c438d0$0100a8c0@kevin>



> I disagree with the dwarf idea. I mean I would not
> stop a dwarf that wanted to be an astronaut, but I
> wouldn't engineer them for space travel. There are
> admittedly some advantages to being small in space,
> there are lots of disadvantages as well. Mass has
> usefulness.
>
I wasn;t really referring to "engineering" dwarfs. I was thinking they would
already be what we need to be. SImply selecting the most healthy of them all
should do the trick. What I am wanting to know is whether there is a real
reduction in launch weight by reducing the size of the occupants. Do they
need less space/air/water/food? Does a half-size human consume half as much,
or is that huge brain of ours consuming the majority of the life support?

I am also talking short term. Sure it would be nice to engineer a fully
recycling closed system but launching such a thing right now isn't an
option. The money it would take to develop it and make sure it was capable
of keeping the crew alive without malfunctioning is just too much. If one
thing in the loop went wrong during the duration of the spaceflight, the
whole crew would end up dead.

My thought is that if you are building a spaceship for a Mars mission and
you could reduce the 2 yr living space/food/water/Oxygen weight by even a
third, you would have substantial savings in launch weight and overall cost.
If you had smaller people with smaller needs, you could build smaller ships
that require less fuel. Less fuel also means less weight and even lowers the
fuel requirements further.




From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Aug 30 15:19:52 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:19:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Fully fledged quantum computation is within
	sight
Message-ID: <43147918.7050106@jefallbright.net>

Forward of interest to this list, from another list.
- Jef

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Fully fledged quantum computation is within sight
Date: 	Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:55:53 +0100
From: 	David Deutsch <david.deutsch at qubit.org>

	

	



I have recently changed my mind about the time scale for achieving 
fully fledged quantum computation. On my blog, I have stuck my neck 
out and suggested that it might be less than a decade away.

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/index.php?blog=20050830143405

Cluster quantum computation is the reason.

-- David Deutsch



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 15:30:01 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:30:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deutsch: Universal Quantum Computers are Only Years
	Away
Message-ID: <470a3c52050830083034ac206c@mail.gmail.com>

On David Deutsch's
blog<http://www.qubit.org/people/david/index.php?path=Weblog>:
For a long time my standard answer to the question 'how long will it be 
before the first universal quantum computer is built?' was 'several decades 
at least'. In fact, I have been saying this for almost exactly two decades ? 
and now I am pleased to report that recent theoretical advances have caused 
me to conclude that we are within sight of that goal. It may well be 
achieved within the next decade. The main discovery that has made the 
difference is cluster quantum
computation<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0508218>,
which is a marvellous new way of structuring quantum computations which 
makes them far, far easier to implement physically.
Abstract of the article on cluster quantum
computation<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0508218>:
We introduce an architecture for robust and scalable quantum computation 
using both stationary qubits (e.g. single photon sources made out of trapped 
atoms, molecules, ions, quantum dots, or defect centers in solids) and 
flying qubits (e.g. photons). Our scheme solves some of the most pressing 
problems in existing non-hybrid proposals, which include the difficulty of 
scaling conventional stationary qubit approaches, and the lack of practical 
means for storing single photons in linear optics setups. We combine 
elements of two previous proposals for distributed quantum computing, namely 
the efficient photon-loss tolerant build up of cluster states by Barrett and 
Kok [Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005)] with the idea of Repeat-Until-Success 
(RUS) quantum computing by Lim et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030505 (2005)]. 
This idea can be used to perform eventually deterministic two-qubit logic 
gates on spatially separated stationary qubits via photon pair measurements. 
Under non-ideal conditions, where photon loss is a possibility, the 
resulting gates can still be used to build graph states for one-way quantum 
computing. In this paper, we describe the RUS method, present possible 
experimental realizations, and analyse the generation of graph states.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050830/4b5cf98f/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Aug 30 15:37:57 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:37:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech
References: <20050830110336.9263.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00b201c5ad78$cbf578b0$0100a8c0@kevin>

100% reliability is possible. It is layers of complexity that create the
indeterminate.
For example, if I were sitting on top of a nuclear weapon when it detonated,
I would die.
If I were traveling at 60,000 kph in space enclosed in nothing but a
spacesuit, and I hit the moon, I will die.
In fact, if I were just ejected in space without a suit I would die.
Death is, as far as we know, 100% reliable in the natural world. That is why
it takes something like mind to create the unnatural state of living
forever. But even then, the universe will surely die unless we, or someone
else intervenes.

The problem is when you rely on the detonation to do the killing. The bomb
may fail to detonate.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech


>
>
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>   These things are perceived, usually
> > incorrectly, to have no
> > parallel in the "old" ways...but even if the
> > perception is incorrect, I
> > wonder - might there be a way to make some
> > technology 100% reliable?
>
> No Adrian, I believe that statistical mechanics
> forbids 100% reliability. If perfection were possible
> there would be no guassian curve, statistics, or error
> propagation. The universe seems to require some things
> be random or indeterminate depending on whether you
> believe there is such a thing as randomness or if you
> believe that what masquerades as randomness is
> ignorance of the underlying order.
>
> In either case, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and
> the importance of initial conditions in chaos theory
> conspire to thwart our certainty about anything. Of
> course you are free to BELIEVE that there are things
> out there that have a probability of 0 or 1, but then
> that's faith. Which isn't necessarily bad, whether it
> be faith in the underlying order to the universe or
> that a lightbulb won't burn out when you switch it on.
> Everybody invests a little faith in their lights which
> is why they are so disappointed when they don't come
> on. Most of the time I board an airplane, I have faith
> it won't for whatever reason crash. Otherwise I could
> not board it. But I KNOW that there is a definite
> finite probability that it might crash just like
> switching on a lightbulb can sometimes fail.
> Technology and physiology both eventually fail.
> Vigilance, fastidiousness, and redundancy are the only
> solutions to entropy. And no matter how well one lays
> ones plans, foolproofs ones technology, hones ones
> measurements, and tightens ones estimates, the
> universe always gets the final say. But in the end I
> am comfortable with that because the universe usually
> rules in my favor.
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug 30 16:01:31 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:01:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] "as above, so below", coff
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050830105925.01dacc60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Wait until the intelligent design nitwits hear about this!

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_whatsthat.html



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Aug 30 17:25:29 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:25:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] "as above, so below", coff
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050830105925.01dacc60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <012c01c5ad87$d1b0c3e0$0100a8c0@kevin>

Is it me, or is that a likeness to the virgin Mary's face?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:01 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] "as above, so below", coff


> Wait until the intelligent design nitwits hear about this!
> 
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_whatsthat.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Aug 30 17:22:01 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830113749.81023.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830172201.68738.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unless the mass of crew is a significant issue for
> feul economy purposes,

IIRC, this is what started the whole topic.

> in which case you are probably
> better off sending unmanned probes until you get a
> better propulsion system,

Agreed.  If you're so close to the limits that the mass of the crew
(and life support systems) plays a major factor in the engineering,
you're too close to the limit for sufficiently reliable (as in, odds of
avoiding fatalities) manned spaceflight, especially if it is intended
to
be long duration.


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 17:28:35 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
In-Reply-To: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>

It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but
here's the link to the full times article.

Also, I noticed this from the article:

"Details of the research will be presented next week
at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
University."

Aubrey de Grey's bailiwick, right?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles





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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 17:28:45 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
In-Reply-To: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20050830172846.46356.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>

It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but
here's the link to the full times article.

Also, I noticed this from the article:

"Details of the research will be presented next week
at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
University."

This Aubrey DeGrey's bailiwick

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles




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


From jpnitya at verizon.net  Tue Aug 30 18:00:22 2005
From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:00:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
In-Reply-To: <20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com>
	<20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050830135713.0502bd98@incoming.verizon.net>

It's not impossible, considering the already proven capacity for 
regeneration of MRL mice. I should point out, however, that MRL mice, 
despite their regenerative capacity, appear to be short-lived (Ellen 
Heber-Katz, pers. comm.). So regenerative potential alone, despite it's 
great impact for human medicine, is not necessarily related to aging. More 
detailed aging studies in these animals are needed, though.

Yes, that's the conference Aubrey is organizing.

Cheers,

Joao

At 01:28 PM 30/8/2005, you wrote:
>It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but
>here's the link to the full times article.
>
>Also, I noticed this from the article:
>
>"Details of the research will be presented next week
>at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
>Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
>University."
>
>Aubrey de Grey's bailiwick, right?
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html
>
>Best, Jeff Davis
>
>    "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
>                            Ray Charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Aug 30 18:02:09 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:02:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
In-Reply-To: <20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com>
	<20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050830125954.01d11e80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:28 AM 8/30/2005 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

>It sounds bogus--too good to be true

Actually, the experts are commenting that this is old news, going back 
seven years. Also that DARPA is interested and/or the principal researcher 
is pitching them hard.

>"Details of the research will be presented next week
>at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
>Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
>University."
>
>Aubrey de Grey's bailiwick, right?

Correct.

Damien Broderick 



From hemm at openlink.com.br  Tue Aug 30 18:09:57 2005
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:09:57 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
References: <20050830172846.46356.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <034c01c5ad8e$07a65630$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

The link is broken.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that


> It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but
> here's the link to the full times article.
> 
> Also, I noticed this from the article:
> 
> "Details of the research will be presented next week
> at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
> Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
> University."
> 
> This Aubrey DeGrey's bailiwick
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html



From jpnitya at verizon.net  Tue Aug 30 18:09:47 2005
From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:09:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Suppression of Aging in Mice by the Hormone Klotho
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050830140932.01db7fa0@receptor.med.harvard.edu>

Suppression of Aging in Mice by the Hormone Klotho
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1112766

It requires a subscription, so I'll copy the abstract:

"A defect in Klotho gene expression in mice accelerates the degeneration of 
multiple age-sensitive traits. Here we show that overexpression of Klotho 
in mice extends life span. Klotho protein functions as a circulating 
hormone that binds to a cell-surface receptor and represses intracellular 
signals of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF1), an 
evolutionarily conserved mechanism for extending life span. Alleviation of 
aging-like phenotypes in Klotho-deficient mice was observed by perturbing 
insulin/IGF1 signaling, suggesting that Klotho-mediated inhibition of 
insulin/IGF1 signaling contributes to its anti-aging properties. Klotho 
protein may function as an anti-aging hormone in mammals."

I've read the paper and while the lifespan extension (20-30%) is inferior 
to other similar experiments, it is a pretty good work--probably the best 
so far this year. Klotho is now the first gene in mammals that accelerates 
aging when disrupted and extends lifespan when overexpressed--though it can 
be argued that growth hormone is similar in that it extends lifespan when 
disrupted and accelerates aging when overexpressed.

Interestingly, the klotho hormone can be produced, which means that I 
wouldn't be surprised to see companies selling the purified hormone like 
they do for GH within a near future. In fact, I wonder what happens if you 
inject klotho in old people. I don't think they would be 
rejuvenated--nothing in the mice suggests that--, but I wouldn't be 
surprised to see some amelioration of the aging phenotype or of specific 
age-related diseases like osteoporosis.

Cheers,

Joao


---

Joao Pedro de Magalhaes, PhD

Harvard Medical School, Dept. of Genetics
77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Room 238
Boston, MA 02115
Telephone: 1-617-432-6512

http://www.senescence.info 



From emerson at singinst.org  Tue Aug 30 18:23:34 2005
From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:23:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near - Advance
	Signed Copies Available
Message-ID: <200508301823.j7UINYO32583@tick.javien.com>

On September 22, 2005, distinguished scientist and bestselling author Ray
Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology will be
published. But you needn't wait. In partnership with Ray Kurzweil, the
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is giving an advance
signed edition to everyone contributing $200 or more to the Institute.

Kurzweil's follow-up to his bestseller The Age of Spiritual Machines is an
in-depth analysis of emerging technologies and the transformation we'll
undertake as the line between human and machine disappears. With a 20-year
track record of accurate predictions, Kurzweil has produced what is certain
to become one of the most important and widely discussed books of 2005.

  More: http://www.singinst.org/kurzweil.html 

WHAT IS THE SINGULARITY INSTITUTE?

The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, SIAI, is a nonprofit
research think tank and public interest institute for the study and
advancement of beneficial artificial intelligence and ethical cognitive
enhancement. Since cognitive ability influences how well difficult problems
can be solved, SIAI aims to further the safe and significant enhancement of
cognition to make contemporary humanitarian challenges generally more
solvable. The Singularity Institute has the additional goal of fostering a
broader discussion and understanding of beneficial artificial intelligence.

For more about SIAI's charitable purpose, see:

  http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html  
  http://www.singinst.org/why-singularity.html 

SUPPORT THE SINGULARITY INSTITUTE

You can make a one time or monthly contribution. With your contribution,
please include the mailing address where we should send The Singularity Is
Near. Monthly donors giving at least $30 each month toward the requested
$200 will receive The Singularity Is Near immediately upon availability.
Your contributions are 100% tax deductible in the United States and Canada.

  To Donate: http://www.singinst.org/kurzweil.html  

Kurzweil will donate $200 for each of the first five donors giving $200.

THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR QUOTES

"Ray Kurzweil's intriguing new book envisions a future in which information
technologies have advanced so far and fast that they enable humanity to
transcend its biological limitations - transforming our lives in ways we
can't yet imagine."
	-Bill Gates

"If you have ever wondered about the nature and impact of the next profound
discontinuities that will fundamentally change the way we live, work, and
perceive our world, read this book. Kurzweil's Singularity is a tour de
force, imagining the unimaginable and eloquently exploring the coming
disruptive events that will alter our fundamental perspectives as
significantly as did electricity and the computer."
	-Dean Kamen, physicist and inventor of the first wearable insulin
pump, HomeChoice portable dialysis machine, IBOT Mobility System, and Segway
Human Transporter; recipient of the National Medal of Technology

"Ray's optimistic book well merits both reading and thoughtful response. For
those like myself whose views differ from Ray's on the balance of promise
and peril, The Singularity Is Near is a clear call for a continuing dialogue
to address the greater concerns arising from these accelerating
possibilities."
	-Bill Joy, cofounder and former chief scientist, Sun Microsystems

AN EXCERPT FROM THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR

Chapter One - The Six Epochs

"I am not sure when I first became aware of the Singularity. I'd have to say
it was a progressive awakening. In the almost half century that I've
immersed myself in computer and related technologies, I've sought to
understand the meaning and purpose of the continual upheaval that I have
witnessed at many levels. Gradually, I've become aware of a transforming
event looming in the first half of the twenty-first century. Just as a black
hole in space dramatically alters the patterns of matter and energy
accelerating toward its event horizon, this impending Singularity in our
future is increasingly transforming every institution and aspect of human
life, from sexuality to spirituality.

"What, then, is the Singularity? It's a future period during which the pace
of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human
life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor
dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give
meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life,
including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our
perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our
future. To truly understand it inherently changes one's view of life in
general and one's own particular life. I regard someone who understands the
Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own
life as a singularitarian.

"I can understand why many observers do not readily embrace the obvious
implications of what I have called the law of accelerating returns (the
inherent acceleration of the rate of evolution, with technological evolution
as a continuation of biological evolution). After all, it took me forty
years to be able to see what was right in front of me, and I still cannot 
say that I am entirely comfortable with all of its consequences."

TECH CENTRAL STATION'S EARLY REVIEW OF THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR 

"The singularity is a future period in which technological progress becomes
so rapid that it radically transforms humankind. To picture the singularity
imagine computers trillions of times smarter than Newton, Einstein and
Edison inventing new technologies while continually enhancing their own
abilities. Ray Kurzweil argues that the Singularity will occur around 2045."

  More: http://techcentralstation.com/081505C.html  

~~
Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | Singularity Institute 
Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 
emerson at singinst.org | http://www.singinst.org




From amara at amara.com  Tue Aug 30 18:56:27 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:56:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
Message-ID: <p06210200bf3a5ada7ade@[23.237.66.13]>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html
>Details of the research will be presented next week at a scientific 
>conference on ageing, Strategies for Engineered Negligible 
>Senescence, at Cambridge University. Ellen Heber-Katz, professor of 
>immunology at the Wistar Institute, an American biomedical research 
>centre, says that the ability of mice at her laboratory to 
>regenerate appears to be controlled by about a dozen genes.
>

There will be ~1000 planetary scientists at Cambridge University next
week.. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/dps2005/  Crowded place!
(I can try to  take a  pause in my own DPS meeting to listen to above)

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 19:32:05 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:32:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050830135713.0502bd98@incoming.verizon.net>
References: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com>
	<20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.1.1.1.2.20050830135713.0502bd98@incoming.verizon.net>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605083012323802c6a0@mail.gmail.com>

I'll try to post my impressions during and after the conference - I am 
looking forward to meeting Fahy, West, Campisi and all the other warriors 
for longevity :)

Rafal

 On 8/30/05, Joao Magalhaes <jpnitya at verizon.net> wrote: 
> 
> It's not impossible, considering the already proven capacity for
> regeneration of MRL mice. I should point out, however, that MRL mice,
> despite their regenerative capacity, appear to be short-lived (Ellen
> Heber-Katz, pers. comm.). So regenerative potential alone, despite it's
> great impact for human medicine, is not necessarily related to aging. More
> detailed aging studies in these animals are needed, though.
> 
> Yes, that's the conference Aubrey is organizing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joao
> 
> At 01:28 PM 30/8/2005, you wrote:
> >It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but
> >here's the link to the full times article.
> >
> >Also, I noticed this from the article:
> >
> >"Details of the research will be presented next week
> >at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for
> >Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
> >University."
> >
> >Aubrey de Grey's bailiwick, right?
> >
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html
> >
> >Best, Jeff Davis
> >
> > "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
> > Ray Charles
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________
> >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
> 



-- 
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Chief Clinical Officer,
Gencia Corporation
706 B Forest St.

Charlottesville, VA 22903

tel: (434) 295-4800

fax: (434) 295-4951



This electronic message transmission contains information from the 
biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or 
privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual 
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission 
in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail 
(fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050830/fc457d16/attachment.html>

From davidmc at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 19:39:50 2005
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:39:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <9B478471-8027-45D5-A4BD-5939D7AFAA10@mac.com>
References: <20050830055031.59559.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<9B478471-8027-45D5-A4BD-5939D7AFAA10@mac.com>
Message-ID: <c934387b0508301239394b2e53@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/30/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> major kudos,  I think we should figure out how we can make the list
> more dependable.

At this point I'm willing to transfer all list config files and
archives to whoever can take over permanently. Please email me
directly and I will summarize the options for the board of directors.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Aug 30 14:27:49 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:27:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] creative problem solving
Message-ID: <200508301429.j7UETuO06724@tick.javien.com>

Who among us does not take aim when we see a fly in

a urinal?  That is how we get such bad karma.

 

spike

 

 























  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050830/d2e26a33/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 63222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050830/d2e26a33/attachment.jpg>

From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 21:42:59 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tiny autonomous aircraft, again.
In-Reply-To: <4310DD83.5050406@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050830214259.1653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> ... BBC article:
> 
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4185648.stm

...> These little "birds" would be a great adjunct to
a
> pervasive system of fixed cameras.

Bingo!

I've mentioned previously my version of the
"ubiquitous surveillance-camera system" where
individual "nodes" consist of an inventory of home
cameras connected wireless/USB to the home PC which is
GPS "stamped". The combined network then blankets a
certain area.  The data and system are privately
owned, with access priviledges by subpoena/warrant or
permission.

This network would be sizable, yet still only provides
fixed and limited coverage.  

Add the little planes and you get rapid response and
broadened dynamic coverage.

The Big Bad Brother issue is still, well, an
issue(which is why I like the idea of a
privately-owned system), but child abductions,
burglaries, and other problems that depend on no one
watching, may be deterred/prevented.

Color me at once both cynical and na?ve.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles
 







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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 30 22:00:47 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830113749.81023.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830220047.58221.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Please get quotes straight, that wasn't me.

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Would 
> > > > they be able to hack the training?. I have a
> > feeling that it might
> > > not 
> > > > be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or
> > whatever they do in
> > > those 
> > > > centrifuges.
> 
> I disagree with the dwarf idea. I mean I would not
> stop a dwarf that wanted to be an astronaut, but I
> wouldn't engineer them for space travel. There are
> admittedly some advantages to being small in space,
> there are lots of disadvantages as well. Mass has
> usefulness.
> 
> Unless the mass of crew is a significant issue for
> feul economy purposes, in which case you are probably
> better off sending unmanned probes until you get a
> better propulsion system, then I think normal sized
> astronauts or even large ones would be more "stable"
> at 0g. 
> 
> If one is going to engineer astronauts, I say give
> them more DNA repair enzymes for radiation resistance,
> an anaerobic alternative glycolysis pathway like
> yeast, and the wood chuck's hibernation or the
> hummingbird's torpor. That way they would only consume
> life-support at significant levels when they were
> awake and working. But the best solution is to pack a
> mini-ecosystem in the spaceship so the waste gets
> recycled during "naps" and there are always supplies
> when the astronauts wake up. During a long
> interstellar trip, I think sleeping giants would be
> more efficient than bored dwarves.  
>  
> 
> 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
> 


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  Tue Aug 30 22:16:43 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
	spaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830172201.68738.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050830221643.92873.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Unless the mass of crew is a significant issue for
> > feul economy purposes,
> 
> IIRC, this is what started the whole topic.
> 
> > in which case you are probably
> > better off sending unmanned probes until you get a
> > better propulsion system,
> 
> Agreed.  If you're so close to the limits that the mass of the crew
> (and life support systems) plays a major factor in the engineering,
> you're too close to the limit for sufficiently reliable (as in, odds
> of avoiding fatalities) manned spaceflight, especially if it is
> intended to be long duration.

The point is that a full size humans legs are about 50% of body mass. 
Body mass determines caloric and other nutritional needs: water,
oxygen, etc. If you have legless astronauts, you can carry twice as
many astronauts, or travel of twice as long a voyage, or get to a given
destination on half as much fuel. In zero G, legs are useless anyways,
so wrt missions that will not involve landing (or that may involve
landing, lighter robotic legs that use far less resources could be
used), there is no point wasting fuel moving useless legs around.

Spike's old argument is that if we are dealing with establishing
permanent presence, colonization, of, say, Mars, what you send are to
send as many legless and fertile female midgets as possible along with
a bunch of frozen embryos, and grow your population in situ once you've
landed. The logic is that the only crucially important part of a
colonization effort is to get as many functioning wombs to the
destination as possible. Biological legs are immaterial to the whole
expedition.

As Spike is an engineer, his solution is the best engineering solution,
ignoring some facts. Firstly colonization is only ONE reason for going.
Secondly not all space enthusiasts are legless fertile female midgets.
Thirdly, sometimes the reasons for going are not the real reasons, such
as the possibility of ice cream being only an excuse for going on a
Sunday drive... Pooh knows.

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  Tue Aug 30 22:29:12 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:29:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] creative problem solving
In-Reply-To: <200508301429.j7UETuO06724@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508301429.j7UETuO06724@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <E6120E50-E5D9-49B4-BF50-C2561ABCC399@mac.com>

EWWWWW!

On Aug 30, 2005, at 7:27 AM, spike wrote:

> Who among us does not take aim when we see a fly in
>
> a urinal?  That is how we get such bad karma.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050830/4f10cb25/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 31 03:56:56 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:56:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
In-Reply-To: <2DE9D54D-8DEA-4395-BF26-BED694486444@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com>

I was on vacation.  Pondering trees.  {8-]  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: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:07 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore
> 
> Something appears to have been wrong with the list.  I sent a note to
> Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday.  I got no reply.  This
> isn't the first time.
> 
> - s



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 31 05:37:39 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:37:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long durationspaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <20050830221643.92873.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200508310539.j7V5dbO07234@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:17 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long
> durationspaceflight?

Danger Will Robinson!

Last time I brought this up I was smite bait for weeks.  I
was smitten by such gentle souls as Gina Miller!  Negative 
applause city (palc palc palc...)  I was the sultan of smite, 
the poster child for the excessively smitten, the charter 
member of the church of smitology, smote beyond all recognition.  

But I recovered.

There is a professional society of which I have been a member
for over 20 years, SAWE, the Society of Aerospace Weight 
Engineers.  We sit around and argue about stuff like this.  Really.

Design of a Mars mission has been a subsession in many of
our annual conferences.

Keep in mind a few basic concepts:

1.  The weight of a pressure vessel scales as the cube
of its linear dimension.

2.  A spherical pressure vessel is the most weight efficient
configuration.

3.  The linear dimension of a space vehicle should be able to
scale linearly with the linear dimension of the astronaut.  So
an astronaut half as tall should be able to use a pressure
vessel half the diameter, or one eighth as massive.  Right?

4.  Not everything scales linearly with the linear dimension
of the astronaut, but a lot of stuff will.

5.  A tiny light person will do a loooot better in weightlessness
than a big heavy person.  When weightlessness is introduced,
the body immediately dumps calcium from those big femurs, which
can cause kidney stones and a bunch of problems.  (Have you ever
had a kidney stone?  I have and I pray to evolution you never do.)

6.  We have the option of choosing people who are severely
limited in this one-G field who would do just fine in freefall,
such as spina bifida victims and paraplegics.  I know one 
personally, and she would make a fine tiny astronaut.

7.  A person's air and food needs should scale nearly in proportion
to their weight, which should scale approximately as the cube 
of their linear dimension.  Right?  

If you take issue with any of these concepts, do speak
up and state your reasoning.

Those of you who are still reading at this point, here is your 
assignment,:  Estimate the actual mathematical relationship 
between the weight of the Mars hab-module and the linear 
dimension of the astronaut.  For a very simple start, try

M = 1e4*H^3, where H is the height of the astronaut in
meters and M is the mass in Kg.  If you wish to argue that
the exponent on H should be less than 3, state your reasoning.

I can think of a reason why it could go even higher than 3 under
the circumstances we have today: given a short enough astronaut,
we could make the hab module a 4 meter diameter sphere, which
would fit in the cargo bay of the space shuttle or inside the
standard fairing of a Titan rocket (Lockheeed Martin product) or
under severe duress the Delta 4 (Booeing product).  

A spherical hab module would not waste metal, as a cylindrical
module would (see item 2 above).

Question: could we arrange for a person to live for possibly
several years in a spherical device 4 meters in diameter?  You
and I, probably not without severe distress.  But a person
one meter tip to tail?  I don't see why not.

Come on you space heads!  Think about this, think hard.  We 
might be able to put together a dynamite paper for SAWE.

spike


    



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Aug 31 06:51:00 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:51:00 +1000
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat] ping -
	please ignore
References: <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <00e501c5adf8$58f39420$0d98e03c@homepc>

From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>

>I was on vacation.  Pondering trees.  {8-]  spike

Poor Spike. He's dropped the hint a couple of times
now, and no one has asked:

So Spike do you think you shall ever see a thing
so wondrous as a tree? ;-)

Brett Paatsch



From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 09:18:44 2005
From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?US-ASCII?Q?Henrik_Ohrstrom?=)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:18:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long durationspaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <200508310539.j7V5dbO07234@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <DHEDKDAFOIKEGEPMAFCEKEJFDHAA.henrik.ohrstrom@gmail.com>

Hi! Reintroduction is in order since it was >7 years since I did much more
than semiactive lurking.
Name is Henrik Ohrstrom and I work as anesthesiologist at the University
Hospital of Orebro in Sweden.
At the moment I serve time raising 2 children as at-home-dad while my wife
finishes her internship.
I have been (before moving from Stockholm and getting children etc) active
in the Swedish transhumansist movement, I am also a failed (read wannabe)
aerospace engineer so this discussion interests me :)
Other hobbies includes cryonics, CR (not practicing though), Wargaming and
statistics.

In this spacebased matter I agree with spike, in zero G there is not much
advantage being a "fullsize" astronaut and the problems with spinal column
and joints that make many dwarfs life miserable will have a smaller impact
or perhaps go away entirely.
However, once the expedition reaches a planetary surface dwarfism will be a
negative if the astronauts has to do any EVA on the surface, Space suits,
gravity and very short extremities probably don't mix well.


> -----Original Message-----
[..snipp..]

>
> I can think of a reason why it could go even higher than 3 under
> the circumstances we have today: given a short enough astronaut,
> we could make the hab module a 4 meter diameter sphere, which
> would fit in the cargo bay of the space shuttle or inside the
> standard fairing of a Titan rocket (Lockheeed Martin product) or
> under severe duress the Delta 4 (Booeing product).
>
> A spherical hab module would not waste metal, as a cylindrical
> module would (see item 2 above).
>
> Question: could we arrange for a person to live for possibly
> several years in a spherical device 4 meters in diameter?  You
> and I, probably not without severe distress.  But a person
> one meter tip to tail?  I don't see why not.
>
> Come on you space heads!  Think about this, think hard.  We
> might be able to put together a dynamite paper for SAWE.
>
> spike
>
Nope can't really argue against, perhaps on a more mundo point, if we send
such a minisized expedition what can they do when it arrive to ie mars? As a
solo expedition not much at all. With preparations done ahead they could act
as Waldo drivers for robots on the surface.
This might be enough in it self and materials and hab modules could be sent
ahead to receive the expedition thus enabling the human shuffling to be done
with minimal extras, just a living module with reception prepared before by
robotic crafts.
Apart from the dwarfs this has been the next big space project for far to
long.

/henrik



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Aug 31 13:51:36 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:51:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	AID  to ExI members & other transhumanists in LA, MS, AL
Message-ID: <380-220058331135136639@M2W034.mail2web.com>

Transhumanists -

If you know of anyone who is located in New Orleans and other areas on
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who may need help, please contact the
Transhumanist Care program at Extropy Institute by sending email to
info at extropy.org

I am not sure at this time what we can do, but I do know that if there are
transhumanists who are without homes, cloths, etc., we will do our best to
figure something out to help them.  (There are ExI members throughout the
southern states who may be available to help.)


Many thanks,

Natasha Vita-More
President Extropy Institute
Transhumanist Care Program








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




From hemm at openlink.com.br  Wed Aug 31 13:56:38 2005
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:56:38 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] creative problem solving
References: <200508301429.j7UETuO06724@tick.javien.com>
	<E6120E50-E5D9-49B4-BF50-C2561ABCC399@mac.com>
Message-ID: <016701c5ae33$cea48220$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Men are grosse, Sam. Get used :-)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Samantha Atkins 
To: ExI chat list 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] creative problem solving


EWWWWW!


On Aug 30, 2005, at 7:27 AM, spike wrote:


Who among us does not take aim when we see a fly in
a urinal?  That is how we get such bad karma.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 31 14:43:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:43:54 -0700
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat] ping
	-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <00e501c5adf8$58f39420$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>

> From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> 
> >I was on vacation.  Pondering trees.  {8-]  spike
> 
> Poor Spike. He's dropped the hint a couple of times
> now, and no one has asked:
> 
> So Spike do you think you shall ever see a thing
> so wondrous as a tree? ;-)
> 
> Brett Paatsch

Glad you should ask Brett.

Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two
trees that have fallen in opposite directions.  Suppose
one is walking in an old growth forest and sees an uprooted
tree.  Surely the wind has taken it down.  But why two
in opposite directions?  I had an idea, which will need
to wait until this evening.

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Aug 31 14:53:21 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:53:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long durationspaceflight?
In-Reply-To: <DHEDKDAFOIKEGEPMAFCEKEJFDHAA.henrik.ohrstrom@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200508311455.j7VEtIO14506@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henrik Ohrstrom
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:19 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long
> durationspaceflight?
> 
> Hi! Reintroduction is in order since it was >7 years since I did much more
> than semiactive lurking.

Welcome back Henrik.  {8-]

> ... once the expedition reaches a planetary surface dwarfism will be
> a negative if the astronauts has to do any EVA on the surface, Space
suits,
> gravity and very short extremities probably don't mix well...

Agreed.  The mission I have in mind does not land on the 
surface.  The delta V needed to do that makes the whole
plan out of the question.  Or rather it makes the mission
a one-way trip, which has it's own negative aspects.


> >
> Nope can't really argue against, perhaps on a more mundo point, if we send
> such a minisized expedition what can they do when it arrive to ie mars? As
> a solo expedition not much at all...

Much at all.  We need a real-time robot controller on the
construction site.  

We earth creatures are 2 to 15 minutes away down here, so the 
robots need a great deal of autonomy, which limits their ability 
to build things.  But with someone right there making decisions,
controlling machines on the surface, much more can be accomplished.

> Apart from the dwarfs this has been the next big space project for far to
> long.
> 
> /henrik

Right on Henrik!  I don't see why we went into the long and
nearly useless space station project instead of this.  I think 
it was too much for people to get their minds out of the Apollo-style
three guys, three days, flags and footprints mission designs.

spike





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 31 15:14:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat] ping
	-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ah, the answer is that one was blown down, but its roots had been
helping to balance the tree next to it, which was leaning into the
wind. When the first tree fell, the second lost its anchorage on that
side, and thus fell away in the opposite direction.

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

> > From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> > 
> > >I was on vacation.  Pondering trees.  {8-]  spike
> > 
> > Poor Spike. He's dropped the hint a couple of times
> > now, and no one has asked:
> > 
> > So Spike do you think you shall ever see a thing
> > so wondrous as a tree? ;-)
> > 
> > Brett Paatsch
> 
> Glad you should ask Brett.
> 
> Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two
> trees that have fallen in opposite directions.  Suppose
> one is walking in an old growth forest and sees an uprooted
> tree.  Surely the wind has taken it down.  But why two
> in opposite directions?  I had an idea, which will need
> to wait until this evening.
> 
> 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
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 kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 31 15:38:23 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:38:23 -0500
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat]
	ping-please ignore
References: <20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005d01c5ae42$06553850$0100a8c0@kevin>

Maybe they fell at different times from different storms?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat]
ping-please ignore


> Ah, the answer is that one was blown down, but its roots had been
> helping to balance the tree next to it, which was leaning into the
> wind. When the first tree fell, the second lost its anchorage on that
> side, and thus fell away in the opposite direction.
>
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> > >
> > > >I was on vacation.  Pondering trees.  {8-]  spike
> > >
> > > Poor Spike. He's dropped the hint a couple of times
> > > now, and no one has asked:
> > >
> > > So Spike do you think you shall ever see a thing
> > > so wondrous as a tree? ;-)
> > >
> > > Brett Paatsch
> >
> > Glad you should ask Brett.
> >
> > Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two
> > trees that have fallen in opposite directions.  Suppose
> > one is walking in an old growth forest and sees an uprooted
> > tree.  Surely the wind has taken it down.  But why two
> > in opposite directions?  I had an idea, which will need
> > to wait until this evening.
> >
> > 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
> 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 31 15:52:34 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:52:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long durationspaceflight?
References: <200508311455.j7VEtIO14506@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <007901c5ae44$01752230$0100a8c0@kevin>

>
> We earth creatures are 2 to 15 minutes away down here, so the
> robots need a great deal of autonomy, which limits their ability
> to build things.  But with someone right there making decisions,
> controlling machines on the surface, much more can be accomplished.
>
Exactly. And that is just the time needed to execute a command after a
decision has been made. That doesn;t address the fact that it often takes
Earth bound controllers to gather enough information to make a decision and
then have the robot actually do something.

I remember when we first sent Spirit down to Mars. It took something like 3
hours to drill a small hole in a rock. EVery bit f data has to be taken in
and analyzed, then cast before a committee to decide where to dig the three
hour hole. A human would glance around and start busting open rocks or
drilling with a Craftsman cordless drill. By the time NASA could even make a
decision on Earth, our little Mars Midget could have drilled into and
analyzed several rocks and already determined that they were in a bad spot
and needed to move somewhere else.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug 31 15:49:54 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:49:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike 
In-Reply-To: <20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>
	<20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831104058.03c0b630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:14 AM 8/31/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Ah, the answer is that one was blown down, but its roots had been
>helping to balance the tree next to it, which was leaning into the
>wind. When the first tree fell, the second lost its anchorage on that
>side, and thus fell away in the opposite direction.

Typical godless reductionistic claptrap! In the view of the 64 percent of 
Americans who demand that Intelligent Falling Theory be taught in high 
schools to counteract atheistic physics, there is only one tenable 
explanation. The divine designer caused it to occur (*not* necessarily the 
biblical God; this is not a religious theory, there you go again), probably 
by standing between the trees and pushing hard and deliberately.

Damien Broderick 



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Aug 31 15:58:39 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:58:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that
References: <20050830090001.91648.qmail@rho.pair.com><20050830172835.46596.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com><6.1.1.1.2.20050830135713.0502bd98@incoming.verizon.net>
	<7641ddc605083012323802c6a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009801c5ae44$daa5b830$0100a8c0@kevin>

I was reading in the article that the cells live and die faster in these mice and yet they said this could mean that the mice live longer. This seems counter-intuitive. Joao's post seems to indicate that they may be shorter lived. This isn't my area of expertise. Can anyone sort out this contradiction?  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rafal Smigrodzki 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Scientists create 'miracle mice' that


  I'll try to post my impressions during and after the conference - I am looking forward to meeting Fahy, West, Campisi and all the other warriors for longevity :)

  Rafal

   
  On 8/30/05, Joao Magalhaes <jpnitya at verizon.net> wrote: 
    It's not impossible, considering the already proven capacity for
    regeneration of MRL mice. I should point out, however, that MRL mice, 
    despite their regenerative capacity, appear to be short-lived (Ellen
    Heber-Katz, pers. comm.). So regenerative potential alone, despite it's
    great impact for human medicine, is not necessarily related to aging. More 
    detailed aging studies in these animals are needed, though.

    Yes, that's the conference Aubrey is organizing.

    Cheers,

    Joao

    At 01:28 PM 30/8/2005, you wrote:
    >It sounds bogus--too good to be true--to me, but 
    >here's the link to the full times article.
    >
    >Also, I noticed this from the article:
    >
    >"Details of the research will be presented next week
    >at a scientific conference on ageing, Strategies for 
    >Engineered Negligible Senescence, at Cambridge
    >University."
    >
    >Aubrey de Grey's bailiwick, right?
    >
    >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1754008,00.html 
    >
    >Best, Jeff Davis
    >
    >    "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
    >                            Ray Charles
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >____________________________________________________ 
    >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




  -- 
  Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
  Chief Clinical Officer,
  Gencia Corporation
  706 B Forest St.

  Charlottesville, VA 22903 

  tel: (434) 295-4800

  fax: (434) 295-4951



  This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail ( fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050831/4594f83a/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 15:55:55 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:55:55 +0100
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat]
	ping-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <005d01c5ae42$06553850$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<005d01c5ae42$06553850$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05083108552299f6e3@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/31/05, kevinfreels wrote:
> Maybe they fell at different times from different storms?
> 

Most likely solution, after the first fall had weakened the roots of
the second tree.
But, if you ask your local lumberjack, he will tell you that trees
don't always fall where you think they are going to fall. Even when
you follow procedures and cut a notch on the side you want it to fall
towards and use the chainsaw on the other side. The branch weight is
not always evenly distributed around the tree. Lumberjacks get killed
by trees twisting as they fall, or a gust of wind catching them
unexpectedly.

You've surely all seen the home videos on tv where the good ol' boys
saw a tree in the yard down, and it smashes into their house?  :)

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Aug 31 16:48:49 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:48:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Caloric restriction benefits limited in humans
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

[Robert Bradbury elsewhere sez:]

John Phelan and Michael Rose have published an article in
Ageing Research Reviews that indicates that caloric restriction
in humans is probably of marginal benefit.  See [1,2].

Robert

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/08/050830065729.htm
2. Phelan JP, Rose MR, "Why dietary restriction substantially increases 
longevity
in animal models but won't in humans."  Ageing Res Rev. 4(3):339-50 (Aug 2005).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16046282



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Aug 31 17:20:40 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:20:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Caloric restriction benefits limited in humans
Message-ID: <380-22005833117204074@M2W056.mail2web.com>


From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com

>[Robert Bradbury elsewhere sez:]

>John Phelan and Michael Rose have published an article in
>Ageing Research Reviews that indicates that caloric restriction
>in humans is probably of marginal benefit.  See [1,2].

>Robert

>1.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?>url=/releases/2005/08/050830065729.ht
m

Thanks for posting this material.  Paying attention to quality and quantity
of food for nutrition is essential for good health, although counting the
calories in a tea bag leads toward compulsive behavior which can creep up
on people very slowly, but affect the mind dramatically. Most CR advocates
that I have spoken to think that eating disorders are female-oriented.  Not
so.  Men can be affected equally by over eating or under eating.

I respect Walford's research and admire his commitment to CR, *and* I
support his views that people should not starve themselves for CR. I know
that not everyone who practices CR has this issue, and some are healthy and
athletic.  

Natasha



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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 31 17:25:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat]
	ping-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05083108552299f6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050831172503.56968.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/31/05, kevinfreels wrote:
> > Maybe they fell at different times from different storms?
> > 
> 
> Most likely solution, after the first fall had weakened the roots of
> the second tree.
> But, if you ask your local lumberjack, he will tell you that trees
> don't always fall where you think they are going to fall. Even when
> you follow procedures and cut a notch on the side you want it to fall
> towards and use the chainsaw on the other side. The branch weight is
> not always evenly distributed around the tree. Lumberjacks get killed
> by trees twisting as they fall, or a gust of wind catching them
> unexpectedly.
> 
> You've surely all seen the home videos on tv where the good ol' boys
> saw a tree in the yard down, and it smashes into their house?  :)

No, but there is a really funny commercial on tv now of a guy cutting
down a tree that lands on his car... the ad agency for that company
must be darwin awards fans, cause all the ads for that company show
people doing stupid dangerous things that go wrong...

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 31 17:56:14 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:56:14 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831104058.03c0b630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>	<20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050831104058.03c0b630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4315EF3E.8090303@aol.com>

Well, what exactly is "force" or "field" or "matter" or "time"?

The fundamental difference between a scientistic approach to 
fundamentally mysterious phenomena is -control- not understanding.  That 
control leads the -naive- scientist to think that they also have 
understanding, but it's not so.  Blind or haughty scientism is dogmatic 
about that being -all there is- to understanding.

Robbie


Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 08:14 AM 8/31/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>> Ah, the answer is that one was blown down, but its roots had been
>> helping to balance the tree next to it, which was leaning into the
>> wind. When the first tree fell, the second lost its anchorage on that
>> side, and thus fell away in the opposite direction.
>
>
> Typical godless reductionistic claptrap! In the view of the 64 percent 
> of Americans who demand that Intelligent Falling Theory be taught in 
> high schools to counteract atheistic physics, there is only one 
> tenable explanation. The divine designer caused it to occur (*not* 
> necessarily the biblical God; this is not a religious theory, there 
> you go again), probably by standing between the trees and pushing hard 
> and deliberately.
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 17:57:59 2005
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:57:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831104058.03c0b630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>
	<20050831151421.21699.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050831104058.03c0b630@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b4050831105768369316@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/31/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> At 08:14 AM 8/31/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >Ah, the answer is that one was blown down, but its roots had been
> >helping to balance the tree next to it, which was leaning into the
> >wind. When the first tree fell, the second lost its anchorage on that
> >side, and thus fell away in the opposite direction.
> 
> Typical godless reductionistic claptrap! In the view of the 64 percent of
> Americans who demand that Intelligent Falling Theory be taught in high
> schools to counteract atheistic physics, there is only one tenable
> explanation. The divine designer caused it to occur (*not* necessarily the
> biblical God; this is not a religious theory, there you go again), 
> probably
> by standing between the trees and pushing hard and deliberately.
> 
> Look on the bright side.
Maybe you can sell the Simulation Argument to the Creationists.
Everybody happy...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050831/bf7090e7/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Aug 31 18:20:40 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:20:40 -0700
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat] ping
	-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>
References: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4315F4F8.5080402@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> 
> Glad you should ask Brett.
> 
> Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two
> trees that have fallen in opposite directions.  Suppose
> one is walking in an old growth forest and sees an uprooted
> tree.  Surely the wind has taken it down.  But why two
> in opposite directions?  I had an idea, which will need
> to wait until this evening.

Before the students entered the classroom, the teacher turned the plate 
around.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 31 19:15:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frink server pages letting me down
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050831191540.89259.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I was doing some fuel tank volume and mass calculations on Frink only
to find that there are no units for various rocket fuel designations,
like LH2, LOX, etc (I was trying to convert x liters of LH2 to y kg of
LH2, expecting density data to be present). If Mr. Eliason could fix
something up there, I'd appreciate it.

There is another question I have: I'm trying to find a chart of
liquid/gas equivalency ratios, comparing various chemicals and
elements. Does anyone have a good reference on this?

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  Wed Aug 31 18:29:44 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:29:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Caloric restriction benefits limited in humans
In-Reply-To: <380-22005833117204074@M2W056.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22005833117204074@M2W056.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <4315F718.4050705@sasktel.net>

Exactly, the low "natural health product" content of the food that 
creates obesity causes incremental damage.
Then the caloric restriction fails to done in a way that concentrates 
the consumption so that a high level of natural health products is 
available causing additional incrmental damage.

However my the last year's  experience of gaining and loosing 20 pounds, 
it is quite difficult to keep a
normal or average diet and densify your intake of natural health 
products ..apart from simple adding
supplements.

Simply put a reworking of the entire food supply to create natural 
health product densified versions
is only happening marginally and selectively.

It is a challenge though, as I know for example that if I make burgers 
with NHP's of isoflavone, buffaloberry antioxidants, hemp bud  for 
example with 1/3 NHP content then dealing with making the finished 
product look like , act like and taste like
the original item is a daunting task.

Part of the problem is a regulatory one as well.... I doubt that my NHP 
burger would be allowed to be sold commercially
by the FDA or any other national health protection agency for that manner.


nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
>
>  
>
>>[Robert Bradbury elsewhere sez:]
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>John Phelan and Michael Rose have published an article in
>>Ageing Research Reviews that indicates that caloric restriction
>>in humans is probably of marginal benefit.  See [1,2].
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Robert
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>1.
>>    
>>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?>url=/releases/2005/08/050830065729.ht
>m
>
>Thanks for posting this material.  Paying attention to quality and quantity
>of food for nutrition is essential for good health, although counting the
>calories in a tea bag leads toward compulsive behavior which can creep up
>on people very slowly, but affect the mind dramatically. Most CR advocates
>that I have spoken to think that eating disorders are female-oriented.  Not
>so.  Men can be affected equally by over eating or under eating.
>
>I respect Walford's research and admire his commitment to CR, *and* I
>support his views that people should not starve themselves for CR. I know
>that not everyone who practices CR has this issue, and some are healthy and
>athletic.  
>
>Natasha
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050831/8922bc42/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Aug 31 20:31:16 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:31:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New animation
References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE01F3B20E@amazemail2.amazeent.com><6.2.3.4.2.20050826070446.02d9bbc0@mail.gmu.edu><430F3197.9010901@posthuman.com>
	<001401c5ab91$2396cc20$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <014001c5ae6a$f28fe490$0300a8c0@Nano>

Dud this go through to the list?


  You guys should like this, it's a pun on one of my favorite themes - 

  http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/thenurse.htm

  At my animation blog:
  http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2005/08/even-more-rendering.html
  Yes, I'm inviting your comments : )



  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."



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050831/4ebe67da/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 31 22:23:02 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Please tell us a tree story Spike was Re: [extropy-chat]
	ping-please ignore
In-Reply-To: <005d01c5ae42$06553850$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050831222303.40010.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> Maybe they fell at different times from different
> storms?

Or maybe at different times in the same storm. If the
eye of the storm went thru the area, then the leading
and trailing edges of the storm would have wind in the
exactly opposite direction.

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