From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 00:05:46 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:35:46 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Can a single brain cell recognize Bill Clinton?
In-Reply-To: <20050630235053.65171.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
	<20050630235053.65171.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05063017056607142b@mail.gmail.com>

(3) Has the data stream from the subject's optical system been preprocessed
by the optical system itself, leaving little for the neurons to do?


Nope, but it's probably been preprocessed by lots of other neurons.

Imagine that I were to write a face recognition computer program.
You'd show it pictures of faces, and it would decide (through some
horribly complex code) who the face belonged to, from a set database
of known persons. Say Bill Clinton is one of them.

If you were to then get into this program with a debugger, it is
highly likely that there would be at least one word of memory
somewhere which would take one value (or range of values) when the
program was processing a picture of Bill Clinton, and another (range)
when it was processing anything else. Straightforwardly, this memory
location would be involved in the processing at the output end of
things, holding a result.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
http://RadioCandela.blogspot.com   * talk & music podcast *


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul  1 00:23:39 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:23:39 +1000
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
References: <20050630234106.41912.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <06f301c57dd3$21095b80$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> But how can *you* guarantee it Stuart? What does 
>> your *guarantee* mean in this context?
>> 
>> Is it a legal term? Are you promising Samantha or
>> others
>> that if the military fires at, or bombs  people that
>> you 
>> personally will make good on any loss?
> 
> Sheesh. Too many attorneys on the list. ;)

Nah, I'm not an attorney. Australian's have lawyers and 
solicitors, and I'm not either of those either. 

> Actually I
> may have overstated myself. To rephrase more
> accurately, I am certain, to my own satisfaction mind
> you, that the U.S. military mandates and takes great
> pains these days to make sure that innocent civilians
> are not harmed by their soldiers during armed
> conflict. The civillian casualties that do occur are
> almost all accidents.

Sounds right to me. 

> Those very few soldiers that
> purposefully disregard this are brought to justice by
> their peers and their chain of command. And to a
> certain extent, yes, I do personally feel remorse at
> the death of civillians even when I am not the one
> pulling the trigger.  

Sounds right to me too, based on what I've seen of
you. 
 
>> > In any conflict involving U.S. troops, rules of
>> > engagement are very clearly spelled out, flash
>> cards
>> > summarizing them are issued, and violations are
>> taken
>> > very seriously.
>> 
>> In any? ;-)  That is truly a magnificent
>> accomplishment.
>> Perhaps the military should be running all aspects
>> of 
>> government and management then, if they have reached
>> such sophistication in anticipation and education.
> 
> ummmm.... NO. Although there does seem to be a rise in
> armed conflicts in American schools these days, using
> the military to solve this would be like using a
> sledge hammer to fix a toothache.
 
I'm just gently stirring you, Stuart. But I did have a bit of a
point in mind.  That is that rules of engagement for conduct
in military situations can hardly be less likely to produce
human error than "rules of engagement" under non military
situations as the people involved in both are essentially
the same. 

We (people) stuff up plenty, even when we don't have to
make decisions under fire and under conditions of extreme
stress, and getting more to the point now, when we have
'rules of engagement' that are the laws of our land, or oaths
taken, or promises made, or contracts agreed too, we still
clearly do managed to achieve quite a lot of non lethal 
conflict.  
 
> 
>> Perhaps the US Constitition and the UN Charter
>> should
>> be relabelled and called the US Rules of Engagement
>> and the UN Rules of Engagement.  ;-)
> 
> heh. I personally don't think that there will be a one
> world goverment unless or until it can be demonstrated
> that potentially hostile intelligent life exists
> elsewhere in the universe.

Wow, I didn't see the digression coming. 

> There just isn't enough evolutionary pressure to select for
> it. But if it should ever, for whatever reason, come about,
> I hope whatever charter or constitution the United Nations of
> Earth adopts would be based in large part upon the
> U.S. Constitution.

I like the US Constitution too. And the UN Charter. And as
Mike has pretty much convinced me of, whether he meant to
or not, they are part of an overarching conceptual structure. 

After all, what is or was the United States but a union of states
brought together largely to face off a threat to their mutual 
interests from outside. 

The states that came together did not come together to abandon
their independence as states completely, rather than came together
it seems to me, in a sort of contract. 

And even today there are tensions in the US about how much 
government should be centralised for whatever reason vs how
much it should be localised in the respective states, so that the
people can have the most amount of say possible in what effects
them directly.

Any United Nations of Bioshere 1 worth a damn in my book 
would leave as much as possible to the local "nations".  

So, if one could look at it with an engineering mindset, as if 
one had a blank sheet of paper, (which of course we don't because
the world is changing and we are in it), then perhaps only those
very few absolute necessities that must be of a global nature should
be of a global nature. 

But I digress. 

Back to rules of engagement.

What does a combat soldier do, when his or her fellow soldiers
or much harder superiors break the rules of engagement? It would
seem that to follow rules of engagement would be extremely
difficult if you were a private and your nco or commanding officer
was not following them. (It seems we have on this list quite a rich
base of practical experience in this area.) What do the lower ranks
do in such situations as superiors not following the rules of 
engagement?

Brett Paatsch



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul  1 00:32:10 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:32:10 +1000
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
References: <20050630234106.41912.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42C48685.9060208@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <06f801c57dd4$51779f60$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

> When conversations have risen to such a level of absurdity (and I speak 
> here of Brett's questions, not Stuart's answers) then perhaps the time has 
> come to move on to more productive conversations.

Well of course a con-versation can only reach a level of absurdity if
more than one person wants to pursue it, otherwise its a soliloquy isn't
it?

I am interested in the rules of engagement concept. I think its relevant
to what is going on in the world now.

Sometimes it seems we, here, have quite a bit of trouble even holding
ourselves to the rules of engagement on a mailing list ;-)

But by all means others can post threads on other topics as they like
and if those topics are of interest then other less "absurd" conversations
might develop. I don't want to badger anyone into talking about stuff
that doesn't interest them, I just have to assume that if it doesn't 
interest
them then they won't talk about it.

Brett Paatsch 




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jul  1 00:47:23 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:47:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Seven phenomena that define "Psycho-Medicine"
Message-ID: <42C4929B.3040002@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss

< http://www.science-frontiers.com >

SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 160, Jul-Aug 2005, p. 4


PSYCHOLOGY

Seven phenomena that define "Psycho-Medicine"

"Psycho-Medicine" is the term used in an recent article in the French
journal *Science & Vie* are not all-inclusive.  They do, however, provide
in one place accounts of on-going research on seven phenomena, most of
which are anomalous in that they demonstrate the influence of the mind
over the body.

(1) Hypnosis reduces the need for general  anesthetics.

(2) Mental stimulation of muscles can greatly increase their strength.
Example: focussing one's thoughts on one's biceps.  [This is probably
related to the phenomenon that provides us with extra strength in
dire situations.]

(3) Transcendental meditation reduces hypertension.  Saying mantras,
for example.

(4) Psychological therapy stimulates the immune system.  Examples:
relaxation techniques, learning how to confront problems, etc.

(5) Placebo surgery improves patients with Parkinson's disease.   This
includes full operating-room procedures plus some superficial incisions
on the scalp!

(6) The use of biorhythms helps people with asthma.  Example: focussing
on one's cardiac rhythm.

(7) The use of virtual reality to reduce the pain of severe burns.  The
patient is exposed to a program called "SnowWorld"!  This program
envelops the patient visually with icy scenes.

(Bensaid, F., et al; "Psycho-Medicine," *Science & Vie*, #1046:52,
November 2004.  Cr. C. Mauge)


SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in
the current literature.  Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107,
Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA.  Annual subscription: $8.00.


-- 
"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 fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jul  1 00:47:44 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:47:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Let us speak of universes and intelligent designers
Message-ID: <42C492B0.8030709@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss

< http://www.science-frontiers.com >

SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 160, Jul-Aug 2005, p. 4


UNCLASSIFIED

Let us speak of universes and intelligent designers

The latest number of the *Journal of Irreproducible Results*, a
science-humor magazine, had fun with an article on the Intelligent
Designer (ID) hypothesis.  We have the temerity to reproduce one
paragraph from said article because it harks back to SF#81, where
there was speculation about multiple universes.  In said universes, it
was proposed, the values of physical constants might change or be
changed so as to make them fitter in terms of longevity,
reproducibility, or some other criterion.  Pretty weird stuff, but
what do we mere humans know about the teleology of universes?

Universes seeming to us to be merely vast assemblages of luminous and
dark matter may be much more---something akin to the entity in F. Hoyle's
classic sci-fi novel *The Black Cloud*.

Anyway, here is the promised paragraph from the *Journal of
Irreproducible Results*.  Remember this is a humor magazine where
anything goes!

   With our increasing ability to manipulate genes, based on our
   ever-enlarging knowledge of the genetic code, eventually
   humanity will gain the ability to be virtually immortal, if
   bare-handed solo mountain climbing and hang-gliding are
   avoided in favor of selecting sedentary continuing
   accredited courses.  It's easy to envision a future where
   our descendants will explore the universe; perhaps to
   find other intelligent species.  It's possible that we might
   even meet the hypothetical species we call "The Intelligent
   Designers", assuming they want to be bothered with us.  As
   our progeny explore other solar systems, should they find
   a sterile planet, they may want to "seed" it with species
   bioengineered to thrive there; thus, future humanity may
   well become "intelligent designers".  The inhabitants of
   such a world may eventually speculate and contemplate
   about their origins as they turn their multifaceted eyes
   upward.

We hasten to add here that the proponents of Intelligent Design do
*not* insist that an Intelligent Designer be supernatural or even
singular.  Indeed, the quoted paragraph leaves room for such
possibilities.

In this light, the populations of competing universes mentioned in SF#81
could be the works of *different* Intelligent Designers in competition
with each other.  Their criterion for success might be life-containing
universes that include intelligent but *not* self-destructing lifeforms.
Or, there may be criteria that are beyond our comprehension and
toward which the Intelligent Designer of *our* universe is presently
striving and we are but partial steps along the way!

(Kirschbaum, Joel; *Journal of Irreproducible Results*, 49:27,
March 2005.)


SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in
the current literature.  Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107,
Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA.  Annual subscription: $8.00.


-- 
"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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 01:08:46 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <43267A1E-F5C0-41FD-9F4C-851AE36905AD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050701010846.53729.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> You are a fool. 

    Maybe but only because so many people are trying
so hard to fool me about this Iraq thing. More so than
many on this list, when it comes right down to it, I
consider myself to be a liberal and have been called a
"watermelon" for it. I have either voted green or
democrat except in the case of Schwarzeneggar. I am
what you could call a big-stick pacifist. I believe in
having in having the biggest stick on the block so
that I CAN love my neighbors. I had protested the war
constantly up until the point that judged it to be too
late to do any good. Now that I see elections
happening and infra-structure starting to be rebuilt
there and land mines being cleared so that children
don't step on them, I understand what we are doing
there CURRENTLY to be more humanitarian aid than
empire building. Not so much because I believe that
the war was justified, but because that is what is
happening. Even if the end doesn't justify the means,
the means have come and gone and all we have left are
lemons. To stay, break the will of the bloodthirsty
Baathists and Jihadists, rebuild Iraq, and prevent an
insane four-way civil war, is the best way to make
lemonade with the lemons we have been given. Sometimes
the bullet in a gunshot wound is the only thing that
keeps it from bleeding and you best leave it in until
you get to a hospital.
 
> I have no such hatred.  I am no longer sorry I
> called you a fool.   
> You have now earned it if you take my legitimate
> concerns to be  
> irrational hatred.

Recognize this?

"If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in the
resistance and  
consider those cops turncoats to their own people."

You sound like you are saying that if you had to
choose sides, you would choose the side of muderous
Baathists over Americans. That means that you would be
willing to shoot Americans that at the very least
think they are risking their lives for YOU. Moreover
in the very same sentence you insinuate that you would
shoot your own Iraqi people, including cops, that
tried keep you from doing it. Why would you be so
willing to make war on America, if you don't hate it? 


> 
> Welcome to my kill file fool.

To be fair, I wrote my reply BEFORE I read your
apology.  I have never resorted to calling you names
or even labelling you. Considering you are supposed to
be a list moderator, it is somewhat strange that you
would resort so quickly to ad hominem not only against
me but against others. My self-esteem is built on
things other than your opinion so I don't really care,
but to be honest if it will spare me your verbal abuse
for daring to disagree with you, I think I will like
your kill file.


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  Fri Jul  1 00:53:45 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:53:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Can a single brain cell recognize Bill
  Clinton?
In-Reply-To: <20050630235053.65171.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050630203820.0475aec0@unreasonable.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>It is arguable whether evolution "accounts" for vestigial things like a 
>human's appendix, even if it can explain how such things came to be.

The appendix IS NOT vestigial. It has been known for several decades to be 
part of the immune system.

See, for instance,

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00225.htm
http://www.uchospitals.edu/online-library/content=P00630

or many of the other 122,000 matches for appendix "immune system" on google.

Medicine has a long hubristic tradition of declaring that

(a) we don't know what body part X does
(b) therefore it has no purpose
(c) therefore we may/should/will excise it

and then we have to deal with the aftermath, as when they decided that the 
thyroid was vestigial and removed it.


-- David Lubkin.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 04:09:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <06f301c57dd3$21095b80$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050701040942.64995.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: 
> > ummmm.... NO. Although there does seem to be a rise in
> > armed conflicts in American schools these days, using
> > the military to solve this would be like using a
> > sledge hammer to fix a toothache.
>  
> I'm just gently stirring you, Stuart. But I did have a bit of a
> point in mind.  That is that rules of engagement for conduct
> in military situations can hardly be less likely to produce
> human error than "rules of engagement" under non military
> situations as the people involved in both are essentially
> the same. 

Not really. Humans trained in modern military units are distinctively
NOT like run of the mill persons on the street. No civilian
organization I know of uses negative reinforcement so extensively or
effectively. The military knows that war is very very messy and it has
used the decades since WWII to scientifically figure out how to make it
less so, make soldiers more reliable and more productive. The
regimentation, conformity, gung ho sloganeering and extensive
repetetive rote instruction of subordinates, along with very effective
leadership training for unit leadership. It all functions to make
soldiers want to obey orders when they otherwise wouldnt, or even
shouldn't.

Soldiers are trained to do their jobs no matter how they feel about it.
If that means shooting bad guys, they learn to do it without being
repulsed. That also means learning to distinguish innocents from
combatants, although IMHO the military doesn't do as much as it should.


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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul  1 04:54:06 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:54:06 +1000
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
References: <20050701040942.64995.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > ummmm.... NO. Although there does seem to be a rise in
>> > armed conflicts in American schools these days, using
>> > the military to solve this would be like using a
>> > sledge hammer to fix a toothache.
>>
>> I'm just gently stirring you, Stuart. But I did have a bit of a
>> point in mind.  That is that rules of engagement for conduct
>> in military situations can hardly be less likely to produce
>> human error than "rules of engagement" under non military
>> situations as the people involved in both are essentially
>> the same.
>
> Not really. Humans trained in modern military units are distinctively
> NOT like run of the mill persons on the street. No civilian
> organization I know of uses negative reinforcement so extensively or
> effectively. The military knows that war is very very messy and it has
> used the decades since WWII to scientifically figure out how to make it
> less so, make soldiers more reliable and more productive. The
> regimentation, conformity, gung ho sloganeering and extensive
> repetetive rote instruction of subordinates, along with very effective
> leadership training for unit leadership.

>                                                            It all 
> functions to make
> soldiers want to obey orders when they otherwise wouldnt, or even
> shouldn't.

So when they want to obey orders they shouldn't, what then, they
consider the rules of engagement?

> Soldiers are trained to do their jobs no matter how they feel about it.
> If that means shooting bad guys, they learn to do it without being
> repulsed. That also means learning to distinguish innocents from
> combatants, although IMHO the military doesn't do as much as it
> should.

I wonder what happens for instance if a low ranking soldier thinks that
they have been given an order to do something that breaks with the
rules of engagement, or the Geneva Conventions. What does a soldier
do when his/her superior is the one that is doing the encouraging or
is ordering to break from the rules of engagement?

Which is supposed to have precedence in a conflict, a direct order
from a superior, or the rules of engagement? I'd have though the
second.

Brett Paatsch 




From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 05:37:20 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:37:20 -0700
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050701040942.64995.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c7050630223712928414@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I used to post to this list a few years ago, but stopped when life got
too busy.  I have enjoyed lurking again, and thought that I would
reply to this thread.

I spent last year serving in Afghanistan as a Psychological Operations
SGT, and can speak to the whole ROE thing.

We had several opportunities for training on the Rules of Engagement,
which at the time seemed odd since they were actually pretty simple. 
Goes to show that the military loves repetition, because it works.

> I wonder what happens for instance if a low ranking soldier thinks that
> they have been given an order to do something that breaks with the
> rules of engagement, or the Geneva Conventions. What does a soldier
> do when his/her superior is the one that is doing the encouraging or
> is ordering to break from the rules of engagement?
> 
> Which is supposed to have precedence in a conflict, a direct order
> from a superior, or the rules of engagement? I'd have though the
> second.


Bare bones, the Rules of Engagement boiled down to shoot only at
threats.  So if someone shoots at you, other US Personnel, or
civilians, you are authorized to shoot back and to terminate the
aggressor if required.  The ROE also set guidlelines for entering
buildings, conducting searches, and interacting with the local
populace.  The guidlines were very sensible and errored on the side of
caution.  It was made clear to us that the ROE was there to protect
both soldiers and civilians, and that they were broad enough to allow
us to conduct our missions.  There was also very clear instruction
that the ROE was the overiding order, and that if we were given
conflicting orders we were to follow the ROE to the best of our
ability.

Hope that answers your question

I also would like to point out that nearly my entire tour in
Afghanistan was engaged in various humanitarian efforts.  The infantry
unit that I supported was heavily engaged in providing medical care in
the villages, building schools, promoting better agriculture
techniques, and generally  working to improve the lives of the people
of Afghanistan.  I for one and proud to have served there, and will
gladly do so again.

John Calvin


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 05:47:34 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050701054734.70741.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Which is supposed to have precedence in a conflict,
> a direct order
> from a superior, or the rules of engagement? I'd
> have though the
> second.

Well that depends on who that superior is and the
situation at hand. ROE are usually written at the
theater or strategic levels. Really high ranking
officers make them up. So if a captain at the tactical
level orders a soldier to break them, the soldier
usually realizes that the ROE would take precedence
because they come from a brigadier general at least.
Moreover if the captain was a lunatic ordering the
slaughter of innocents for no good reason, there are
provisions in the UCMJ that the unit medic no matter
how low of a rank, could judge the captain to be
medically unfit for command and relieve him of duty.
But of course it depends on the situation. If for
example, the ROE would hamstring a unit such that they
could not follow them and survive, the typical soldier
would follow his captain's orders to break them,
knowing that the captain would take responsibility for
it himself after it was all over with. In a war almost
nothing is clear cut and certain and one does one's
best to accomplish objectives and if possible survive. 

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  Fri Jul  1 05:51:32 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050630223712928414@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050701055132.71140.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> I for one and proud to have served
> there, and will
> gladly do so again.

HUAW, John! May the Force be with you. :)



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 Jul  1 06:13:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:13:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <20050701010846.53729.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507010613.j616DnR22562@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> > Welcome to my kill file fool.
> 
> To be fair, I wrote my reply BEFORE I read your
> apology.  I have never resorted to calling you names
> or even labelling you. Considering you are supposed to
> be a list moderator, it is somewhat strange that you
> would resort so quickly to ad hominem not only against
> me but against others...
> 
> 
> The Avantguardian

Samantha is not acting as a moderator currently.  I am
supposed to be, so I shall explain what is going on.  I
have quietly watched this whole caustic dialog, or rather polylog
since several are involved.  I decided to allow the participants
to have their say, even if some crossed the line on several
occasions regarding ad hominem attacks.  In every case, I
felt the receiving end of the attacks to be fully capable
of verbal self defense: if I thought otherwise, I would
have stepped in before now.  My policy is to assume it is
better to be too lenient in moderating than to be too 
strict.  

War is a difficult topic, so we should expect passions
to be high on all sides.  So go ahead, say your piece, but do 
keep in mind the list principles.  We want to create an atmosphere
of open dialog and if at all possible maintain civility.  

Over the years our extro-list has sometimes suffered from acute 
Amiability Deficit Disorder (ADD).  This is understandable
since we do not generally share a particular hobby or interest, 
and we take on difficult topics that are usually disallowed on 
other chat-lists.

All this being said, I shall soon be taking a trip to Oregon
on an antique motorcycle, so the list will be temporarily
without a moderator.  (Weeee're off to see the cattle,
the wonderful cattle of Ore...)  Do let us keep the ADD to 
a minimum if possible and adhere to the 8 posts a 
day maximum.

spike







From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul  1 07:00:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:00:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <20050701010846.53729.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050701010846.53729.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C039A1C2-2F14-4E14-9C1B-7CA473186004@mac.com>


On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:08 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You are a fool.
>>
>
>     Maybe but only because so many people are trying
> so hard to fool me about this Iraq thing. More so than
> many on this list, when it comes right down to it, I
> consider myself to be a liberal and have been called a
> "watermelon" for it.

I tend to eschew most political labels.  I am libertarian but I don't  
believe that party or set of ideas has all the answers either.


> I have either voted green or
> democrat except in the case of Schwarzeneggar. I am
> what you could call a big-stick pacifist. I believe in
> having in having the biggest stick on the block so
> that I CAN love my neighbors.

Hmm.  I am not sure that is the way to loving your neighbors although  
it does deal with the fear that is in the way.

> I had protested the war
> constantly up until the point that judged it to be too
> late to do any good.

But that still leaves you in opposition to the war just less actively  
or vocally so, no?

> Now that I see elections
> happening and infra-structure starting to be rebuilt
> there and land mines being cleared so that children
> don't step on them, I understand what we are doing
> there CURRENTLY to be more humanitarian aid than
> empire building.

Well I seem to recall that before we went in we said that we would  
not target infrastructure this time.  Yet we did.  So I see that as  
long overdue cleaning u a mess we had no need to make.   In the  
process we will probably pay Halliburton billions more than the job  
need really take.

> Not so much because I believe that
> the war was justified, but because that is what is
> happening.

I don't see how beginning to clean up our mess and attempting to  
force democracy in a country it is not clear is ready for it are  
sufficient to justify our continuing presence and all the ill  
thereof.   Neither of those actually require that continuation.   A  
true temporary international peace keeping force and reparations to  
the Iraqis to rebuild the infrastructure using contractors of their  
choice seems to me more just and to have far fewer negative  
consequences.

> Even if the end doesn't justify the means,
> the means have come and gone and all we have left are
> lemons. To stay, break the will of the bloodthirsty
> Baathists and Jihadists, rebuild Iraq, and prevent an
> insane four-way civil war, is the best way to make
> lemonade with the lemons we have been given.

People get rather irrational when their country is invaded, mauled,  
and occupied.  I honestly don't see how to calm the tensions  down by  
our continued presence.

>

>> I have no such hatred.  I am no longer sorry I
>> called you a fool.
>> You have now earned it if you take my legitimate
>> concerns to be
>> irrational hatred.
>>
>
> Recognize this?
>
> "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in the
> resistance and
> consider those cops turncoats to their own people."
>

On the grounds of defense of my home against those I would most  
likely see as aggressors and destroyers of my life and well being, I  
would not be surprised to feel this way.   I said it also to attempt  
to jar readers into a different perspective.  I see too much that  
looks like an insufficiently examined assumption that American  
culture is so clearly *the answer* that all reasonable Iraqis would  
see the invasion and occupation as truly a good and wonderful thing  
and that all others, especially those who oppose by force, simply  
deserve to die.    I was also reacting against the implication that  
those who do not support what we are doing in Iraq are not patriotic  
or hate America.  I love America - the America of the ideals of  
freedom and equal treatment under the law, rational law not the  
monstrosity of today.  I love the heart of America.  I do not love  
and I oppose the great rot at the heart of the country today.   I  
could not love the former without opposing the latter and its  
manifestations.

> You sound like you are saying that if you had to
> choose sides, you would choose the side of muderous
> Baathists over Americans.

If I was Iraqi I am pretty sure I would choose defending my home over  
invasion and occupation on completely bogus grounds.  Is that so  
surprising?


Many people in Iraq see us as murderous barbarian invaders.  That was  
the lesson of the lack of endless adulation and continuing  
opposition.  Claiming the other side in a conflict is effectively  
pure evil is a commonplace bit of psychological self-justification.


> That means that you would be
> willing to shoot Americans that at the very least
> think they are risking their lives for YOU.

Do they?  I don't think most of the soldiers think any such thing.   
And whether they do or do not they are still invaders.  I would want  
them to simply go away rather than to kill them.  But if I was Iraqi  
I would likely do what was in my power to get the Americans to leave.

> Moreover
> in the very same sentence you insinuate that you would
> shoot your own Iraqi people, including cops, that
> tried keep you from doing it. Why would you be so
> willing to make war on America, if you don't hate it?

I would be fighting for self-determination and freedom from  
occupation.  I might find other less violent ways to work to the same  
end but I certainly would not see the Americans as god hearted  
liberators who only were there for my welfare.  I would likely see  
those of my countrymen who helped them and fostered the notion that  
continued occupation was OK as treasonous collaborators.

>
>>
>> Welcome to my kill file fool.
>>
>
> To be fair, I wrote my reply BEFORE I read your
> apology.  I have never resorted to calling you names
> or even labelling you. Considering you are supposed to
> be a list moderator,

I haven't been a list moderator for some time now.   I still am sorry  
that I called you a fool.  But I am deeply offended when someone says  
I hate America just because I am strongly opposed to the action of  
the current creatures in power.

> it is somewhat strange that you
> would resort so quickly to ad hominem not only against
> me but against others.

I do apologize for that.  My temper sometimes gets the best of me.   
Of late it gets away from me more easily.  I am told that that  
happens as part of the grieving process.  But that is no excuse for  
simply slamming into people.  That is not how I want to be.  I am sorry.

- samantha




From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 08:01:35 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:01:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Can a single brain cell recognize Bill Clinton?
In-Reply-To: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
References: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070101015748bde0@mail.gmail.com>

(digs up post to ai-philosophy)

For more technical details...

Nature paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/nature03687.html
PDF: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/refweb/paper/519.pdf (not sure if PDF
is downloadable from off-campus)

R. Quian Quiroga, L. Reddy, G. Kreiman, C. Koch & I. Fried. Invariant
visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature
(2005) 435, 0-0

Abstract: It takes a fraction of a second to recognize a person or an
object even when seen under strikingly different conditions. How such
a robust, high-level representation is achieved by neurons in the
human brain is still unclear. In monkeys, neurons in the upper stages
of the ventral visual pathway respond to complex images such as faces
and objects and show some degree of invariance to metric properties
such as the stimulus size, position and viewing angle. We have
previously shown that neurons in the human medial temporal lobe (MTL)
fire selectively to images of faces, animals, objects or scenes. Here
we report on a remarkable subset of MTL neurons that are selectively
activated by strikingly different pictures of given individuals,
landmarks or objects and in some cases even by letter strings with
their names. These results suggest an invariant, sparse and explicit
code, which might be important in the transformation of complex visual
percepts into long-term and more abstract memories.

On 6/30/05, Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss
> 
> Can a single brain cell recognize Bill Clinton?


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 08:10:48 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <200507010613.j616DnR22562@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050701081048.54393.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

My policy is to assume
> it is
> better to be too lenient in moderating than to be
> too 
> strict.  
> 
> War is a difficult topic, so we should expect
> passions
> to be high on all sides.

Ja, Spike. With a topic header like "Too far" one
would expect the kid gloves to come off. :)


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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 08:12:33 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:12:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Can a single brain cell recognize Bill Clinton?
In-Reply-To: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
References: <42C47C82.4050809@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070101123b6a2618@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/30/05, Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> (1) How can single, ostensibly rather simple, neurons process the flood
> of bits
> arriving from subject's optical system?

These neurons are at or near the top of the visual hierarchy. If I
recall correctly, it's something like retina -> LGN -> V1 -> V2 -> IT
-> stuff -> MTL (where these neurons were found). As you go up the
hierarchy, neuron responses get more invariant to things like pose and
illumination changes, while becoming more specific to particular
objects.

> (2) Can Darwinian evolution account for single-cell pattern recognition?  Of
> course it can; it *must*!

Sure. Highly sparse and invariant representations are easier to use as
inputs to other learning systems.

> (3) Has the data stream from the subject's optical system been preprocessed
> by the optical system itself, leaving little for the neurons to do?

I wouldn't necessarily say that it leaves "little" for the neurons to
do, but yes, the information has been preprocessed by earlier visual
layers.

> (4) Are the Bill Clinton cells only the output terminals of holographic
> (whole-brain) image processing.

I'm fairly certain they serve as inputs to other areas, particularly
memory-related regions.


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 08:20:03 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:20:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerando Technical Companion
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0507010120e4a2562@mail.gmail.com>

As mentioned previously on this list, Charlie Stross just released his
new novel, Accelerando, which follows three generations of a family
through the Singularity. The novel is available as a free download
here:

http://www.accelerando.org/

I'm only partly through the novel myself, and noticed that it can be
technically quite dense. To help others get a better understanding of
the concepts involved and perhaps even provide more information on the
current state-of-the-art, I've started a Technical Companion for
Accelerando over on Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Accelerando_Technical_Companion

It's of course still incredibly preliminary, and contributions are
welcome. Just click "edit."

-- Neil Halelamien
neilh at caltech.edu


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 08:27:50 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
Message-ID: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>

I understand that the Constitution gives the President
the power to make treaties with senate approval. But
what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
the governors of individual states from signing/making
treaties with foreign powers? As a completely
hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? What
would be the consequences? Would the federal
government step in? Would it spark a civil war?    

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! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Fri Jul  1 11:37:16 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:37:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42C52AEC.4020401@humanenhancement.com>

Art. I, Sec. 10:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of 
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any 
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or 
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as 
will not admit of delay."

Joseph

The Avantguardian wrote:

>I understand that the Constitution gives the President
>the power to make treaties with senate approval. But
>what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
>law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
>the governors of individual states from signing/making
>treaties with foreign powers? As a completely
>hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
>Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? What
>would be the consequences? Would the federal
>government step in? Would it spark a civil war?    
>
>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! Sports 
>Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
>http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul  1 12:26:29 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 22:26:29 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
References: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <076601c57e38$1bd01fe0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>I understand that the Constitution gives the President
> the power to make treaties with senate approval.

> But what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
> law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
> the governors of individual states from signing/making
> treaties with foreign powers? 

Yes.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
[Mike sent this link recently. Actually I'm hoping he and
I can continue our discussion on impeachment in the 
other thread. ]

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says:

" No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
 grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of 
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in 
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title 
of Nobility. "

> As a completely
> hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? 

No. That would be the state of California breaching the above
clause in the constitution relating to treaties. 

> What  would be the consequences?

I'm still coming up to spead on the Constitution but I think
because of the above Schwazenagger wouldn't try to do
it. Its too obviously unconstitutional and not worth the 
political trouble. 

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on Constitution matters
so it would not allow it. 

> Would the federal
> government step in? Would it spark a civil war?    

It wouldn't get to that. California cannot raise a separate
army. I think that's the point Joseph is making with the
clause he cites. 

Brett Paatsch



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul  1 15:16:39 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:16:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <20050701081048.54393.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507011516.j61FGkR06059@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: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:11 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
> 
> 
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> My policy is to assume
> > it is
> > better to be too lenient in moderating than to be
> > too
> > strict.
> >
> > War is a difficult topic, so we should expect
> > passions
> > to be high on all sides.
> 
> Ja, Spike. With a topic header like "Too far" one
> would expect the kid gloves to come off. :)
> 
> 
> The Avantguardian


Avant, it's another one of those lessons we learned in 
kindergarten.  When the little kid is getting picked on, 
the teacher has to step in and put a stop to it.  But if 
the big kid is being provoked, it is best to hold back and 
let him or her get mad enough to take the appropriate 
action.  (It still works that way today I assume.)

Main participants this time, lets see, Avantguardian, Mike Lorrey, 
Joseph Bloch, Humania, Bret, Brett, j. andrew rogers, Samantha, 
John Clark, Dirk, and my apologies to any I have missed, but 
every one of you have demonstrated yourselves capable of
competent self defense on the playground.

One upbeat note: over the years our extro-flame wars have
actually improved in the sense that there is more actual
information and less personal attack than 8 yrs ago.

{8-]

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul  1 15:23:30 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:23:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <200507011516.j61FGkR06059@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200507011523.j61FNcR06730@tick.javien.com>

> > --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Main participants this time, lets see, Avantguardian, Mike Lorrey,
> Joseph Bloch, Humania, Bret, Brett, j. andrew rogers, Samantha,
> John Clark, Dirk, and my apologies to any I have missed...


Just to make it clear, the previous was a list of those
on either the sending or receiving end of harsh words,
and is not to be taken as criticism.  The list has done
a pretty good job of keeping it civil, thanks.  

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul  1 15:26:29 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:26:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507011526.j61FQnR07160@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
> 
> ... As a completely
> hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it...
> 
> The Avantguardian

As soon as the Taxifornia government paid out the first
dollar in that scenario, Aaahhhnold would be sooooo
recalled.  It wouldn't pay up, just as I predict *none*
of the nations that signed up to the Kyoto protocol
will pay up, not one.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul  1 15:38:36 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:38:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <200507011526.j61FQnR07160@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200507011538.j61FckR08367@tick.javien.com>

> > ... As a completely
> > hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> > Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it...
> >
> > The Avantguardian
> 
> As soon as the Taxifornia government paid out the first
> dollar in that scenario, Aaahhhnold would be sooooo
> recalled.  It wouldn't pay up, just as I predict *none*
> of the nations that signed up to the Kyoto protocol
> will pay up, not one.
> 
> spike

Avant note that several Taxifornia mayors have made a
symbolic signing of the Kyoto agreement.  It doesn't
actually mean anything, of course, as mayors have not
the authority to raid the treasury for this kind of
stuff, nor do they have the authority to make laws
regarding CO2 emissions, nor does Aaahhhnold.  I
suspect in the final scene, most of the nations that
did sign up to the Kyoto agreement will find that
they too lack the authority to make it so.  

This is the heart and soul of libertarianism:
governments do not own the treasury, the taxpayers
do.  We merely hire governments to be temporary stewards
over it.  If they do so irresponsibly, then they are
George Jetson and the we are Mr. Spacely:

Jetsoooooon!  You're Firrrrrrred!

spike  



From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul  1 15:48:16 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:48:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <200507011538.j61FckR08367@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507011538.j61FckR08367@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42C565C0.1000008@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> 
> This is the heart and soul of libertarianism:
> governments do not own the treasury, the taxpayers
> do.  We merely hire governments to be temporary stewards
> over it.  If they do so irresponsibly, then they are
> George Jetson and the we are Mr. Spacely:
> 
> Jetsoooooon!  You're Firrrrrrred!

As long as we're dreaming, I'd like my own space shuttle.

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


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Fri Jul  1 15:50:32 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:50:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too far
In-Reply-To: <200507011523.j61FNcR06730@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507011523.j61FNcR06730@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42C56648.2040607@humanenhancement.com>

spike wrote:

>>>--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>Main participants this time, lets see, Avantguardian, Mike Lorrey,
>>Joseph Bloch, Humania, Bret, Brett, j. andrew rogers, Samantha,
>>John Clark, Dirk, and my apologies to any I have missed...
>>    
>>
>
>
>Just to make it clear, the previous was a list of those
>on either the sending or receiving end of harsh words,
>and is not to be taken as criticism.  The list has done
>a pretty good job of keeping it civil, thanks.  
>

Criticism? I took it as a compliment. :-)

Joseph


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jul  1 16:32:45 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Can a single brain cell recognize Bill  Clinton?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050630203820.0475aec0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050701163245.11970.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> The appendix IS NOT vestigial. It has been known for several decades
> to be 
> part of the immune system.
> 
> See, for instance,
> 
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00225.htm
> http://www.uchospitals.edu/online-library/content=P00630

Thank you for the correction.  (Although, this is the first time I've
heard of it having a function, and the information that it was
vestigial came from someone who would know.  So the info's not been
disseminated as widely as it should have been.)


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Jul  1 16:46:28 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:46:28 -0400
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too
  far
In-Reply-To: <20050701054734.70741.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>

In Gordon R. Dickson's Childe Cycle -- which he, as I had feared, died 
before finishing -- the people of a resource-poor planet, Dorsai, hire 
themselves out to the rest of civilization as elite warriors.

In "Brothers," Gordy addresses some of the issues of this thread:

>As professional, free-lance soldiers, under the pattern of the Dorsai 
>contract -- which the Exotic employers honored for all their military 
>employees -- the mercenaries were entitled to know the aim and purpose of 
>any general orders for military action they were given. By a ninety-six 
>per cent vote among the enlisted men concerned, they could refuse to obey 
>the order. In fact, by a hundred per cent vote, they could force their 
>officers to use them in an action they themselves demanded.


-- David Lubkin.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 19:36:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <20050701082750.23957.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050701193626.91146.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I understand that the Constitution gives the President
> the power to make treaties with senate approval. But
> what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
> law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
> the governors of individual states from signing/making
> treaties with foreign powers? As a completely
> hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? What
> would be the consequences? Would the federal
> government step in? Would it spark a civil war? 

Yes, the Constitution bans states from signing treaties with other
nations, although many states have records of relations with foreign
countries over trade issues, particularly border states with Canada and
Mexico. New Hampshire maintains a trade office in London, which I
believe other states do as well, and I believe west coast states engage
in similar activities with other asian/pacific nations. The states
therefore generally will craft a bill for their congressional
delegation to promote in congress that deals with whatever
international issue they are working with that other nation to resolve.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 19:44:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <076601c57e38$1bd01fe0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050701194457.68838.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> >I understand that the Constitution gives the President
> > the power to make treaties with senate approval.
> 
> > But what I want to know is that if there is any explicit
> > law in the Constitution or elsewhere that prohibits
> > the governors of individual states from signing/making
> > treaties with foreign powers? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
> [Mike sent this link recently. Actually I'm hoping he and
> I can continue our discussion on impeachment in the 
> other thread. ]
> 
> Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says:
> 
> " No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
>  grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of 
> Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in 
> Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
> or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title 
> of Nobility. "
> 
> > As a completely
> > hypothetical example could Schwazeneggar sign the
> > Kyoto Treaty and have California abide by it? 
> 
> No. That would be the state of California breaching the above
> clause in the constitution relating to treaties. 

Yes, HOWEVER, while California cannot sign the Kyoto Treaty, or any
other, they can resolve that the state government, and local
governments of the state, shall function in accordance with the treaty
as if it were law in the US, with the sole exception being that they
cannot participate in the pollution fine distribution system with other
nations. California could pass a law that mandates that all state
offices, commercial enterprises, and new construction reduce their
emissions to 1990 levels. So long as the law doesn't specifically
mention the Kyoto Treaty and acts as if its measures are specifically
Californian in nature, then it would be constitutional.

> 
> > What  would be the consequences?
> 
> I'm still coming up to spead on the Constitution but I think
> because of the above Schwazenagger wouldn't try to do
> it. Its too obviously unconstitutional and not worth the 
> political trouble. 
> 
> The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on Constitution matters
> so it would not allow it. 
> 
> > Would the federal
> > government step in? Would it spark a civil war?    
> 
> It wouldn't get to that. California cannot raise a separate
> army. I think that's the point Joseph is making with the
> clause he cites.

Actually, California can raise a separate army, so long as it is called
a State Guard or State Militia. Such units cannot operate outside the
boundaries of the state except in pursuit of criminals or
invaders/attackers, or with the agreement of the governors of the other
states they operate in.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul  1 20:32:14 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 22:32:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all
Message-ID: <p06210202beeb58014711@[23.237.66.13]>


http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/tetka.html

It's UP TO YOU, dear deities-in-training. Please help her (*)
fall safely through the spheres!

(*) by using your mouse/cursor

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 couldn't read it because my parents forgot to pay the gravity
bill." --Calvin


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 21:52:56 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all
In-Reply-To: <p06210202beeb58014711@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050701215256.28794.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>

I think this is very cool interactive art. It doesn't
just look cool, it has meaning open to interpretation
of course. 

--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> 
> http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/tetka.html
> 
> It's UP TO YOU, dear deities-in-training. Please
> help her (*)
> fall safely through the spheres!
> 
> (*) by using your mouse/cursor
> 
> 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 couldn't read it because my parents forgot to pay
> the gravity
> bill." --Calvin
> _______________________________________________
> 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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 22:09:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all
In-Reply-To: <20050701215256.28794.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What is supposed to be judged 'safely'? It seems creepy to me, like
abusing a corpse.

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

> I think this is very cool interactive art. It doesn't
> just look cool, it has meaning open to interpretation
> of course. 
> 
> --- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/tetka.html
> > 
> > It's UP TO YOU, dear deities-in-training. Please
> > help her (*)
> > fall safely through the spheres!
> > 
> > (*) by using your mouse/cursor
> > 
> > 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 couldn't read it because my parents forgot to pay
> > the gravity
> > bill." --Calvin
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Sports 
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
> http://football.fantasysports.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
"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 Jul  1 22:28:15 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:28:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all
In-Reply-To: <20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050701215256.28794.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701172707.01ec1600@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:09 PM 7/1/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:

>It seems creepy to me, like abusing a corpse.

Exactly! (And the body obviously *is* recently dead.)

Damien Broderick 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Jul  1 22:31:57 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:31:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Worlds [was Free fall for all]
References: <20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001101c57e8c$b140eab0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

> What is supposed to be judged 'safely'? It seems creepy to me, like
> abusing a corpse.

Speaking of which ... have you all discussed "plastination" here?  A friend 
of mine went to one of these shows (in Los Angeles), and described them to 
me in gory detail.  He said he loved the show - and was entertained.  I was 
creeped out just listening.:

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,679330,00.html

Olga 




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 23:04:02 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all
In-Reply-To: <20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050701230402.89384.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> What is supposed to be judged 'safely'? It seems
> creepy to me, like
> abusing a corpse.

Albeit the figure is somewhat pale and haggard
looking, I don't think it is supposed to represent a
corpse. I agree with you that it is a little creepy. I
felt that it was a scantily clad woman who is very
submissive, supple, and compliant as if she had been
given hypnotol the date-rape drug. My guess would be
that it is a statement about the objectification of
women. I would conjecture that the artist was a woman
and it could very well be a self-portrait of the
artist. The short hair seems to signify a rejection of
her sexuality as many rape victims shave their heads
and some become lesbians.

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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Jul  1 23:15:59 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 19:15:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: Rules of Engagement was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Meta: Too  far
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
References: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


Ah, Dorsai! Love those stories, don't have them all, can't find them.
It's a problem, loving old SF.

Maybe I'll get out what I have and re-read it. :)

Regards,
MB

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, David Lubkin wrote:

> In Gordon R. Dickson's Childe Cycle -- which he, as I had feared, died
> before finishing -- the people of a resource-poor planet, Dorsai, hire
> themselves out to the rest of civilization as elite warriors.
>
> In "Brothers," Gordy addresses some of the issues of this thread:
>
> >As professional, free-lance soldiers, under the pattern of the Dorsai
> >contract -- which the Exotic employers honored for all their military
> >employees -- the mercenaries were entitled to know the aim and purpose of
> >any general orders for military action they were given. By a ninety-six
> >per cent vote among the enlisted men concerned, they could refuse to obey
> >the order. In fact, by a hundred per cent vote, they could force their
> >officers to use them in an action they themselves demanded.
>
>


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jul  1 23:32:38 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:32:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.ne
 t>
References: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:15 PM 7/1/2005 -0400, MB wrote:

>Ah, Dorsai! Love those stories, don't have them all, can't find them.
>It's a problem, loving old SF.


Not really. Try www.abebooks.com

e.g. 
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=dickson&y=14&kn=dorsai&x=25

(lots of these books for a buck + postage)

or ebay.

Damien Broderick



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  1 23:39:34 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050701233934.60801.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> Not really. Try www.abebooks.com
> 
> e.g. 
>
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=dickson&y=14&kn=dorsai&x=25
> 
> (lots of these books for a buck + postage)
> 
> or ebay.

You know, I think they should have a Project Gutenberg
for old sci fi. Where you can just download the text
for free. No point in paying some publisher for an old
copy of "Blade Runner" (i.e. "DADOES") when Phillip K.
Dick is too dead to enjoy the royalties.

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  Fri Jul  1 23:46:09 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:46:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <20050701233934.60801.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050701233934.60801.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>No point in paying some publisher for an old
>copy of "Blade Runner" (i.e. "DADOES") when [Philip] K.
>Dick is too dead to enjoy the royalties.

His kids aren't dead.

Damien Broderick 



From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul  1 23:46:30 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 01:46:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all part two
Message-ID: <p06210202beeb864eeaa6@[23.237.66.13]>

What you didn't try to save her ?! But why not ? OK, maybe she is a
bit like a rag doll and a bit *too* flexible., but just because
she's a mannequin, doesn't mean you can't try.

Here she is falling bigger and longer.. See if you can guide
her gently through the spheres:

"The Neverending Fall"

http://www.thechump.com/neverendingfall.swf

The physics embedded is incredibly good. I guess you didn't follow
my humor, so maybe only computational physics people can appreciate
excellent  "software gravity"... :-)

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The play's the thing."  --Shakespeare


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 23:53:56 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:53:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Worlds [was Free fall for all]
In-Reply-To: <001101c57e8c$b140eab0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <20050701220910.16828.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<001101c57e8c$b140eab0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0507011653433fae4d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/1/05, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> 
> > What is supposed to be judged 'safely'? It seems creepy to me, like
> > abusing a corpse.
> 
> Speaking of which ... have you all discussed "plastination" here?  A friend
> of mine went to one of these shows (in Los Angeles), and described them to
> me in gory detail.  He said he loved the show - and was entertained.  I was
> creeped out just listening.:
> 
> http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp
> 
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,679330,00.html

I saw the exhibit a few month ago -- fascinating stuff. I thought I'd
be creeped out when I was there, but I ended up just being overwhelmed
by fascination and forgot completely about the creepiness.

-- Neil


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 00:10:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Worlds [was Free fall for all]
In-Reply-To: <001101c57e8c$b140eab0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050702001047.87112.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> 
> > What is supposed to be judged 'safely'? It seems creepy to me, like
> > abusing a corpse.
> 
> Speaking of which ... have you all discussed "plastination" here?  A
> friend of mine went to one of these shows (in Los Angeles), and
> described them to me in gory detail.  He said he loved the show -
> and was entertained. I was creeped out just listening.:
> 
> http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp
> 
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,679330,00.html

These at least have some educational value. That free fall 'game' isn't
even as funny as "Weekend at Bernie's". It's like "lets toss this
cadaver off a skyscraper and kick it around the yard".

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  Sat Jul  2 00:12:47 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> >No point in paying some publisher for an old
> >copy of "Blade Runner" (i.e. "DADOES") when [Philip] K.
> >Dick is too dead to enjoy the royalties.
> 
> His kids aren't dead.

What do they have to do with anything? Let them get honest jobs.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul  2 00:17:33 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:17:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all part two
In-Reply-To: <p06210202beeb864eeaa6@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210202beeb864eeaa6@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701191621.01d99a30@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:46 AM 7/2/2005 +0200, Amara wrote:

>The physics embedded is incredibly good. I guess you didn't follow
>my humor, so maybe only computational physics people can appreciate
>excellent  "software gravity"... :-)

?? With no acceleration? (As far as I can tell.)

Damien Broderick 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jul  2 00:21:19 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:21:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Worlds [was Free fall for all]
References: <20050702001047.87112.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003401c57e9b$f8ab3e50$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> These at least have some educational value. That free fall 'game' isn't
> even as funny as "Weekend at Bernie's". It's like "lets toss this
> cadaver off a skyscraper and kick it around the yard".

Awwwwww, Mike.  In spite of all your braggadocio, you're just an old softie 
...

;>) 




From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Jul  2 00:47:05 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:47:05 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012038520.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.net>



On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 07:15 PM 7/1/2005 -0400, MB wrote:
>
> >Ah, Dorsai! Love those stories, don't have them all, can't find them.
> >It's a problem, loving old SF.
>
>
> Not really. Try www.abebooks.com
>
> e.g.
> http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=dickson&y=14&kn=dorsai&x=25
>
> (lots of these books for a buck + postage)
>
> or ebay.
>


True, I wrote before I thought...

I purchased a few years ago an Ace Double, recommended/found for me
through abebooks by Jim Fehlinger (formerly of this list, IIRC):
Second Ending by James White - AI/robots saving the last man - and
re-doing creation from the dust and seeds caught in his trouser cuffs.
:)

... a book full of "suspended animation" and friendly AI.

And also the very first SF I ever read.

Really what I need is more shelf space! :)))

Regards,
MB


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul  2 00:36:30 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:36:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 05:12 PM 7/1/2005 -0700, ML wrote:

> > >No point in paying some publisher for an old
> > >copy of "Blade Runner" (i.e. "DADOES") when [Philip] K.
> > >Dick is too dead to enjoy the royalties.
> >
> > His kids aren't dead.
>
>What do they have to do with anything? Let them get honest jobs.

Good grief! Mike Lorrey the rabid socialist?

The initial comment by Stuart rather confused the central issue, it seems 
to me, by referring to second-hand copies. After all, even if Phil were 
still alive, he still wouldn't be making any royalties from second-hand 
copies.

It's true that any book published in large numbers is likely to be 
available for years to come in second-hand stores, which reduces the 
likelihood that new copies will be published (by reducing the size of the 
market). On the other hand, readers having access to second-hand copies 
also keeps a writer's name alive. However, if free download of scanned 
texts by both dead and living writers were generally available, it would 
certainly obliterate the writers' or their estates' capacity to earn money 
from e-books, and very probably significantly reduce the interest of paper 
publishers to reprint such work. (Experiments in making available some work 
through Creative Commons licences are interesting, but are of course optional.)

My sense of it is this (by analogy): when my father died and left his house 
to his children, Mike appears to be suggesting that we had no right at all 
to use it or sell it and keep the money ourselves. This is rather unexpected.
.................................

But to shift ground slightly: I'm still seriously considering releasing to 
the net a thriller that Barbara Lamar and I wrote based on the idea of 
synthetic chromosomes as a means of defeating ageing and death, increasing 
intelligence, and doing away with bad hair days. We've had astonishing 
resistance to this book from mainstream publishers, generally on the 
grounds that we're endorsing rather than abominating scientific advances of 
this kind.

When someone like Charlie Stross or Cory Doctorow releases a book under CC, 
it is ancillary to paper publication, and their hope is that readers who 
get enthralled by the e-text will get tired of reading on the screen and 
pick up a copy at the bookstore, or via Amazon. CC release is thus a form 
of advertising; the revenue still comes from the paper books. What I'm 
still toying with is the possibility of making this novel available for 
download at no charge, while inviting readers who enjoy it to send us, say, 
a dollar or two via PayPal.

Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new singularity 
novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people would feel an 
impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude for having the 
book might available in this way? Would anyone here be likely to do so?

Damien Broderick 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul  2 00:50:24 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:50:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all part two
References: <p06210202beeb864eeaa6@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <07d301c57ea0$085b1060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Amara Graps wrote:

> What you didn't try to save her ?! But why not ? OK, maybe she is a
> bit like a rag doll and a bit *too* flexible., but just because
> she's a mannequin, doesn't mean you can't try.
> 
> Here she is falling bigger and longer.. See if you can guide
> her gently through the spheres:
> 
> "The Neverending Fall"
> 
> http://www.thechump.com/neverendingfall.swf
> 
> The physics embedded is incredibly good. I guess you didn't follow
> my humor, so maybe only computational physics people can appreciate
> excellent  "software gravity"... :-)

She seems to have double-jointed elbows and leg that are stuck
together :-)

Also, the friction on the spheres seems to be zero, and her body
must be totally non stick as she simply refuses to balance on one. 

She's too high maintenance for me. 

Brett Paatsch



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul  2 00:48:45 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:48:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012038520.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.ne
 t>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701203831.05e68da0@unreasonable.com>

MB wrote:

>Really what I need is more shelf space! :)))

When Glen Cook is dealing used books at sf conventions, he has a 
calligraphed epigram on his table to the effect that if you aren't out of 
book shelves, you probably aren't worth knowing.


-- David Lubkin.



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul  2 01:05:18 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:05:18 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <07f401c57ea2$1cde0040$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> What I'm  still toying with is the possibility of making this novel
> available for download at no charge, while inviting readers who
> enjoy it to send us, say, a dollar or two via PayPal.
> 
> Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his
> new singularity novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My 
> question: how many people would feel an impulse to pay the
> author a couple of bucks in gratitude for having the book might
> available in this way? Would anyone here be likely to do so?

I probably wouldn't read a sci fi novel in eform, I still prefer to read
paper, perhaps because the PC I use still sits on top of a desk and
has wires coming out of it all over the place, but if I did, I'd be happy
to pay a couple of bucks for it.

I don't even know what the state of the art in easy e-reading is at
present.

Brett Paatsch



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 01:14:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050702011426.67920.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> At 05:12 PM 7/1/2005 -0700, ML wrote:
> 
> > > >No point in paying some publisher for an old
> > > >copy of "Blade Runner" (i.e. "DADOES") when [Philip] K.
> > > >Dick is too dead to enjoy the royalties.
> > >
> > > His kids aren't dead.
> >
> >What do they have to do with anything? Let them get honest jobs.
> 
> Good grief! Mike Lorrey the rabid socialist?

I have been previously on record stating that one reason, IMHO, for the
plague of attacks on IP is that congress has extended IP protections
for too long. WRT patents, the extension of patent protections from 17
to 20 years in GATT is in the wrong direction, given the accelerating
advancement of technology, the protection period should be shortening
if it is to fulfill its goal of encouraging innovation. 

WRT copyrights, yes, publishers copyright protections should only be
extended if the publisher issues new editions of the work, otherwise
they should be adjuged to have 'abandoned' the claim to the work, like
a railroad company abandoning its tracks, with title reverting to the
original landowners. IMHO a publisher should issue a new edition each
decade or so, of some significant production quantity, else the
copyright reverts to the author. If the author cannot either find a new
publisher, or themselves publish and sell the required quantities,
their work should be regarded as abandoned and become public domain.


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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul  2 01:48:08 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:48:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>

Damien wrote:

>When someone like Charlie Stross or Cory Doctorow releases a book under 
>CC, it is ancillary to paper publication, and their hope is that readers 
>who get enthralled by the e-text will get tired of reading on the screen 
>and pick up a copy at the bookstore, or via Amazon. CC release is thus a 
>form of advertising; the revenue still comes from the paper books.

Indeed, a free download is best structured to be inconvenient to read, even 
if it is ostensibly in a print format.

I encountered something similar in a consulting job. We were generating 
printed quarterly reports for company A to give to their customers. I had 
ideas on making it much more convenient, such as real-time reports the 
customer could view over the web. Turns out a major reason they wanted the 
printed reports is to have a regular excuse for their sales force to call.

The moral for me, and perhaps others on-list, is that people almost always 
behave rationally and if one doesn't think so, one may not be looking at a 
wide enough range of considerations.

>  What I'm still toying with is the possibility of making this novel 
> available for download at no charge, while inviting readers who enjoy it 
> to send us, say, a dollar or two via PayPal.
>
>Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new 
>singularity novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people 
>would feel an impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude for 
>having the book might available in this way? Would anyone here be likely 
>to do so?

I wouldn't, although I have paid for pdf documents. Because the content was 
not available on paper, because it was substantially cheaper, or because I 
needed it *now*.

Commerce is more dependable than charity. (Quoth the libertarian, 
paraphrasing David Friedman.)


-- David.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul  2 02:26:22 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:26:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
References: <20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701211858.01da2068@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:48 PM 7/1/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

>>Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new 
>>singularity novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people 
>>would feel an impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude 
>>for having the book [made] available in this way? Would anyone here be 
>>likely to do so?
>
>I wouldn't...
>Commerce is more dependable than charity.

?? I wouldn't be asking for charity, because I'd be the one providing the 
service.

Nor would I be offering charity, since I'd be seeking payment.

However, your maxim seems to suggest that the better method would be to 
charge a nominal fee, before downloading is done. That, though, presumably 
slashes the number of people interested in trying a book out. Maybe some 
combination is worth testing: permit downloading of one third or one half 
of the novel free of charge, with the remainder available upon request for 
a fee of two dollars, say. This would have to be made absolutely clear up 
front, of course, or readers would feel royally pissed off.

Damien Broderick



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Jul  2 03:10:30 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 23:10:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012245010.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.net>





On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Damien Broderick wrote:

> When someone like Charlie Stross or Cory Doctorow releases a book under CC,
> it is ancillary to paper publication, and their hope is that readers who
> get enthralled by the e-text will get tired of reading on the screen and
> pick up a copy at the bookstore, or via Amazon. CC release is thus a form
> of advertising; the revenue still comes from the paper books. What I'm
> still toying with is the possibility of making this novel available for
> download at no charge, while inviting readers who enjoy it to send us, say,
> a dollar or two via PayPal.
>
> Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new singularity
> novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people would feel an
> impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude for having the
> book might available in this way? Would anyone here be likely to do so?

I might well be interested in purchasing such, but would not want to
use PayPal, preferring to send a Money Order. That would be a problem
for non-US purchases.

For sure I wouldn't want to pay much, as the reading would not be very
comfortable. My old 'puter sitting here on this desk, me perched on
this drafting stool... however I'm most unlikely to print a *book*
out! :)))

Regards,
MB


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Jul  2 03:13:47 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 23:13:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old sf
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701203831.05e68da0@unreasonable.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<073501c57df8$e93b34a0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701122730.04c52ff8@unreasonable.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507011914280.-207363@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701183015.01ce5cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701203831.05e68da0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012248330.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.net>



On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, David Lubkin wrote:

> MB wrote:
>
> >Really what I need is more shelf space! :)))
>
> When Glen Cook is dealing used books at sf conventions, he has a
> calligraphed epigram on his table to the effect that if you aren't out of
> book shelves, you probably aren't worth knowing.
>

:))) In the herp arena, empty cages seem to fill themselves from herp
shows only to be followed by more cage purchases for the additional
herps one couldn't resist but hadn't housing for. I don't go to herp
shows, the danger is too great. A show where old SF was being sold
would be a terrible temptation!

The book shelf business is a challenge. Any time I've weeded through
my books I've almost immediately wanted/needed some I've discarded.
Maybe if I lined every room with shelves all 'round, I'd manage
better. My cousin has done that with two rooms in her house. It's
quite a wonderful thing, very attractive and endlessly interesting!

Regards,
MB




From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sat Jul  2 04:03:32 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:03:32 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42C61214.6050500@optusnet.com.au>

> 
> Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new 
> singularity novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people 
> would feel an impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude 
> for having the book might available in this way? Would anyone here be 
> likely to do so?
> 
> Damien Broderick


Yes.


From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  2 06:48:40 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:48:40 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Body Worlds
Message-ID: <p06210201beebe894d5b9@[23.237.66.13]>

Olga:
>Speaking of which ... have you all discussed "plastination" here?  A
>friend of mine went to one of these shows (in Los Angeles), and
>described them to me in gory detail.  He said he loved the show - and
>was entertained.  I was creeped out just listening.:

>http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp

>http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,679330,00.html


Anders Sandberg wrote an excellent piece on it in 2001 (I think, or
2002?) when the exhibit was just getting known in Europe. The archives
are not up from that time, and I think I was offline enough that I
wasn't saving all of the posts because now I can't find it. Someone,
who has the extropians list archived more completely, can check?

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/
********************************************************************
"CALIFORNIA magazine, in an article on "The Man Who Invented Time Travel",
even  ran a photograph of me doing physics in the nude on Palomar Mountain.
I was mortified---not by the photo, but by the totally outrageous claims
that I had  invented time machines and time travel."  -- Kip Thorne


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jul  2 07:35:54 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:35:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why smart people defend bad ideas
Message-ID: <ee50357e050702003535da8364@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm>

Nice essay, with lots of home truths.

--------------------------------------------------

The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and
sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they're
wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were
young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their
friends, and their parent's friends) they've probably built an ego
around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of
invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the
trap of preferring to be right even if it's based in delusion, or
results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere
in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called
smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly
attended funerals, whose headstones say "Well, at least I was right.")

----

Short of obtaining a degree in logic, or studying the nuances of
debate, remember this one simple rule for defusing those who are
skilled at defending bad ideas: Simply because they cannot be proven
wrong, does not make them right. Most of the tricks of logic and
debate refute questions and attacks, but fail to establish any true
justification for a given idea.

----

The primary point is that no amount of intelligence can help an
individual who is diligently working at the wrong level of the
problem. Someone with wisdom has to tap them on the shoulder and say,
"Um, hey. The hole you're digging is very nice, and it is the right
size. But you're in the wrong yard."

----

Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears,
use their speed in thought to overpower others. They'll jump between
assumptions quickly, throwing out jargon, bits of logic, or rules of
thumb at a rate of fire fast enough to cause most people to become
rattled, and give in. When that doesn't work, the arrogant or the
pompous will throw in some belittlement and use whatever snide or
manipulative tactics they have at their disposal to further discourage
you from dissecting their ideas.

----

BillK


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 09:48:16 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 02:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701211858.01da2068@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050702094816.83273.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> However, your maxim seems to suggest that the better
> method would be to 
> charge a nominal fee, before downloading is done.
> That, though, presumably 
> slashes the number of people interested in trying a
> book out. Maybe some 
> combination is worth testing: permit downloading of
> one third or one half 
> of the novel free of charge, with the remainder
> available upon request for 
> a fee of two dollars, say. This would have to be
> made absolutely clear up 
> front, of course, or readers would feel royally
> pissed off.

How about selling by chapters with the first one free
and incrementing the price of each chapter
progressively? Just set the increments so that by the
time they buy the chapter containing the "climax" they
get the rest of the novel for free but they have
actually paid what they would have normally paid for
the book in paperback. Or whatever you feel it's
worth. It would work great for mystery novels where
everything is revealed in the last chapter.
 

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  2 10:29:41 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 03:29:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012245010.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507012245010.-300651@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <50411CE4-6ABC-4A6F-A4C0-2270F90AFFAC@mac.com>


On Jul 1, 2005, at 8:10 PM, MB wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>
>> When someone like Charlie Stross or Cory Doctorow releases a book  
>> under CC,
>> it is ancillary to paper publication, and their hope is that  
>> readers who
>> get enthralled by the e-text will get tired of reading on the  
>> screen and
>> pick up a copy at the bookstore, or via Amazon. CC release is thus  
>> a form
>> of advertising; the revenue still comes from the paper books. What  
>> I'm
>> still toying with is the possibility of making this novel  
>> available for
>> download at no charge, while inviting readers who enjoy it to send  
>> us, say,
>> a dollar or two via PayPal.


It is an interim form on the way to hopefully more ways to release  
work AND get reasonable remuneration.  I don't see it as primarily  
advertising though.    Personally I have a very nice monitor  
optimized for reading.   It is just too hard so far to drag a  
suitable monitor with me everywhere I would read  I haven't mounted  
an LCD panel on the bathroom wall for instance.

I would certainly send a couple of bucks myself.

>>
>> Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new  
>> singularity
>> novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people would  
>> feel an
>> impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude for  
>> having the
>> book might available in this way? Would anyone here be likely to  
>> do so?
>>

Actually as soon as it came out I ordered a hardback from Amazon.  I  
have read half of it online. and will likely read the other half  
there but I still wanted the paper copy.  Especially of this book.  I  
am really very impressed with Accelerando.  I haven't enjoyed any SF  
book as much in some time.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050702/30e6cebe/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 10:42:37 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 03:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why smart people defend bad ideas
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050702003535da8364@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050702104237.4716.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> <http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm>
> 
> Nice essay, with lots of home truths.
> 
Yup. And some pretty funny not so truths-

--------------------------------
For example, if you are skidding out of control at
95mph in your broken down Winnebago on an ice covered
interstate, when a semi-truck filled with both poorly
packaged fireworks and loosely bundled spark plugs
slams on its brakes, it?s not the right time to
discuss with your passengers where y?all would like to
stop for dinner. But as ridiculous as this scenario
sounds, it happens all the time.
--------------------------------------

It does? To who? Whoever that guy is I have to hand it
to him. When I feel my tires lose traction about the
only thing I can say is "oh shit!"

------------------------------------
?Well, it's gotten us this far, and it?s the best
system we have?. Well, maybe. But if you were in that
broken down Winnebago up to your ankles in gasoline
from a leaking tank, smoking a cigarette in each hand,
you could say the same thing. 
----------------------------------------------

Maybe- if you're the poster child for natural
selection. 

----------------------------------------------

As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the
people around us behave, and the quality of our own
internal decision making varies widely depending on
the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to
write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with
15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15
different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs.
sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods). 
----------------------------------------
My spring day ruined--
Fifteen fat ladies singing,
Fourteen floors to go.
:)




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 theo at gmx.co.uk  Sat Jul  2 13:29:19 2005
From: theo at gmx.co.uk (T.Theodorus Ibrahim)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 14:29:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman Military
In-Reply-To: <200506300224.j5U2OaR13948@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <OIEBKIIHPEBCNNHOAENBEEKICDAA.theo@gmx.co.uk>


Just saw this post by J. Andrew Rodgers. This is very interesting. There
does seem to be this rather strange (or maybe not so strange) military -
transhuman axis. Historically, here in the UK in the early part of the 20th
century  there was a guy named JFC Fuller, one of the pioneers of armoured
warfare, mechanisation and proponent of the drive towards the greater
efficiency this would bring. He & his cadre placed great emphasis on the
technology of improving human performance in the military arena, in a way
somewhat reminiscent of what we might recognise
as transhumanism today - except with that specific military focus. If there
are a lot of proto extropians now or in the recent past in the military the
roots of that may lie quite a long time in the past. Something to think
about.

cheers
t. theodorus ibrahim


>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 28
> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:24:00 -0700
> From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>


> Well I'll be damned.  Who would have thought there was more than one
> former Lightfighter on this list (yeah, me too many moons ago).  I
> remember an unofficial survey on the extropians list many years ago of
> how many on the list were ex-military and they came out of the woodwork.
>  There were a lot of geeks and proto-extropians in the military when I
> was in -- it is not a cadre of ill-educated hicks as is a popular notion.

>
> cheers,
>
> j. andrew rogers
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 21, Issue 48
> ********************************************
>



From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jul  2 14:20:02 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:20:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why smart people defend bad ideas
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050702003535da8364@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e050702003535da8364@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42C6A292.9040409@pobox.com>

BillK wrote:
> <http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm>
> 
> Nice essay, with lots of home truths.

If you liked this essay you may also be interested in reading:

"Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid"
a collection of semitechnical papers edited by Robert J. Sternberg

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


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Jul  2 18:20:02 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:20:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
References: <20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <42C6DAD2.1020507@jefallbright.net>

David Lubkin wrote:

> Damien wrote:
>
>> When someone like Charlie Stross or Cory Doctorow releases a book 
>> under CC, it is ancillary to paper publication, and their hope is 
>> that readers who get enthralled by the e-text will get tired of 
>> reading on the screen and pick up a copy at the bookstore, or via 
>> Amazon. CC release is thus a form of advertising; the revenue still 
>> comes from the paper books.
>
>
> Indeed, a free download is best structured to be inconvenient to read, 
> even if it is ostensibly in a print format.
>
> I encountered something similar in a consulting job. We were 
> generating printed quarterly reports for company A to give to their 
> customers. I had ideas on making it much more convenient, such as 
> real-time reports the customer could view over the web. Turns out a 
> major reason they wanted the printed reports is to have a regular 
> excuse for their sales force to call.
>
> The moral for me, and perhaps others on-list, is that people almost 
> always behave rationally and if one doesn't think so, one may not be 
> looking at a wide enough range of considerations.
>

People don't rationally pay for that which they can get for free, and 
this is true at all scales of time, actors and types of interactions.  
However, people and organizations are increasingly coming to understand 
that identification with short term, limited context goals is 
detrimental to self in the longer term bigger picture.

So the current problem is one of balance:  How to contribute to 
sustaining the current systems, predominately based on immediate or very 
near-term payback, while also promoting and contributing to longer-term 
investments in the future that we (and increasingly, others) would like 
to enjoy.

I enjoyed Acclerando, downloading it for free and reading it on my 
handheld during free moments and in bed before sleep.  Because I enjoyed 
it and want to promote similar creative offerings, I've asked Charlie 
how I can send him a few bucks.  At the same time, I have little 
interest in promoting the dead tree version so I will not buy the paper 
book.  (I've already converted several hundred books in my paper library 
to PDF and have discretely disposed of the corpses.)

- Jef


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jul  2 18:21:07 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman Military
In-Reply-To: <OIEBKIIHPEBCNNHOAENBEEKICDAA.theo@gmx.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20050702182107.6102.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "T.Theodorus Ibrahim" <theo at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> There
> does seem to be this rather strange (or maybe not so strange)
> military -
> transhuman axis.

Not so strange.  Military is one of the most obvious and easy
applications of transhuman tech.  Put another way: >H tech is, in a
sense, about increasing one's personal power - and military is all
about power.

From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
>  There were a lot of geeks and proto-extropians in the military
> when I
> was in -- it is not a cadre of ill-educated hicks as is a popular
> notion.

This misperception again comes because the military is all about power.
Raw, barbaric, physical power is what most people have experience with
- think schoolyard bullies.  It actually takes a bit of training to see
the force multiplier that intellectual power gives; fighting smartly,
rather than just harder, is the true advantage that military, martial
artists, and other trained fighters have, but it can be difficult to
see it (as opposed to the relatively minor effects of increased
physical hardiness, muscles, et cetera) if one does not know what to
look for.  (Kind of like judging any advanced art, when one does not
know the basics of the art.)


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Jul  2 21:09:07 2005
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:09:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sci Am & Transhumanism
Message-ID: <1120338547_132278@S1.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050702/ebc5f212/attachment.ksh>

From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul  2 21:15:56 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:15:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman Military
In-Reply-To: <20050702182107.6102.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050702182107.6102.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42C7040C.5020103@humanenhancement.com>

Not only that, but on a practical level, many of the technologies we 
describe as >H in nature will, on a practical level, be developed by the 
military. One has only to look at DARPA to see that; 
http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/augcog/ is only one example among 
very many.

Much like space travel, there's little incentive for private industry to 
blaze a trail whose outcome is entirely uncertain. Government, whatever 
else one may think of it, has not only the concentrated resources but 
also the incentive to develop these technologies to the point of proof 
of viability, at which time industry should (in a perfect model) take 
over the reigns of development, production, and ultimately distribution 
to society.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- "T.Theodorus Ibrahim" <theo at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>  
>
>>There
>>does seem to be this rather strange (or maybe not so strange)
>>military -
>>transhuman axis.
>>    
>>
>
>Not so strange.  Military is one of the most obvious and easy
>applications of transhuman tech.  Put another way: >H tech is, in a
>sense, about increasing one's personal power - and military is all
>about power.
>
>From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
>  
>
>> There were a lot of geeks and proto-extropians in the military
>>when I
>>was in -- it is not a cadre of ill-educated hicks as is a popular
>>notion.
>>    
>>
>
>This misperception again comes because the military is all about power.
>Raw, barbaric, physical power is what most people have experience with
>- think schoolyard bullies.  It actually takes a bit of training to see
>the force multiplier that intellectual power gives; fighting smartly,
>rather than just harder, is the true advantage that military, martial
>artists, and other trained fighters have, but it can be difficult to
>see it (as opposed to the relatively minor effects of increased
>physical hardiness, muscles, et cetera) if one does not know what to
>look for.  (Kind of like judging any advanced art, when one does not
>know the basics of the art.)
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 21:56:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman Military
In-Reply-To: <42C7040C.5020103@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050702215626.17453.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> Not only that, but on a practical level, many of the technologies we 
> describe as >H in nature will, on a practical level, be developed by
> the military. One has only to look at DARPA to see that; 
> http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/augcog/ is only one example among 
> very many.
> 
> Much like space travel, there's little incentive for private industry
> to blaze a trail whose outcome is entirely uncertain. Government,
> whatever 
> else one may think of it, has not only the concentrated resources but
> also the incentive to develop these technologies to the point of
> proof of viability, at which time industry should (in a perfect
> model) take over the reigns of development, production, and
ultimately
> distribution to society.

Business is about risk. People who want certainty buy government bonds,
not private stocks. To date, the military has already developed and
used all technologies needed to get to orbit, and many technologies for
getting from there to the rest of the solar system. It is government
that has been lacking the will to risk developing advanced
technologies.

SpaceShipOne's flight envelope may not have been much different from
the X-15 (they actually beat the X-15 by 13,000 feet), but they did it
with an innovative hybrid rocket motor that has never been used in a
government space program. Tier Two will pick up the next stage that the
USAF abandoned in the 60's, it will essentially replicate the Dyna-Soar
program would have followed if it hadn't been cancelled by the Johnson
administration to fund the Vietnam war and the Great Society welfare
state.

XCOR's Xerus program is similar to the USAF's Black Horse program of
the 1980's, while a european company is developing ion thruster powered
OTVs that NASA and the USAF have been talking about and experimenting
about for decades. The Planetary Society's unfortunate loss of it's
solar sail vehicle was lost at the hands of faulty government owned
rockets (russian ICBMs).

The US military does recognise the need to move technology forward to
maintain tactical superiority, but it unfortunately sees transhumans as
a threat rather than potential allies (as specified in its 2025
program). Its ideas, though, are still generally mundane compared to
what will be possible, and I found that Charlie Stross' depiction of
the military of the New Republic and its inability to rationally deal
with truly posthuman technologies and entities, which eat them
literally for lunch before any of them have any clue what is going on,
as being entirely reasonable. 

While I found many individuals in the military to have transhumanist
tendencies, the problem is that most of those were not in any position
to do anything about them and were prisoners of bureaucratic inertia.
Even those who were in positions to do something about them generally
didn't because the more hide-bound individuals (who paradoxically saw
themselves as cutting edge) would have seen them as too fanciful for a
responsible officer to advocate if he or she expected to be promoted.
Flights of fancy do not reflect responsibility, maturity, and introspection.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 22:21:58 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] it takes a conservative village
In-Reply-To: <20050702221102.89922.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050702222158.52284.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If smaller government is better then why don't fiscal conservatives save more for their childrens' education? Why do conservative parents so often say, "I don't like big government telling me what to do with my family, but I want the government to subsidize my kids' education"? If education is so important, then why don't conservative parents make it their first priority? If so many conservative parents want to send their children to better schools then why don't they save much more so they can pay for the schooling entirely by themselves? Instead parents essentially say "I pay taxes thus I want back for my childrens' education what I put into the system". However in terms of quality they are often not getting back what they put in, they would have greater odds getting more bang for their buck by paying all the educational costs themselves or homeschooling the children; and of course some can hire tutors as well. But no, of course not-- this would be the sensible thing to do. Instead
 they infuse funds via property and other taxes into the school system, but often resent public schools because the quality is merely poor - good or the children are not being educated in the way conservative parents want them to be educated. 
What it amounts to is fiscal conservatives say they think their children are their own responsibility when deep down they actually think the responsibility ought to be shared. "It takes a conservative village" is their secret thinking. Jessica Peck Corry of The Independence Institute wants parents to take responsibility for their own families, yet she will expect the government to take some financial responsibility for her child when that child goes to school. When you multiply that times all the conservatives in Colorado who want government to take at least part of the responsibility for their childrens' education, then you can see right away that fiscal responsibility in education wont go anywhere in the confused state that is Colorado. So much for independence.















































		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
 Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050702/a0c8a557/attachment.html>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Jul  2 22:23:45 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:23:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sci Am & Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <1120338547_132278@S1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEPMGCAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
> starman2100 at cableone.net

> The latest issue of Scientific American grabbed my attention due
> to the writings
> of both Michael Shermer and Dr. Nick Bostrom.  Shermer, who is
> known at times to
> be a critic of cryonics and transhumanism, mocked the idea that
> immortalists like
> Ray Kurzweil could really see a big life-extension payoff within
> their lifetimes.
>  I do agree with Shermer that mega-dosing on vitamins is not
> going to necessarily
> be that beneficial but he is really making things up as he goes
> along when he
> says "immortality is at least a millennium away, if not
> unattainable altogether!"
>  And I have to wonder if he meant true immortality or simply
> indefinite lifespan...

The beginnings of a discussion as to whether developing radical life
extension is easier than developing GAI - using the Shermer column as a
starting point - is here:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000528.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 22:40:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] it takes a conservative village
In-Reply-To: <20050702222158.52284.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050702224058.25196.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is a statement with a lot of assertions but few facts backing
them.

However, conservatives, who do not homeschool or private school their
kids, generally send their kids to public school because the local
community levies property taxes against them that the parents would
otherwise use to privately school their kids. People are taxed many
years before they send kids to school, and many years afterwards, in
total far more than it would cost them to privately school their kids.

How do you know conservative parents don't make education their first
priority? You certainly are jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Many
parents are unable to save for education for their kids because they
are overly taxed by the state for liberals welfare state programs that
are incredibly wasteful and only deliver a small fraction of the funds
and services to the intended end recipient.



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> If smaller government is better then why don't fiscal conservatives
> save more for their childrens' education? Why do conservative parents
> so often say, "I don't like big government telling me what to do with
> my family, but I want the government to subsidize my kids'
> education"? If education is so important, then why don't conservative
> parents make it their first priority? If so many conservative parents
> want to send their children to better schools then why don't they
> save much more so they can pay for the schooling entirely by
> themselves? Instead parents essentially say "I pay taxes thus I want
> back for my childrens' education what I put into the system". However
> in terms of quality they are often not getting back what they put in,
> they would have greater odds getting more bang for their buck by
> paying all the educational costs themselves or homeschooling the
> children; and of course some can hire tutors as well. But no, of
> course not-- this would be the sensible thing to do!
> . Instead
>  they infuse funds via property and other taxes into the school
> system, but often resent public schools because the quality is merely
> poor - good or the children are not being educated in the way
> conservative parents want them to be educated. 
> What it amounts to is fiscal conservatives say they think their
> children are their own responsibility when deep down they actually
> think the responsibility ought to be shared. "It takes a conservative
> village" is their secret thinking. Jessica Peck Corry of The
> Independence Institute wants parents to take responsibility for their
> own families, yet she will expect the government to take some
> financial responsibility for her child when that child goes to
> school. When you multiply that times all the conservatives in
> Colorado who want government to take at least part of the
> responsibility for their childrens' education, then you can see right
> away that fiscal responsibility in education wont go anywhere in the
> confused state that is Colorado. So much for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Sports
>  Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football>
_______________________________________________
> 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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul  2 22:30:54 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:30:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <42C6DAD2.1020507@jefallbright.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>

Jef Allbright wrote:

>(I've already converted several hundred books in my paper library to PDF 
>and have discretely disposed of the corpses.)

I've recently begun the process of massively ridding myself of paper, and 
having a digital backup for paper I want to retain.

I heartily recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap fi-5110EOX2 (about $400, 
including shipping, from newegg.com). It's about the size of a shoe box. It 
will scan a stack of documents from business card to A4. Both sides are 
scanned simultaneously, optionally skipping blank pages. Color to 600 dpi, 
B&W to 1200 dpi. Automatically deskews crooked pages. Saves to pdf or jpg. 
Comes with Acrobat (which includes OCR software) and CardMinder (global 
business card recognition). Lots of other bells-and-whistles. A few 
limitations.

I'm easily able to feed it a couple thousand sheets a day while I'm doing 
other work. Its small footprint and fast idle-to-scanned time also makes it 
trivial to integrate one-off scans into your workflow. I.e., I can scan in 
my electric bill in roughly the time it takes to open the next envelope in 
a stack of mail.


-- David Lubkin.



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul  2 22:50:09 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:50:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <42C71A21.5060404@humanenhancement.com>

Oooh... that sounds nice. How's it work on paperback books?

I'm imagining you dismember the books into single pages and feed it in.

Joseph

David Lubkin wrote:

> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
>> (I've already converted several hundred books in my paper library to 
>> PDF and have discretely disposed of the corpses.)
>
>
> I've recently begun the process of massively ridding myself of paper, 
> and having a digital backup for paper I want to retain.
>
> I heartily recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap fi-5110EOX2 (about $400, 
> including shipping, from newegg.com). It's about the size of a shoe 
> box. It will scan a stack of documents from business card to A4. Both 
> sides are scanned simultaneously, optionally skipping blank pages. 
> Color to 600 dpi, B&W to 1200 dpi. Automatically deskews crooked 
> pages. Saves to pdf or jpg. Comes with Acrobat (which includes OCR 
> software) and CardMinder (global business card recognition). Lots of 
> other bells-and-whistles. A few limitations.
>
> I'm easily able to feed it a couple thousand sheets a day while I'm 
> doing other work. Its small footprint and fast idle-to-scanned time 
> also makes it trivial to integrate one-off scans into your workflow. 
> I.e., I can scan in my electric bill in roughly the time it takes to 
> open the next envelope in a stack of mail.
>
>
> -- David Lubkin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sat Jul  2 22:58:14 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:58:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl news~
Message-ID: <016d01c57f59$89f74df0$0200a8c0@Nano>

The Nanogirl News
July 2, 2005

The Nanogirl News

Foresight Nanotech Institute Launches Nanotechnology Roadmap. Foresight Nanotech Institute, the leading nanotechnology think tank and public interest organization, and Battelle, a leading global research and development organization, have launched a Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems through an initial grant of $250,000 from The Waitt Family Foundation. The group is assembling a world-class steering committee to guide this groundbreaking project, and has garnered the support of several important industry organizations as roadmap partners. Productive Nanosystems are molecular-scale systems that make other useful materials and devices that are nanostructured. The Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems will provide a common framework for understanding the pathways for developing such systems, the challenges that must be overcome in their development and the applications that they can address. (Foresight 6/21/05) http://www.foresight.org/cms/press_center/128

Organizers of the second annual International and North Coast Nanotechnology Business Idea Competitions today announced they are accepting submissions for the 2005 event, which will award winners $150,000 in prize money at the conclusion of NANO Week in October. The competition seeks to encourage the development of business ideas that will commercialize nanotechnology research being done around the world. The International and North Coast Nanotechnology Business Idea Competitions is the culminating event of NANO Week, October 17-21, which this year will focus attention on the next generation of nanotechnology-based products and applications from the aerospace, automotive and consumer products industries. (6/16/05) http://www.tiime.case.edu/nano/index.html
Also see: http://www.nano-network.org./

Nano-levers point to futuristic gadgets. Billions of tiny mechanical levers could be used to store songs on future MP3 players and pictures on digital cameras. As bizarre as the idea might sound, researchers at a Dutch company have already demonstrated that miniscule mechanical switches can be used to store data using less power than existing technologies and with greater reliability.
Nanomech memory, developed by Cavendish Kinetics in the Netherlands, stores data using thousands of electro-mechanical switches that are toggled up or down to represent either a one or zero as a binary bit. Each switch is a few microns long and less than a micron wide - roughly a hundred times smaller than the width of a human hair. (NewScientist 6/24/05)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7577&feedId=online-news_rss20

Research offers clues about C60 behavior in natural environments. In some of the first research to probe how buckyballs will interact with natural ecosystems, Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology finds that the molecules spontaneously clump together upon contact with water, forming nanoparticles that are both soluble and toxic to bacteria. The research challenges conventional wisdom: since buckyballs are notoriously insoluble by themselves, most scientists had assumed they would remain insoluble in nature. The findings also raise questions about how the buckyball aggregates - dubbed nano-C60 - will interact with other particles and living things in natural ecosystems. The findings appear in the June 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. (PhysOrg 6/22/05) http://www.physorg.com/news4684.html
 
New Material Could Improve Fabrication of Nanoscale Components. A team of chemists at Penn State has developed a new type of ultrathin film, which has unusual properties that could improve the fabrication of increasingly smaller and more intricate electronic and sensing devices. The material, a single layer made from spherical cages of carbon atoms, could enable more precise patterning of such devices with a wider range of molecular components than now is possible with conventional self-assembled monolayers. The research is published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The molecules that make up the material have larger spaces and weaker connections between them than do components of conventional self-assembled monolayers. "The bonding and structural characteristics of this monolayer give us the opportunity to replace its molecules with different molecules very easily, which opens up lots of possibilities for both directed patterning and self-assembled patterning," says Paul S. Weiss, professor of chemistry and physics. (Penn State 6/22/05) http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Weiss6-2005.htm

Solar to Fuel: Catalyzing the Science. In the past 150 years, burgeoning industrialization has increased carbon in the atmosphere by 40 percent and driven a continuing rise in global temperatures. The trend won't stop soon. Among the consequences: rising sea levels, increased air pollution, and more hurricanes, floods, and droughts. Meanwhile, the age of cheap oil and gas has come to an end. In the short term humans urgently need to use energy more efficiently, and we need to stop putting carbon straight into the air. More important for the long term, we need to find or create ways to use energy that don't release any carbon at all. 
(Berkeley Lab 5/13/05) http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/May/01-solar-to-fuel.html

New Chem-bio Sensors Offer Simultaneous Monitoring. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Vienna University of Technology have developed a modular system that combines chemical and biological sensing tools capable of providing simultaneous, nano-level resolution information on cell topography and biological activity. The tools integrate micro and nanoscale electrodes into the tips of an atomic force microscope (AFM). A veritable Swiss army knife of sensors, the patented technique is currently being tested to combine other sensing methods to give scientists a more holistic view of cellular activities. The research is published in Vol 44, 2005 of the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie. (ScienceDaily 6/30/05)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630063042.htm

Nano World: Wiring up single molecules. A new method to carve infinitesimal gaps into nanowires soon could help scientists connect electronics to single molecules. This in turn could lead to computers based on molecular transistors with vastly greater computing power than conventional machines. Researchers at Northwestern University in Chicago who are developing the technique already have created notches only 2.5 nanometers wide -- or 2.5 billionths of a meter, the breadth of a DNA molecule -- in gold nanowires, into which a variety of compounds, such as genes, could be plugged.  "I believe we'll hit 1 nanometer within the year," senior researcher Chad Mirkin told UPI's Nano World. (WorldPeaceHerald 6/30/05) 
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050630-032056-1446r

(Past tense) Industry meets academia to discuss nanofoods. Nanotechnology researchers and food industry representatives are meeting in the Netherlands next week to discuss how to the technology may apply to processing operations, reports Ahmed ElAmin. Along with the technical talk a major item on the agenda will be how to prepare the public for its actual introduction into what they eat. Food processors and researchers are studying ways of making nanomachines on a microscopic scale that can help companies ensure the safety and quality of their products. More controversially they are also working on ways to make everyday foods carry medicines and supplements by creating tiny edible capsules, or nanoparticles, that release their contents on demand at targeted spots in the body. (Foodproductiondaily.com 6/17/05) http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=60733

A Sharper Focus for Soft x-rays. Zone Plate Lenses Capable of Better than 15-Nanometer Resolution. Progress in nanoscience and nanotechnology depends not only on examining the surfaces of things but on seeing deep inside biological organisms and material structures to identify what they're made of - and what electronic, magnetic, optical, and chemical processes may be in play. For measuring internal variations in shape, organization, magnetism, polarization, or chemical make-up over distances of a few nanometers (billionths of a meter), x-ray microscopy not only complements electron microscopy but also offers important advantages. (BerkeleyLab 6/29/05) http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ALS-soft-x-rays.html

Motorola calls on Congress for increased funding of nanotechnology. Jim O'Connor, vice president of Technological Commercialization at Motorola, Inc., testified today before the U.S. House of Representatives Science Subcommittee on Research to share Motorola's thoughts on where the United States stands competitively and innovatively when it comes to nanoscience and nanotechnologies. (nanotechwire 7/2/05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2091

Nanotube bike enters Tour de France. This year's Tour de France will see cyclists from the Phonak Team use a bike with a frame containing carbon nanotubes. Swiss manufacturer BMC claims that the frame of its "Pro Machine" weighs less than 1 kg and has excellent stiffness and strength. To create the frame, BMC used a composite technology developed by US sports equipment specialist Easton. The company's "enhanced resin system" embeds carbon fibre in a resin matrix that's reinforced with carbon nanotubes. Easton says that this improves strength and toughness in the spaces between the carbon fibres. (nanotechweb 7/1/05)
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/7/1/1

Nanotech As Disease Detector. Startup Nanosphere may have a technology that can sniff out telltale markers early enough to advance treatment. The challenge: translating potential to real-life results. There's tremendous hype about the promise of nanotechnology in medicine. Now, the companies pioneering the field have to prove the promise can become a reality. Among the players making the rounds at the Biotechnology Industry Organization convention in Philadelphia is William Moffitt, president and chief executive officer of Nanosphere, a startup looking to use nanotechnology to revolutionize the medical-testing industry. "Nanotech is going to create the next major advance in diagnostics," Moffitt says. (Businessweek 6/21/05)
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050621_8895_tc048.htm

Microsoft woos world's scientists. Microsoft's British research arm is looking into what kind of software scientists will require in the future. The company has brought together 40 leading scientists to a meeting in Venice to discuss their needs... The challenges facing scientists have been outlined by the man behind the initiative, Stephen Emmott of Microsoft Research. "By 2020, science will, I claim, be in the process of a profound transformation as a consequence of the emergence of 'new kinds' of science'," he wrote in a paper entitled Towards 2020 Science. "For example, advances in areas such as computational systems biology could re-shape the health and pharmaceutical sectors as a result of a fundamentally greater understanding of biological processes, and therefore of disease. "Advances in artificial chemistry and nanoscience could create entirely new technology. (BBC 7/1/05) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4638583.stm

Lehigh University's new mission: space, the final frontier. In high-tech team-up, school will get a hand in James Webb scope. Lehigh University researchers will work with NASA on what some scientists hail as the most important astronomy project of the decade - the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope... Under an agreement announced Tuesday, Lehigh will give researchers from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration free access to the school's nanotechnology and electron microscopy facilities. In return, Lehigh professors get to work on developing technologies for future Mars rovers and spacecraft, as well as the James Webb Space Telescope - Hubble's successor and the most expensive space science mission under development at NASA. ''It looks like nanotechnology will play a big role in space exploration, and we get to be a part of that,'' said Martin Harmer, director of Lehigh's Center for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. (OrlandoSentinel 6/30/05) 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/all-a1_5nasajun30,0,5840960.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-space

China to create nanotechnology standards. China this week created a body that will draw up standards for nanotechnology, an emerging field of research that seeks to create materials and devices on the scale of atoms and molecules. Bai Chunli, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China's National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology will head the National Nanotechnology Standardisation Committee. "The country which completes the standardisation work first might greatly influence the future international standards in nanotechnology," said Bai in an interview with the Xinhua news agency. (SciDev 6/21/05) 
http://www.scidev.net/gateways/index.cfm?fuseaction=readitem&rgwid=5&item=News&itemid=2179&language=1

Brookhaven Scientists Create a New Nanostructure. Scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have devised a method to create a new, intriguing nanostructure: ultra-thin, ribbon-like "nanobelts" bound to nanotubes. Their research achieves several "firsts" in the field of nanoscience, the study of materials on the scale of a billionth of a meter. Additionally, the new structure, described in the June 4, 2005, online version of Nano Letters, is likely to have unique electrical and mechanical properties, and may be useful in many developing nanotechnologies.   (Physorg 6/26/05) http://www.physorg.com/news4797.html



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
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/20050702/2903cbc6/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 23:18:29 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] it takes a conservative village
In-Reply-To: <20050702224058.25196.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050702231829.81365.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mike, it's based on where I live and everything I've seen here. 
But tell me, how many decades have parents been complaining about public schools, and how little has been done about it? It has been 3-4 decades. So you can't blame statist sentiment alone. Many parents are playing a double game, they are saying they put money into the system in the past, and will do so in the future, so that supposedly justifies sending their kids to public schools which they don't like much? Now, I'm no philosopher, but that sounds like very bad thinking, no matter what the circumstances. No matter how much good money they are forced to throw after bad, their children are much more important than the monetary aggregate. Parents can homeschool their children if they really want to. But it's not convenient. Though I have no children I've paid thousands in property taxes, and think all those funds are less valuable than one second of a child's (or adult's) time, as you can get money back, but time is gone forever-- you never get a second back. The issue isn't money to
 me, it is the overall waste. And don't say you dislike the fact that only a tiny fraction of welfare-state funding gets to the recipient, you don't want the recipient to get anything in the first place. You think think all liberals are chumps, don't you?

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
This is a statement with a lot of assertions but few facts backing
them.

However, conservatives, who do not homeschool or private school their
kids, generally send their kids to public school because the local
community levies property taxes against them that the parents would
otherwise use to privately school their kids. People are taxed many
years before they send kids to school, and many years afterwards, in
total far more than it would cost them to privately school their kids.

How do you know conservative parents don't make education their first
priority? You certainly are jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Many
parents are unable to save for education for their kids because they
are overly taxed by the state for liberals welfare state programs that
are incredibly wasteful and only deliver a small fraction of the funds
and services to the intended end recipient.



--- c c wrote:

> If smaller government is better then why don't fiscal conservatives
> save more for their childrens' education? Why do conservative parents
> so often say, "I don't like big government telling me what to do with
> my family, but I want the government to subsidize my kids'
> education"? If education is so important, then why don't conservative
> parents make it their first priority? If so many conservative parents
> want to send their children to better schools then why don't they
> save much more so they can pay for the schooling entirely by
> themselves? Instead parents essentially say "I pay taxes thus I want
> back for my childrens' education what I put into the system". However
> in terms of quality they are often not getting back what they put in,
> they would have greater odds getting more bang for their buck by
> paying all the educational costs themselves or homeschooling the
> children; and of course some can hire tutors as well. But no, of
> course not-- this would be the sensible thing to do!
> . Instead
> they infuse funds via property and other taxes into the school
> system, but often resent public schools because the quality is merely
> poor - good or the children are not being educated in the way
> conservative parents want them to be educated. 
> What it amounts to is fiscal conservatives say they think their
> children are their own responsibility when deep down they actually
> think the responsibility ought to be shared. "It takes a conservative
> village" is their secret thinking. Jessica Peck Corry of The
> Independence Institute wants parents to take responsibility for their
> own families, yet she will expect the government to take some
> financial responsibility for her child when that child goes to
> school. When you multiply that times all the conservatives in
> Colorado who want government to take at least part of the
> responsibility for their childrens' education, then you can see right
> away that fiscal responsibility in education wont go anywhere in the
> confused state that is Colorado. So much for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football>
_______________________________________________
> 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



____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
 Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050702/cfae4a53/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Jul  2 23:57:13 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:57:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <20050702094816.83273.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050702094816.83273.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507020822320.-238529@pentium.mb.willtown.net>



On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:


> How about selling by chapters with the first one free and
> incrementing the price of each chapter progressively? Just set the
> increments so that by the time they buy the chapter containing the
> "climax" they get the rest of the novel for free but they have
> actually paid what they would have normally paid for the book in
> paperback. Or whatever you feel it's worth. It would work great for
> mystery novels where everything is revealed in the last chapter.


Matter of fact, the cartoonist, Bill Holbrook, of Kevin&Kell did
something similar to that a year or so ago. For free you could get the
first chapter or two or three (don't now recall), and then to get the
rest I think it was $10. Not sure how well he did, don't remember
seeing a report.

He sent the subsequent chapters in email, plaintext, I think, one
every month. My only problem with it was that the chapters came in so
far apart that I misrembered the story line between readings.

For sure he didn't email out any 20,000 copies of a chapter every
month! Then again, IIUC, he's not an established writer, but a
cartoonist.

Looking at it now, it might have been better to put the first few
teaser chapters on the web, receive a minimal payment, and then either
post a zip file or send one.

Regards,
MB



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jul  3 00:49:05 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:49:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <42C71A21.5060404@humanenhancement.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

>Oooh... that sounds nice. How's it work on paperback books?
>
>I'm imagining you dismember the books into single pages and feed it in.

I haven't tried it on paperbacks yet, but I don't expect they'd present a 
problem.

Some considerations for this or any ADF scanner without a flatbed --

If the document feeder isn't going to be able to separate the pages because 
of their weight, or because they are slightly crumpled, or because they 
stick together (from humidity or staple holes), you have to feed the sheets 
one at a time. With a little practice, you can place each sheet at just the 
right time in the cycle to be included in the current pdf file. In Acrobat, 
you can trivially Create Document from Multiple Files to aggregate however 
many pdf files you ended up with.

I've found that for newspaper clippings to appear as black on white, one 
needs to adjust the brightness and contrast, because of the non-whiteness 
of the paper. My guess is that a paperback would require the same 
adjustment, for the same reason.

For any scanner, if you want the text recognized instead of just scanned as 
an image, you'll need to play with the settings to get the best results, 
allow a lot of time for the OCR phase, and be prepared to check and correct 
the text. (I don't bother with OCR for 95% of what I scan.)

I've also started scanning journals and magazines. Removing staples or 
perfect binding is annoying. I looked into a paper cutter that could handle 
a few hundred sheets at a time. They're rather expensive. But my local 
OfficeMax will cut a stack of 500 sheets for a dollar, and I can just drop 
off a box of journals for them to cut.

Before scanning periodicals, check if you can already get them on-line. 
Some magazines (like The Economist) and professional associations (like 
ACM) provide a free, complete, pdf archive on their web sites for subscribers.

For oversized scanning, like a full sheet from a newspaper, you'll want to 
use software that can stitch together the pieces into one image.


-- David Lubkin.



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sun Jul  3 01:18:25 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:18:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>

Outstanding. Come the fall, I might just get one and start converting my 
ginormous collection of paperbacks to digital.

One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the same; 
with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it might be 
worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own such digital 
copies.

I will probably be keeping the covers in a box, against the day the 
Copyright Enforcers come to my door.

Joseph

David Lubkin wrote:

> Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>> Oooh... that sounds nice. How's it work on paperback books?
>>
>> I'm imagining you dismember the books into single pages and feed it in.
>
>
> I haven't tried it on paperbacks yet, but I don't expect they'd 
> present a problem.
>
> Some considerations for this or any ADF scanner without a flatbed --
>
> If the document feeder isn't going to be able to separate the pages 
> because of their weight, or because they are slightly crumpled, or 
> because they stick together (from humidity or staple holes), you have 
> to feed the sheets one at a time. With a little practice, you can 
> place each sheet at just the right time in the cycle to be included in 
> the current pdf file. In Acrobat, you can trivially Create Document 
> from Multiple Files to aggregate however many pdf files you ended up 
> with.
>
> I've found that for newspaper clippings to appear as black on white, 
> one needs to adjust the brightness and contrast, because of the 
> non-whiteness of the paper. My guess is that a paperback would require 
> the same adjustment, for the same reason.
>
> For any scanner, if you want the text recognized instead of just 
> scanned as an image, you'll need to play with the settings to get the 
> best results, allow a lot of time for the OCR phase, and be prepared 
> to check and correct the text. (I don't bother with OCR for 95% of 
> what I scan.)
>
> I've also started scanning journals and magazines. Removing staples or 
> perfect binding is annoying. I looked into a paper cutter that could 
> handle a few hundred sheets at a time. They're rather expensive. But 
> my local OfficeMax will cut a stack of 500 sheets for a dollar, and I 
> can just drop off a box of journals for them to cut.
>
> Before scanning periodicals, check if you can already get them 
> on-line. Some magazines (like The Economist) and professional 
> associations (like ACM) provide a free, complete, pdf archive on their 
> web sites for subscribers.
>
> For oversized scanning, like a full sheet from a newspaper, you'll 
> want to use software that can stitch together the pieces into one image.
>
>
> -- David Lubkin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul  3 01:44:03 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:44:03 +1000
Subject: SCOTUS rulings and replacements Re: [extropy-chat] finding old (and
	new) sf
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

> One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the same; 
> with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it might be 
> worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own such digital 
> copies.
> 
> I will probably be keeping the covers in a box, against the day the 
> Copyright Enforcers come to my door.

What SCOTUS ruling is that Joseph ?

Brett Paatsch

I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the SCOTUS, now
that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and President G W B will get a 
shot at first her replacement and then likely, pretty soon given his health
and age, Rehquirst's) ?

Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that liberal
and conservative are talked about as if those categories are opposites.
Is that the case in the US?





From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sun Jul  3 02:04:21 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:04:21 -0400
Subject: SCOTUS rulings and replacements Re: [extropy-chat] finding old
	(and	new) sf
In-Reply-To: <088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
	<088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <42C747A5.9090606@humanenhancement.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>> One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the 
>> same; with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it 
>> might be worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own such 
>> digital copies.
>>
>> I will probably be keeping the covers in a box, against the day the 
>> Copyright Enforcers come to my door.
>
>
> What SCOTUS ruling is that Joseph ?
>

One media mention of many can be found at 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

Not that it is directly applicable, since it deals with file sharing and 
not digitalizing of written works, but it does demonstrate a growing 
hostility of the Court to copyright infringement in the digital realm. I 
just don't want to be caught with my pants down, so to speak.

> I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the SCOTUS, now
> that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and President G W B will get a 
> shot at first her replacement and then likely, pretty soon given his 
> health
> and age, Rehquirst's) ?


It's more than a "shot"; GWB will nominate a replacement, and the Senate 
judiciary committee will vote on him or her. If that nominee is voted 
down, GWB will name another, and so on. Ditto for a replacement for 
Rehnqist, although I personally think he won't retire until a 
replacement for O'Connor has been confirmed. Either way, President Bush 
nominates the successor; if his first choice isn't confirmed, he just 
keeps nominating someone until they are confirmed.

The REAL question is whether President Bush's candidate will be so 
conservative as to trigger a showdown with a Democrat filibuster, or 
moderate enough to avoid it and still not disaffect his conservative 
base. We won't know that until July 8th, when he gets back from the G8 
Summit and makes his nominee known.

>
> Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that liberal
> and conservative are talked about as if those categories are opposites.
> Is that the case in the US?


Indeed it is. In popular parlance (in the context of the Federal 
judiciary), liberal tends to mean willing to freely interpret the 
Constitution according to modern needs and mores (the "living 
Constitution"), while conservative means tending to a much stricter and 
more literal reading of the Constitution as written ("original intent").

Naturally, there is a lot of gray between those two poles, and a lot of 
specific implications in case-law dependent on both labels (to use as an 
example the hot-button issue that will certainly define the battle; 
conservatives generally don't recognize the "right to privacy" that Roe 
v. Wade established which made state prohibition of abortion 
unconstitutional, while liberals see it as a natural consequence of the 
10th Amendment).

With the political climate in Washington so polarized, so partisan, and 
so vicious (on both sides), the confirmation of O'Connor's replacement 
promises to be great political theater any way it goes.

Hope that helps.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul  3 03:49:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 20:49:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>


On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Outstanding. Come the fall, I might just get one and start  
> converting my ginormous collection of paperbacks to digital.
>
> One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the  
> same; with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it  
> might be worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own  
> such digital copies.
>

What is needed is a means to pay creators of information,  
entertainment and so on that can be digitally (or equivalent)  
rendered AND make all of that information available to everyone (with  
some security caveats).  By so doing will we attain maximum extropy  
increment derivable from maximizing these information flows.    Among  
the benefits are:

1) Information will be maximally used to the benefit of all;

2) Eventually the creators are more directly rewarded than today;

3) People are not made criminals by the agents of media companies and  
other middlemen for maximizing their lives and happiness using the  
technology.

4) Innovators and future creators  need not fear.;

5) Innovation will be maximized.

So how could such a thing be done?

If there was a sufficiently large pool of funds, say the size of the  
current amount spent for year on such information and entertainment,  
and a means simply to reliably count how often that information is  
used,  then the creator or rights holder would get a percentage of  
the total pool based no some function applied to the usage count and  
various measurements describing qualities of the information.    The  
pool might be maintained by a low subscription fee or through (ugh)  
taxes.    Thus you have a commons that rewards producers, is not only  
not being depleted but is growing richer and it supports maximal  
information flow.

Thoughts?

- samantha


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 07:55:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050703075509.1511.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> What is needed is a means to pay creators of
> information,  
> entertainment and so on that can be digitally (or
> equivalent)  
> rendered AND make all of that information available
> to everyone (with  
> some security caveats).  By so doing will we attain
> maximum extropy  
> increment derivable from maximizing these
> information flows.    Among  
> the benefits are:
> 
> 1) Information will be maximally used to the benefit
> of all;
> 
> 2) Eventually the creators are more directly
> rewarded than today;
> 
> 3) People are not made criminals by the agents of
> media companies and  
> other middlemen for maximizing their lives and
> happiness using the  
> technology.
> 
> 4) Innovators and future creators  need not fear.;
> 
> 5) Innovation will be maximized.
> 
> So how could such a thing be done?
> 
> If there was a sufficiently large pool of funds, say
> the size of the  
> current amount spent for year on such information
> and entertainment,  
> and a means simply to reliably count how often that
> information is  
> used,  then the creator or rights holder would get a
> percentage of  
> the total pool based no some function applied to the
> usage count and  
> various measurements describing qualities of the
> information.    The  
> pool might be maintained by a low subscription fee
> or through (ugh)  
> taxes.    Thus you have a commons that rewards
> producers, is not only  
> not being depleted but is growing richer and it
> supports maximal  
> information flow.
> 
> Thoughts?

Well for one thing how do we evaluate information
content? Even in the current system there are times
when by viewing information (for example a movie)
where I feel that the maker of the movie should have
paid me for having wasted my time. In other times
people have said or shown or communicated things to me
for free and it is very valuable information. So
whatever creative commons type system you are
suggesting ought to somehow deal with that disconnect.
I mean I am willing to pay by the byte as long as the
information isn't SPAM or otherwise crap.



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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul  3 08:55:49 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:55:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <20050703075509.1511.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050703075509.1511.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6104F36E-A9D4-4546-B33B-20150198FD9B@mac.com>


On Jul 3, 2005, at 12:55 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What is needed is a means to pay creators of
>> information,
>> entertainment and so on that can be digitally (or
>> equivalent)
>> rendered AND make all of that information available
>> to everyone (with
>> some security caveats).  By so doing will we attain
>> maximum extropy
>> increment derivable from maximizing these
>> information flows.    Among
>> the benefits are:
>>
>> 1) Information will be maximally used to the benefit
>> of all;
>>
>> 2) Eventually the creators are more directly
>> rewarded than today;
>>
>> 3) People are not made criminals by the agents of
>> media companies and
>> other middlemen for maximizing their lives and
>> happiness using the
>> technology.
>>
>> 4) Innovators and future creators  need not fear.;
>>
>> 5) Innovation will be maximized.
>>
>> So how could such a thing be done?
>>
>> If there was a sufficiently large pool of funds, say
>> the size of the
>> current amount spent for year on such information
>> and entertainment,
>> and a means simply to reliably count how often that
>> information is
>> used,  then the creator or rights holder would get a
>> percentage of
>> the total pool based no some function applied to the
>> usage count and
>> various measurements describing qualities of the
>> information.    The
>> pool might be maintained by a low subscription fee
>> or through (ugh)
>> taxes.    Thus you have a commons that rewards
>> producers, is not only
>> not being depleted but is growing richer and it
>> supports maximal
>> information flow.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Well for one thing how do we evaluate information
> content? Even in the current system there are times
> when by viewing information (for example a movie)
> where I feel that the maker of the movie should have
> paid me for having wasted my time.

The exact dimensions measured and terms of the formula and criteria  
will have to be worked out over time and will likely have dynamic  
components.

> In other times
> people have said or shown or communicated things to me
> for free and it is very valuable information. So
> whatever creative commons type system you are
> suggesting ought to somehow deal with that disconnect.

What disconnect is that.  It is perfectly fine for the woner/creator  
to decide they aren't interested in this form of compensation.

> I mean I am willing to pay by the byte as long as the
> information isn't SPAM or otherwise crap.
>

Nothing I proposed is remotely about paying by the byte.  Just the  
opposite in fact. You have a fixed rate subscription (one model).   
You can access as much of the information you want as often as you  
want for that.  You don't pay more if you use more.  You simply  
increase the percentage of the pool of funds allocated to the  
creators of the information you use.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050703/ad3e8754/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Jul  3 11:46:19 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 07:46:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
	<49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>

At 11:49 PM 7/2/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>If there was a sufficiently large pool of funds, say the size of the
>current amount spent for year on such information and entertainment,
>and a means simply to reliably count how often that information is
>used,  then the creator or rights holder would get a percentage of
>the total pool based no some function applied to the usage count and
>various measurements describing qualities of the information.    The
>pool might be maintained by a low subscription fee or through (ugh)
>taxes.    Thus you have a commons that rewards producers, is not only
>not being depleted but is growing richer and it supports maximal
>information flow. Thoughts?

Everything depends on the quality of the "measurements describing
qualities of the information."  Or rather, what we really want are
indicators of the *value* of the information to the people who use it.
Whatever the problems with the current system, it does ensure that
info which users perceive to have a high value is produced and used.
An alternative could be worse if it failed often enough to induce
the production and use of this class of info.




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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 12:21:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 05:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCOTUS rulings and replacements Re: [extropy-chat] finding old
	(and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050703122140.83895.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Joseph Bloch wrote:
> 
> > One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the
> same; 
> > with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it might
> be 
> > worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own such
> digital 
> > copies.
> > 
> > I will probably be keeping the covers in a box, against the day the
> > Copyright Enforcers come to my door.
> 
> What SCOTUS ruling is that Joseph ?

I believe the case is MGM v Grokster or something along those lines. It
was issued in the last two weeks, and as I had predicted, it pretty
much puts the power in the copyright holder, all this new fangled
anti-IP propaganda notwithstanding.

> 
> Brett Paatsch
> 
> I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the SCOTUS, now
> that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and President G W B will get a 
> shot at first her replacement and then likely, pretty soon given his
> health and age, Rehquirst's) ?

Yes, and the big change will be O'Connor, who was a swing vote who
often wrote moderate, hair-splitting decisions that left issues for
another day. If Bush puts, say, a constructionist in her place (like
that recently promoted black lady judge) it will be a great day for
libertarians. If he puts in a fascist like his friend Alberto Gonzalez
it will be a bad day.

> 
> Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that
> liberal and conservative are talked about as if those categories are
> opposites. Is that the case in the US?

Yes, but liberals here are not libertarian, they are democratic
socialists, i.e. welfare state proponents, with a dash of anti-crime
fascism in order to get elected.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jul  3 13:48:05 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:48:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
	<49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:46 AM 7/3/2005 -0400, Robin wrote:

>Everything depends on the quality of the "measurements describing
>qualities of the information."  Or rather, what we really want are
>indicators of the *value* of the information to the people who use it.
>Whatever the problems with the current system, it does ensure that
>info which users perceive to have a high value is produced and used.
>An alternative could be worse if it failed often enough to induce
>the production and use of this class of info.

This discussion has skidded weirdly away from my original suggestion, which 
was precisely to make available to potential users an experience (reading 
the text) that they could evaluate *after use*and then pay for, if they 
felt that its value was sufficient.

This is not altogether unprecedented. If you go to a restaurant (rather 
than a McEatery) and order a meal, they bring it to you, you eat and drink 
it, and only after that do you pay them. If the food and drink was 
repulsive, you might decide not to pay, although this would be regarded as 
bad form.

The difference with downloadable material is that competition in the form 
of unedited and free (or edited and textjacked) downloads is abundant. When 
your daily reading experience is largely comprised of blogs, 
advertisement-subsidised newspaper or journal downloads, etc, you start to 
feel resentful if somebody has the gall to ask you to pay for your 
entertainment.

In particular, you're likely to resist the urge to pay for something you 
have already used. To me, this is a sign of moral enfeeblement in our 
community, but hey -- if that's the way people are, there is no point 
trying to make a living by flying in the face of it.

In any event, the point of my proposal was that the reader gets to assess 
the value of what has just been consumed, and pay what the reader regards 
as a fair price for it. Weird, huh?

Damien Broderick 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Jul  3 13:46:18 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:46:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
In-Reply-To: <20050625184520.79872.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050625133117.039e36a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703093606.036cee00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:45 AM 25/06/05 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:


>--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

snip

> > Why do humans periodically kill large numbers of other humans?
> >
> > If you consider the period length and the exception cases you will be
> > half way to the answer.

snip

>War, crime, and other mass maladies, are the result of population
>pressure

It isn't just population or densely populated Europe would be at war all 
the time.  Near as I can tell it is the ratio of resources to population, 
more or less income per capita.  Even more it is *anticipated change* in 
income per capita, with the worse situation being a downturn after a long 
run up.

>and lack of individual liberty. Having enough space for
>everyone to be truly free on their own land, free of force and
>manipulation by outside groups, is a key requirement for peace and
>justice.

Something that is just not going to happen if the population is rising 
faster than the resources to support that population.

>When enough people feel they are oppressed, either by their
>own government, or by a foreign government or population, they will
>rise up to make their demands heard.

I think the *mechanism* behind wars and related social disruptions is the 
circulation of xenophobic memes.

>In Zimbabwe, you have a problem

snip

This being something that evolved over millions of years, before our 
subspecies of hominid wiped out the rest of them, you would expect it to be 
common to all wars and related disruptions.  Such as Rwanda, the US civil 
war and Germany in the 20s.

Keith Henson



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 14:38:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 07:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703093606.036cee00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20050703143900.33517.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 11:45 AM 25/06/05 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> 
> >--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> > > Why do humans periodically kill large numbers of other humans?
> > >
> > > If you consider the period length and the exception cases you
> will be
> > > half way to the answer.
> 
> snip
> 
> >War, crime, and other mass maladies, are the result of population
> >pressure
> 
> It isn't just population or densely populated Europe would be at war
> all the time.  Near as I can tell it is the ratio of resources to
> population, more or less income per capita.  Even more it is
> *anticipated change* in income per capita, with the worse situation
> being a downturn after a long run up.

Europe's history has been nearly constant war. The peace of the latter
half of the 20th was an externally imposed stalemate, an anomaly, which
quickly devolved into multiple revolutions all over eastern europe and
multiple civil wars in Yugoslavia as soon as that stalemate was ended
by one party. Before that stalemate, Europe was constitutionally unable
to avoid having a ware every 10-20 years as a matter of course. In the
20th, you had WWI (1914-1918), Russian Civil War (1918-1921), the
Polish-Soviet War (1919-1920), the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), The
Winter War (1939-1940), WWII (1939-1945), the Greek Civil War
(1946-1949), plus you had four wars with non-european nations that
european nations were prime players in: The Russo-Japanese War
(1904-1905), The Abyssinian Conquest (Italy's invasion of
Ethiopia)(1935-1939), The French Indochinese War (1945-1954), the
French Algerian War (1954-1962).

Europe had no less than 24 wars in the 19th century, and european
nations were involved in at least 11 other wars with nations outside
europe in the same period. Europe had 43 wars in the 18th century, plus
another five with nations outside europe. In the 17th century, europe
had 72 wars, plus at least another 12 with nations overseas.

Now that the european constitution has been rejected, and Russia
continues to fight the Chechnyans, and muslims continue to invade from
Africa, I predict a major religious war in europe within 5-10 years as
fundamentalist muslims attempt to violently impose sharia on the
secular european populations.

> 
> >and lack of individual liberty. Having enough space for
> >everyone to be truly free on their own land, free of force and
> >manipulation by outside groups, is a key requirement for peace and
> >justice.
> 
> Something that is just not going to happen if the population is
> rising faster than the resources to support that population.

Which isn't happening except in places where there is artificially
created shortages (through sabotage, protectionism, or taxation).

> 
> >When enough people feel they are oppressed, either by their
> >own government, or by a foreign government or population, they will
> >rise up to make their demands heard.
> 
> I think the *mechanism* behind wars and related social disruptions is
> the circulation of xenophobic memes.

That is a symptom. Xenophobic memes become popular only when the
population is already under stress for other reasons.

China, for example, with its one-child policy, now has a generation
that is heavily dominated by a high percentage of males. The effect of
this on chinese society will create stresses that are similar to the
artificially created wife shortage in the muslim world that is created
by the tribal control of resources and the quranic allowance of four
wives for those who can afford them. In both cases, the 'cause' is
being blamed, by those who have the wives, on the United States as the
boogeyman, in order to deflect the rage of unmarried males upon us
rather than those with the wives, or their own governments.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Jul  3 14:38:56 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:38:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson's adventures in Canada
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703093606.036cee00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cab
	le.rogers.com>
References: <20050625184520.79872.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20050625133117.039e36a0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703103748.030bfb30@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>


My efforts to expose the scientology cult have been totally eclipsed by Tom 
Cruise's insane public outbursts and his fight with Brooke Shields, but for 
those who are interested:

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/82296f58d18c6132?hl=en

Keith Henson 



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jul  3 15:02:39 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 00:32:39 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Free fall for all part two
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701191621.01d99a30@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <p06210202beeb864eeaa6@23.237.66.13>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701191621.01d99a30@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050703080221a83313@mail.gmail.com>

> At 01:46 AM 7/2/2005 +0200, Amara wrote:
> 
> >The physics embedded is incredibly good. I guess you didn't follow
> >my humor, so maybe only computational physics people can appreciate
> >excellent  "software gravity"... :-)
> 
> ?? With no acceleration? (As far as I can tell.)
> 
> Damien Broderick

As far as I can tell, there is acceleration (how does she even start
falling otherwise?), but terminal velocity might be pretty low.
Overall, kind of beautiful and kind of disturbing. I like it!

-- 
Emlyn

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


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jul  3 15:09:02 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 00:39:02 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <42C61214.6050500@optusnet.com.au>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701192431.01cfffc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42C61214.6050500@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05070308095c9e5f21@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/07/05, David <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Charlie had 22,000 downloads fairly quickly when he put his new
> > singularity novel ACCELERANDO up for grabs. My question: how many people
> > would feel an impulse to pay the author a couple of bucks in gratitude
> > for having the book might available in this way? Would anyone here be
> > likely to do so?
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> 
> Yes.

I would almost definitely download and read it. I might get around to
paypal (more likely since I know you, but a decent (lower than 50%)
chance even if I'd never met you, if I liked the book).

However, if it were in print, there's an extremely low chance that I'd
read the book at all. I mostly read etexts only these days (although I
do every so often read an actual book for the retro thrill).

-- 
Emlyn

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


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Jul  3 16:04:58 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:04:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
In-Reply-To: <20050703143900.33517.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703093606.036cee00@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050703114503.036922e0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:38 AM 03/07/05 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

 > keith wrote:
snip

>Europe had no less than 24 wars in the 19th century, and european
>nations were involved in at least 11 other wars with nations outside
>europe in the same period. Europe had 43 wars in the 18th century, plus
>another five with nations outside europe. In the 17th century, europe
>had 72 wars, plus at least another 12 with nations overseas.

And what has changed is the low population growth in the last 60 years.

>Now that the european constitution has been rejected, and Russia
>continues to fight the Chechnyans, and muslims continue to invade from
>Africa, I predict a major religious war in europe within 5-10 years as
>fundamentalist muslims attempt to violently impose sharia on the
>secular european populations.

I grant you that without some breakthrough like nanotech this is 
likely.  It is fueled by the high population growth in Africa and 
transportation that allows the excess population to travel.

> > >and lack of individual liberty. Having enough space for
> > >everyone to be truly free on their own land, free of force and
> > >manipulation by outside groups, is a key requirement for peace and
> > >justice.
> >
> > Something that is just not going to happen if the population is
> > rising faster than the resources to support that population.
>
>Which isn't happening except in places where there is artificially
>created shortages (through sabotage, protectionism, or taxation).

The problems are not entirely social.  There *are* physical problems like 
wrecking the farmland that have destroyed civilizations in the past.  Read 
Diamond's Collapse in this light.

> > >When enough people feel they are oppressed, either by their
> > >own government, or by a foreign government or population, they will
> > >rise up to make their demands heard.
> >
> > I think the *mechanism* behind wars and related social disruptions is
> > the circulation of xenophobic memes.
>
>That is a symptom. Xenophobic memes become popular only when the
>population is already under stress for other reasons.

I look at xenophobic memes as in the causal chain.  Stress -> build up of 
memes that support war -> war.  It makes sense as part of a behavioral 
switch that evolved in hunter gatherer stage humans who periodically over 
stressed their environment.  Wars periodically cut back the population.

>China, for example, with its one-child policy, now has a generation
>that is heavily dominated by a high percentage of males. The effect of
>this on chinese society will create stresses that are similar to the
>artificially created wife shortage in the muslim world that is created
>by the tribal control of resources and the quranic allowance of four
>wives for those who can afford them. In both cases, the 'cause' is
>being blamed, by those who have the wives, on the United States as the
>boogeyman, in order to deflect the rage of unmarried males upon us
>rather than those with the wives, or their own governments.

Time will test this idea.  My theory is that a good economic outlook is 
more important in holding down the buildup of war memes than the excess of 
young males.

So I would predict that as long as they have a reasonably rosy economic 
prospects, China will not start wars.

Where wars and related social disruptions such as terrorism will be a big 
problem in the Islamic world in direct relation to how bleak their economic 
prospects are.

Keith Henson



From brian at posthuman.com  Sun Jul  3 17:00:09 2005
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:00:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>	<49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42C81999.3090100@posthuman.com>

Damien, what do you think about a subscription model? I'm referring to something 
like the Yahoo Unlimited Music service, which costs $60 a year and allows one to 
download/access over 1 million songs, including copying them to a portable audio 
player. If you end your subscription, the music "expires" from your devices 
within a month.

I assume the artists make some money based on how popular their music is on this 
type of service, but I don't know the specifics of the contracts.

Personally I find that both my dvd and music intakes have both converted 
essentially 100% to subscription services, and I find this provides a superior 
overall experience. I look for large selection and total entertainment bang, 
balanced against lowest cost, and this seems to hit a nice sweet spot. And I 
find the current price to be pretty competitive vs. the option of "free" p2p 
alternatives. I think others agree since subscription service usage appears to 
be rapidly passing p2p usage in terms of number of users.

I'm not sure if this would work well for the written word though since most 
readers prefer books as their user interface currently. Maybe if a really good 
portable electronic reader device would be developed...
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 18:30:46 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050703183046.12681.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mike,
I'm not just trying to break your balls, I want a glimpse into the military mind-- an alien mind to an old queer such as myself. In legal and moral terms you have earned the government benefits you have now and those you will have as you age. But how do you justify those benefits on libertarian grounds? Though the funds you and all the other veterans receive are merely a small fraction of the government pie, they are given to you for past services, in a similar way to how an unemployment check is given to someone who has been laid off; and in a similar fashion to how disability benefits are received by someone who no longer works.
No doubt most defense personnel risk their lives, nevertheless so do laborers who hold dangerous jobs in the private sector.
I ask this, among other reasons, because it is my understanding that virtue is its own reward, a soldier sailor or airman takes greater than average risks and is compensated with all sorts of benefits-- and I have looked into the benefits--  that most agree are deserved. However from a libertarian viewpoint couldn't it be said that when someone enlists in one of the branches of the Services he has signed a contract giving him certain rights however preeminently the right to serve? All the goodies a serviceman receives in the Service or afterwards are secondary or tertiary. Joining the Service is more than a career, or less than a career depending upon how you look at it. A man joins to serve or he joins for a reason or reasons not in line with the mission of the Service. A fellow may be enticed with benefits, but that's very obviously not at all what he is recruited for. Since in the service virtue is without question its own reward how, again, can you on libertarian terms justify
 getting government benefits until death? Now, I'm sure there is a good explanation, so I'd like to get it from the horse's 'mouth'.



		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
 Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050703/590f72f7/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul  3 19:18:58 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:18:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>
	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com>
	<49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2FE8228C-2C8D-4D83-A1FD-7E3799699441@mac.com>


On Jul 3, 2005, at 6:48 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 07:46 AM 7/3/2005 -0400, Robin wrote:
>
>
>> Everything depends on the quality of the "measurements describing
>> qualities of the information."  Or rather, what we really want are
>> indicators of the *value* of the information to the people who use  
>> it.
>> Whatever the problems with the current system, it does ensure that
>> info which users perceive to have a high value is produced and used.
>> An alternative could be worse if it failed often enough to induce
>> the production and use of this class of info.
>>
>
> This discussion has skidded weirdly away from my original  
> suggestion, which was precisely to make available to potential  
> users an experience (reading the text) that they could evaluate  
> *after use*and then pay for, if they felt that its value was  
> sufficient.

I segued to something else in the solution space after responding to  
the original. Instead of discussions of when and if you pay for a  
particular bit of information I sought to go to the root of the  
problem of having the creators compensated while maximizing the use  
of information and the rate of innovation.  My proposed solution,  
incomplete as it is, removes the question of when and if one pays.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050703/7534168b/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 20:04:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 13:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050703183046.12681.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> I'm not just trying to break your balls, I want a glimpse into the
> military mind-- an alien mind to an old queer such as myself. In
> legal and moral terms you have earned the government benefits you
> have now and those you will have as you age. But how do you justify
> those benefits on libertarian grounds? Though the funds you and all
> the other veterans receive are merely a small fraction of the
> government pie, they are given to you for past services, in a similar
> way to how an unemployment check is given to someone who has been
> laid off; and in a similar fashion to how disability benefits are
> received by someone who no longer works.

Veterans benefits are indeed for past services, which at the time were
very poorly paid for (without those benefits, the real hourly wage of
an E-1 through E-3 isn't much more than minimum wage). Earned benefits
don't need to be justified on libertarian grounds, any more than any
employee of any corporation needs to justify their benefits.

What needs to be justified on libertarian grounds is what services the
individual renders for the government. Is one a tax collector, or a
welfare administrator, or a bureaucrat who writes tax or welfare
regulations, or a BATF or DEA agent? 

I was an electrical/environmental/avionics tech on F-15 and F-111
aircraft. The closest I came to being even tangentially working in
support of government activities I thought questionable from a
libertarian standpoint was when Bush 41 modified posse comitatus to
have the military assist in the drug war. The F-15 unit I was in at the
time was already tasked as a fighter interceptor unit for NORAD and
intercepted every aircraft that didn't identify itself in the pacific
northwest, so there wasn't any real change in our operations and to my
knowledge we didn't splash any drug planes while I was there.

> No doubt most defense personnel risk their lives, nevertheless so do
> laborers who hold dangerous jobs in the private sector.

Private sector laborers generally don't risk getting arrested by
competitive companies and held in prisons and tortured for years. Nor
do most industrial or other workplace accidents maime the worker so
thoroughly that repair and rehabilitation is so difficult. Nor do they
get paid to intentionally put themselves in harms way (except for, say,
cops and firemen). Private employers generally want you to follow OSHA
rules at all times.

> I ask this, among other reasons, because it is my understanding that
> virtue is its own reward, a soldier sailor or airman takes greater
> than average risks and is compensated with all sorts of benefits--
> and I have looked into the benefits--  that most agree are deserved.
> However from a libertarian viewpoint couldn't it be said that when
> someone enlists in one of the branches of the Services he has signed
> a contract giving him certain rights however preeminently the right
> to serve? All the goodies a serviceman receives in the Service or
> afterwards are secondary or tertiary. Joining the Service is more
> than a career, or less than a career depending upon how you look at
> it. A man joins to serve or he joins for a reason or reasons not in
> line with the mission of the Service. A fellow may be enticed with
> benefits, but that's very obviously not at all what he is recruited
> for. Since in the service virtue is without question its own reward
> how, again, can you on libertarian terms justify
>  getting government benefits until death? Now, I'm sure there is a
> good explanation, so I'd like to get it from the horse's 'mouth'.

I have never heard that any service member 'gets' rights by enlisting.
If anything, the service member gives up rights, including agreeing to
be held to justice under the UCMJ rather than civilian law, and to
pretty much be told what to do with his or her life, which may include
being separated from spouse and kids for long periods of time.

About the only right we gain is the right to tell obnoxious
know-it-alls to go to hell when they start telling us we are baby
killers, mercenaries, or didn't earn our pay and/or benefits. In a
world where most civilians either don't own guns, don't believe in
guns, or the military, or the common militia, or in self-defense, the
risking and bleeding and dying that military members do enables such
self-deluded idiots to continue to live in their fantasy worlds of
poorly estimated risk. This includes a few individuals who claim to be
libertarians but interpret the zero agression principle as pacifism
with a shuck and jive, betting their bluff will never be called, rather
than responsible self-defense as it should be.

I know of few real libertarians (counting all libertarians and not just
absolutist anarchists living in their air castles in denial of reality)
who do not recognise that one of the few legitimate functions of the US
government under the US Constitution, or even the Articles of
Confederation, if you disbelieve in the validity of the Constitution,
is the military. While keeping a standing army is generally wrong in
libertarian eyes, a full time Navy and any other means of power
projection with large capital equipment (which IMHO includes air power,
space power, as well as ships), is legitimate.

If you still think otherwise, then fine, come and bitch at me once
you've gone and dismantled the 90% of the US government that ISN'T
constitutionally allowed. Until then, you've got a lot bigger fish to
fry than my veterans benefits. At the time I enlisted, I was a
republican. You could say the Air Force made me a libertarian, so in
that sense, the US military made the world a slightly better place by
one person (though some may dispute that).

I know of a number of other libertarians who went through similar
experiences, who enlisted. I believe the older ones who enlisted back
when there was a draft followed Heinlein's advice that the best place
to hide from a draft is in the military.

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 natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jul  3 21:45:04 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:45:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Molecular Logic Gates
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703164318.02a53d10@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Nice.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html

<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/20050703/7e805ddc/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 23:07:18 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Molecular Logic Gates
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703164318.02a53d10@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050703230719.50662.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> 
> Nice.
> 
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html

Very interesting post, Natasha. :)
It's got me wondering if there might not be naturally
occuring logic gates operating on the surface of
cells. Such would explain some aspects of the
phenotypic complexity of multicellular organisms.
And implications for Moore's Law are self-evident.

Vigeas,







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  Sun Jul  3 23:12:33 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:12:33 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com><20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com><20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com><42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com><49E76D07-D645-4254-A05F-60B4D77598E6@mac.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050703071030.01eeefd8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050703083526.01cd3da8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <08f201c58024$b1c171f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> This discussion has skidded weirdly away from my original suggestion, 
> which was precisely to make available to potential users an experience 
> (reading the text) that they could evaluate *after use*and then pay for, 
> if they felt that its value was sufficient.
>
> This is not altogether unprecedented. If you go to a restaurant (rather 
> than a McEatery) and order a meal, they bring it to you, you eat and drink 
> it, and only after that do you pay them. If the food and drink was 
> repulsive, you might decide not to pay, although this would be regarded as 
> bad form.
>
> The difference with downloadable material is that competition in the form 
> of unedited and free (or edited and textjacked) downloads is abundant. 
> When your daily reading experience is largely comprised of blogs, 
> advertisement-subsidised newspaper or journal downloads, etc, you start to 
> feel resentful if somebody has the gall to ask you to pay for your 
> entertainment.

Psychologically, though its a while since I did social psych, I think you 
are
right on here.

> In particular, you're likely to resist the urge to pay for something you 
> have already used. To me, this is a sign of moral enfeeblement in our 
> community, but hey -- if that's the way people are, there is no point 
> trying to make a living by flying in the face of it.

The technique, which both your restaurant example (bad form etc) and
psych theory suggests, is that you get some commitment to pay if they
like it before hand, ie have the prospective reader do something, take
some action, put some details into a database or something, and they
will far more likely treat the exercise as a transaction and honour their
side of it.

Of course some will not want to pre-register with you before
downloading, but those that do are much more the type that are likely
to pay you.

Perhaps if there were a bunch of authors like yourself and Charlie
you could find someone to put together a registration service of
readers for you. They 'promise' to pay if they like, they say what
book and what author, having selected from the online blurb.

I haven't screened this idea for commercial viability against the
existing offerings in the market but I've a sense its worth checking
out.    Its just not interesting enough for me personally to do.
Perhaps Adrian or Emlyn or the Futuretag folk (might put together
a shopfront for transhumanist authors or some such) or some of
your other web savy buds on this list could work out a way of
knocking up a model or prototype.

The market is clearly open to innovative solutions right now.
Perhaps.

> In any event, the point of my proposal was that the reader gets
> to assess the value of what has just been consumed, and pay
> what the reader regards as a fair price for it. Weird, huh?

Not weird, no.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jul  4 02:04:53 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:04:53 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: SCOTUS rulings and replacements 
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com><088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<42C747A5.9090606@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

[I wrote]
>> I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the
>> SCOTUS, now that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and
>> President G W B will get a shot at first her replacement and
>> then likely, pretty soon given his health and age, Rehquirst's) ?
>
>
> It's more than a "shot"; GWB will nominate a replacement, and the Senate 
> judiciary committee will vote on him or her. If that nominee is voted 
> down, GWB will name another, and so on. Ditto for a replacement for 
> Rehnqist, although I personally think he won't retire until a replacement 
> for O'Connor has been confirmed. Either way, President Bush nominates the 
> successor; if his first choice isn't confirmed, he just keeps nominating 
> someone until they are confirmed.

Does the judiciary committee have to have grounds for voting a
nomination down, or it is simply that as both the nomination and the
voting down of it (potentially) will take place transparently with the
American public watching (so neither side wants to be seen to be
blatantly self serving)?

I don't really get what the judiciary committee does in relation to
what the Senate does. Does the judiciary committee perhaps conduct
inquiries for a time until say the President hurrumphs and says "dammit
stop delaying, put my nominee to the vote of the Senate and lets
see if we can smoke out some anti-voter filibusterers," or what?

> The REAL question is whether President Bush's candidate will be so 
> conservative as to trigger a showdown with a Democrat filibuster, or 
> moderate enough to avoid it and still not disaffect his conservative base. 
> We won't know that until July 8th, when he gets back from the G8 Summit 
> and makes his nominee known.

That is certainly interesting.  It is just the Senate that votes though 
isn't
it?

(I do realise that I could find this stuff out myself by Googling, and
probably will, but I thought if some US'ians saw how much this stuff
interests some of us that don't even live there, then they might discover
an interest in their own systems as well.  The Supreme Court is one
of the real hubs of civilizing, or otherwise, power not just in the US
but in the world.  It may be on a par with, or at more likely at present
given the might of the US, even more powerful than the UN Security
Council).

>> Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that
>> liberal and conservative are talked about as if those categories
>>  are opposites. Is that the case in the US?
>
>
> Indeed it is. In popular parlance (in the context of the Federal 
> judiciary), liberal tends to mean willing to freely interpret the 
> Constitution according to modern needs and mores (the "living 
> Constitution"), while conservative means tending to a much stricter and 
> more literal reading of the Constitution as written ("original intent").
>
> Naturally, there is a lot of gray between those two poles, and a lot of 
> specific implications in case-law dependent on both labels (to use as an 
> example the hot-button issue that will certainly define the battle; 
> conservatives generally don't recognize the "right to privacy" that Roe v. 
> Wade established which made state prohibition of abortion 
> unconstitutional, while liberals see it as a natural consequence of the 
> 10th Amendment).
>
> With the political climate in Washington so polarized, so partisan, and so 
> vicious (on both sides), the confirmation of O'Connor's replacement 
> promises to be great political theater any way it goes.
>
> Hope that helps.

Thanks

Brett Paatsch

PS: Mike, your post mentions the term "constructionist" what do you mean
by that term, is it a commonly used classification, and if so, what is its
opposite? Who on the current court for instance would you regard
as constructionists and the opposite to constructionists? 




From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jul  4 01:10:14 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:10:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Molecular Logic Gates
In-Reply-To: <20050703230719.50662.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050703230719.50662.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42C88C76.9060504@sasktel.net>

Might it be possible to engineer a buckyball sized  to engulf a logic 
gate and act as a membrane , a spacer
and circuit isolator.   Then build a  nerve like connection./conduction 
system to create a  muticomponent
grid with communication network.  This would be a piece of molecular 
engineered artwork to be sure.



The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Nice.
>>
>>http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html
>>    
>>
>
>Very interesting post, Natasha. :)
>It's got me wondering if there might not be naturally
>occuring logic gates operating on the surface of
>cells. Such would explain some aspects of the
>phenotypic complexity of multicellular organisms.
>And implications for Moore's Law are self-evident.
>
>Vigeas,
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050703/4b5dafe8/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  4 02:43:27 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: SCOTUS rulings and replacements 
In-Reply-To: <096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050704024327.28356.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> I don't really get what the judiciary committee does in relation to
> what the Senate does. Does the judiciary committee perhaps conduct
> inquiries for a time until say the President hurrumphs and says
> "dammit
> stop delaying, put my nominee to the vote of the Senate and lets
> see if we can smoke out some anti-voter filibusterers," or what?

In order to ostensibly streamline the work of the Senate (the House
works similarly), members form into committees to  consider bills,
resolutions, etc. and members try to get on committees that they have
an interest in, or their constituents have a significant interest in
(like senators from agricultural states being on the Agriculture
Committee, etc). Senior senators vie for chairmanships because
committee chairs decide what bills before their committees get voted on
in what order, if at all, so they are positions of power.

The Judiciary Committee, among other things, examines in depth judge
candidates for federal judgships and ultimate for supreme court justice
seats. They also examine the presidents appointments for Attorney
General, FBI, and other law enforcement agency appointments, treaties,
etc. 

What is interesting in this case is that Arlen Specter is the chair of
the senate judiciary committee. He is a celebrated moderate RINO from
Pennsylvania who is famous outside his senate seat for being the
original attorney of infamous murderer and fugitive Ira Einhorn, who
killed his girlfriend Holly Maddux and kept her body in a chest in his
closet for several years before police found it. Ira fled the US to
Ireland, Sweden, and finally France, where he was found and apprehended
with his scandanavian wife and went through two extradition proceedings
in France because the French extorted the people of PA into waiving
Einhorn's death penalty and chance of getting it in a new trial, in
order to get their hands back on him. Whether Specter advised Einhorn
to flee the US is unknown to this day.

Specter raised the ire of conservatives in the past several months over
comments attributed to him where he warned the White House against
sending him non-moderate judges, a statement he denied making, however
he was part of the group of RINO senators that undercut Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist's campaign to get all Bush judge appointees an up or
down vote before the full Senate.

> 
> > The REAL question is whether President Bush's candidate will be so 
> > conservative as to trigger a showdown with a Democrat filibuster,
> or 
> > moderate enough to avoid it and still not disaffect his
> conservative base. 
> > We won't know that until July 8th, when he gets back from the G8
> Summit 
> > and makes his nominee known.
> 
> That is certainly interesting.  It is just the Senate that votes
> though isn't it?

If the candidate can get out of committee, yes, he gets a full senate
vote. Getting out of Committee is the hard part.
> 
> PS: Mike, your post mentions the term "constructionist" what do you
> mean by that term, is it a commonly used classification, and if so,
> what is its opposite? Who on the current court for instance would you
> regard as constructionists and the opposite to constructionists? 

A constructionist is also described by Justice Scalia as an
"originalist", in that a constructionist or originalist interprets the
constitution according to the original intent or original meaning of
the clear language construction of the document.

In the founders view, "general welfare" was not a social safety net,
but the management of the performance of the economy, therefore Alan
Greenspan's job at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is closer to
the original meaning of that term than whoever is running Health and
Human Services or the Social Security Administration. Similarly "the
militia" was specifically NOT the active duty military, but "the whole
of the people", in the words of George Mason and James Madison,
therefore the average Joe practicing his rifle shooting at the gun club
is the real militia and participating in neighborhood watch patrols and
the State Guard, not the Department of Defense.

The opposite of a constructionist or originalist is an "evolutionist",
who believes that the meaning of the Constitution changes, or can be
changed by judicial review, to meet the changing needs of an advancing
society. The problem with this is "legislating from the bench" in which
law is made by person who were not elected, but there is also a much
more insidious problem in this view, and that is that the definitions
of words are intentionally changed over time by judicial activists,
particularly those who edit legal dictionaries. 

By inventing new definitions of the words that describe our laws, you
change the meaning of the law without amending one word through
legislative or judicial processes, if you go by the evolutionist
approach. This is therefore an extremely subversive and legalistically
a form of insurgency or coup d'etat: if you can change how people think
the words that describe what the state stands for mean, you change the
government without an election or a shot being fired. This is the same
problem I described in my essay "Unsafe at any speed" that was
published as part of the "3 Laws Unsafe" campaign of SIAI: if you
change the meanings of the words of a programming language, you change
the function of the program, which can have many dangerous, unforseen
consequences that need to be extensively studied and modelled and
contemplated by a properly qualified deliberative body.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  4 03:02:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact fireworks and Bug Planet detected.
In-Reply-To: <096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050704030223.98955.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/10/text/

The above link announces that Hubble has discovered a well defined dust
ring around the star Fomalhaut, which as you might know was the home of
the Bug civilization in Robert Heinlein's classic novel "Starship
Troopers". The ring, in fact, demonstrates that it is being shepherded
by a large planet approximately 4.5 billion miles from the star, with
an oribital center that is offset from the star, indicating the
gravitational influence of the planet. The shepherding planet itself
has not been observed, and it is most certainly a jovian sized body,
though it is likely to have moons, and there certainly appears to be
room for plenty of planets closer to the star. 

On the down side, the star is only 200 million years old according to
current estimates, so it is unlikely to have evolved intelligent life
at this point on any planets that might exist there, though there may
be room for settlement.... it is only 25 light years away.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
Watch Deep Impact's fireworks on NASA tv.

Expected impact will be 10:52 pacific time, July 3 (1:52 eastern time
on the 4th for east coasters), and while the impact is expected to be
magnitude 6 as seen from Hawaii or the southwestern US, it will be very
low in the sky from the east coast.

Complete coverage:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/index.html

CBS show "60 Minutes" covers Rutan and SpaceShipOne program, just shown
this evening, sorry if you missed it, Ed Bradley did a good job with it.

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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Mon Jul  4 03:14:23 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:14:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: SCOTUS rulings and replacements
In-Reply-To: <096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com><088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<42C747A5.9090606@humanenhancement.com>
	<096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <42C8A98F.3040809@humanenhancement.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
> [I wrote]
>
>>> I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the
>>> SCOTUS, now that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and
>>> President G W B will get a shot at first her replacement and
>>> then likely, pretty soon given his health and age, Rehquirst's) ?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's more than a "shot"; GWB will nominate a replacement, and the 
>> Senate judiciary committee will vote on him or her. If that nominee 
>> is voted down, GWB will name another, and so on. Ditto for a 
>> replacement for Rehnqist, although I personally think he won't retire 
>> until a replacement for O'Connor has been confirmed. Either way, 
>> President Bush nominates the successor; if his first choice isn't 
>> confirmed, he just keeps nominating someone until they are confirmed.
>
>
> Does the judiciary committee have to have grounds for voting a
> nomination down, or it is simply that as both the nomination and the
> voting down of it (potentially) will take place transparently with the
> American public watching (so neither side wants to be seen to be
> blatantly self serving)?


The committee votes according to the whims and wishes of its members. 
There's no standard of "grounds" that needs to be held.

>
> I don't really get what the judiciary committee does in relation to
> what the Senate does. Does the judiciary committee perhaps conduct
> inquiries for a time until say the President hurrumphs and says "dammit
> stop delaying, put my nominee to the vote of the Senate and lets
> see if we can smoke out some anti-voter filibusterers," or what?


As a rule, if any issue (such as the nomination for a Supreme Court 
Justice) does not get a positive vote by the appropriate committee 
(i.e., make a positive recommendation), the Senate as a whole does not 
conduct a vote. There have been very rare exceptions (and none involving 
the judiciary committee in particular that I'm aware of, but I'm hardly 
a scholar of Senate history), but that's not really relevant in this 
case; enough Republican Senators would vote in favor of tradition and 
form that if the Senate leadership brought a nominee to a vote sans the 
recommendation of the committee, the nomination would be defeated.

The vote does not happen simultaneously. The President has no official 
say in when the Senate brings anything to a vote (although informal 
political pressure can always be applied, as in any system).

>
>> The REAL question is whether President Bush's candidate will be so 
>> conservative as to trigger a showdown with a Democrat filibuster, or 
>> moderate enough to avoid it and still not disaffect his conservative 
>> base. We won't know that until July 8th, when he gets back from the 
>> G8 Summit and makes his nominee known.
>
>
> That is certainly interesting.  It is just the Senate that votes 
> though isn't
> it?


Correct; once the committee has given its recommendation.


>
> (I do realise that I could find this stuff out myself by Googling, and
> probably will, but I thought if some US'ians saw how much this stuff
> interests some of us that don't even live there, then they might discover
> an interest in their own systems as well.  The Supreme Court is one
> of the real hubs of civilizing, or otherwise, power not just in the US
> but in the world.  It may be on a par with, or at more likely at present
> given the might of the US, even more powerful than the UN Security
> Council).


I doubt you will maintain that view of the Supreme Court if they 
suddenly start handing down decisions that are contrary to your 
political views. Like, say, if another Justice Scalia is appointed to 
fill O'Connor's vacancy. Then it will doubtless replace George Bush as 
the seed of evil in the world.

Joseph


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jul  4 03:55:11 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:55:11 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: SCOTUS rulings and replacements
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050701184511.01d58048@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050702001247.47300.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050701205105.04de8cc0@unreasonable.com>	<5.1.0.14.2.20050702165733.04bcdc70@unreasonable.com><5.1.0.14.2.20050702201725.046b4400@unreasonable.com>	<42C73CE1.4090101@humanenhancement.com><088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<42C747A5.9090606@humanenhancement.com><096101c5803c$c49d8da0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<42C8A98F.3040809@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <099701c5804c$2d390ab0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Joseph wrote:

>> (I do realise that I could find this stuff out myself by Googling, and
>> probably will, but I thought if some US'ians saw how much this stuff
>> interests some of us that don't even live there, then they might discover
>> an interest in their own systems as well.  The Supreme Court is one
>> of the real hubs of civilizing, or otherwise, power not just in the US
>> but in the world.  It may be on a par with, or at more likely at present
>> given the might of the US, even more powerful than the UN Security
>> Council).
>
>
> I doubt you will maintain that view of the Supreme Court if they suddenly 
> start handing down decisions that are contrary to your political views. 
> Like, say, if another Justice Scalia is appointed to fill O'Connor's 
> vacancy. Then it will doubtless replace George Bush as the seed of evil in 
> the world.

I think you missed the "or otherwise" in what I wrote. I'm saying based
on a reading of the constitution and discussions with other list members
and other reading that its clear the Supreme Court has a lot of power
in the US. And because the US has a lot of power in the world it also
follows that the SCOTUS has power in the world.

I'm thinking of things like free trade agreements and such, being treaties.
If I want to enjoy the benefit of any treaties, including trade treaties,
made with the US then this stuff will matter to me personally.

See Article III, Section 2, clause 1, again.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made under their Authority;  ...."

Please let me be clear, I am not a supporter of George Bush, but I don't
regard him as the seed of evil in the world. It is possible for me to see
that things that George Bush does could be good both in his aim and in
his effect.  I don't think in terms of "seed of evil" and I don't 
characterise
those who hold views different from mine as evil.  It doesn't help.

When I see people in politics talking about "evil" or "believing" my radar
goes way up though because I suspect they are appealing to the lowest
common denominator voters. I think that they are trying to encourage
others to take nuance and judgement out of their deliberations and to
just jump on their band wagon or be run over by it and by those that do.

Brett Paatsch 




From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jul  4 04:25:37 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:25:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Molecular Logic Gates
In-Reply-To: <42C88C76.9060504@sasktel.net>
References: <20050703230719.50662.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42C88C76.9060504@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703232348.02901cd8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 08:10 PM 7/3/2005, Lifespan wrote:

>Might it be possible to engineer a buckyball sized  to engulf a logic gate 
>and act as a membrane , a spacer
>and circuit isolator.   Then build a  nerve like connection./conduction 
>system to create a  muticomponent
>grid with communication network.  This would be a piece of molecular 
>engineered artwork to be sure.

I was just writing about a concept for a transpolitics blogocracy in which 
nomothetic and diplomacy-based referendums for voting on issues would be 
developed through pervasive computing environments.  The ubiquitous 
environment would produce rapid multi-cultural communications. Open 
communications produces broader understanding and cooperation through 
online politics.

Completely new computing structures like molecular logic gates may lead to 
another quantum leap in computing power. These technologies could 
replace?at least in part?silicon-based computers, and help to give 
intelligence to everyday items. In addition, the human interface to 
computers could merge with the environment with the help of smart materials.

Cheers!
Natasha





>The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>--- Natasha Vita-More <mailto:natasha at natasha.cc><natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Nice.
>>>
>>><http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html>http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>Very interesting post, Natasha. :)
>>It's got me wondering if there might not be naturally
>>occuring logic gates operating on the surface of
>>cells. Such would explain some aspects of the
>>phenotypic complexity of multicellular organisms.
>>And implications for Moore's Law are self-evident.
>>
>>Vigeas,
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050703/a804b407/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jul  4 06:25:49 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:25:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Beefcake Babies
Message-ID: <000c01c58061$39aba360$6600a8c0@brainiac>

"... His staff wooed successful scientists and businessmen who were 
athletic, healthy and tall (Graham discovered American parents were wary of 
little eggheads). He lured customers by letting them select donors from an 
irresistible collection of what Plotz calls ''prime cuts of American man.'':

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/books/review/03MORRICE.html?

July 3, 2005
'The Genius Factory': Test-Tube Superbabies
By POLLY MORRICE
''All parents expect too much of their children,'' David Plotz writes in 
''The Genius Factory,'' his beguiling account of one man's struggle to 
ensure that everyone's children -- at least white ones -- would come up to 
the mark. In our era of rampant parental ambition, of ''aggro soccer dads 
and home schooling enthusiasts plotting their children's future one spelling 
bee at a time,'' the cockeyed vision of Robert K. Graham, a California 
millionaire who sought to create cadres of baby geniuses, seems less bizarre 
than it probably did in 1980, when Graham's Repository for Germinal Choice, 
better known as the Nobel Prize sperm bank, opened its doors.

Plotz, only 10 at the time, recalls his father's appalled reaction to the 
notion of using brainiac sperm to spawn wunderkinder: He tried to explain it 
was ''the sort of thing Hitler would have tried.'' Has Graham's project lost 
its sinister edge? This is one of two inquiries that Plotz, the deputy 
editor at Slate, explores in his first book.

The reader may conclude Hitler would have been more efficient than Graham. 
Although Graham's business talents allowed him to parlay his invention of 
plastic eyeglass lenses into a great fortune, he fumbled the first stage of 
his grand scheme -- cajoling Nobel winners in science to provide their 
superior seed to improve America's gene pool. The problem was his showpiece 
donor: William Shockley, a pioneer of the transistor who shared the 1956 
Nobel in physics. Shockley's sperm, ''a superb asset,'' in Graham's view, 
was the first contribution frozen, color-coded and offered to infertile 
couples eager to conceive. In this case Graham's natural marketing flair was 
done in by his knee-jerk adoration of brilliance. For years Shockley had 
preached that whites were genetically superior to blacks, and he was widely 
despised. Reporters who might have seen the genius sperm bank as ''well 
meaning and perhaps even visionary'' perceived it as inseparable from 
Shockley's racism. It was reviled as a horror and lampooned as a joke, and 
Nobel donors shunned it.

So the Nobel Prize sperm bank produced no Nobel offspring (even Shockley 
quit donating sperm, fearing his was too aged to beget healthy children). 
Yet Graham kept the bank in business nearly two decades, with slightly 
lowered standards for donors. His staff wooed successful scientists and 
businessmen who were athletic, healthy and tall (Graham discovered American 
parents were wary of little eggheads). He lured customers by letting them 
select donors from an irresistible collection of what Plotz calls ''prime 
cuts of American man.'' By the time the bank closed in 1999, its customers 
had produced 215 babies, a respectable addition to the national ''germ 
plasm,'' as Graham might have said.

Those children populate the second part of Plotz's story. In a 2001 article 
in Slate, Plotz sought information from anyone connected with the 
repository. He soon found himself cast as the ''Semen Detective,'' trying to 
hook up sperm-bank children and their mothers with the anonymous 
progenitors. This would be difficult territory for any writer, and Plotz has 
to reassure himself that none of his confidants wants him to ''go all 
Oprah.'' No wonder. We meet, for instance, a young man who desperately hopes 
his biological dad will be a better father than the one who raised him. 
Plotz's kindness shines through, but some readers may wonder if the book's 
halves -- explorations of the nature of parenthood and the morality of the 
Nobel sperm bank -- are coherent.

But in the end, the themes mesh. Plotz's meetings with employees, consumers 
and offspring of the repository, sympathetic people on the whole, may have 
led him to his understated conclusion that the enterprise wasn't so 
terrible. For one thing, Graham's inspired strategy of providing consumers a 
choice of the most desirable men possible freed women from the tyranny of 
early fertility doctors. And it has become standard industry practice; as 
Plotz says, ''All sperm banks have become eugenic sperm banks.''

Indeed, reproductive technologies all have eugenic possibilities now, 
especially preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a means of screening embryos 
that may one day let parents select the traits they wish for their children. 
Plotz labels this petri dish micromanagement an instance of ''private 
eugenics.'' But, he argues, even parents who ''will be lining up for P.G.D. 
and hoping for a prodigy'' have no use for traditional eugenics, which, in 
its brutal, negative form, culminated in the Nazis' ''mercy killings'' of 
those they judged unfit. ''Negative eugenics,'' Plotz says, ''was 
state-sponsored and brutal. But 'positive' eugenics took a milder 
approach.'' Graham's version ''sought to increase the number of outstanding 
people,'' in Plotz's phrase. Is personal eugenics -- producing a superkid 
for yourself instead of for the master race -- problematic? Plotz suggests 
the influence of genes is dicey enough and the role of nurture strong enough 
that we are delusional if we think we can make our children ''what we want 
them to be, rather than what they are.''

This conclusion, however comforting for parents of teenagers, won't quash 
everyone's objections. It doesn't address the recent swing toward nature in 
the old nature vs. nurture debate. Nor does it provide an answer for those 
who fear that prenatal screening may lead scientists to limit future 
research on genetic disorders. But Plotz's take on the role of genes now --  
in our imaginations and in fact, so far as we can determine that -- is 
humane and funny, which are fine traits for any argument, or any book.

Polly Morrice is writing a book about autism.




From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jul  4 16:06:17 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:06:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha 
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

The French glossy culture/style magazine, "Le Magazine De L'Optimum" covers 
my latest ideas and designs in its "Techno - Multimedias" section, page 56.

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/20050704/648c4630/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jul  4 17:39:07 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 18:39:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>  The French glossy culture/style magazine, "Le Magazine De L'Optimum" covers
> my latest ideas and designs in its "Techno - Multimedias" section, page 56.
> 

Apparently not available online.  :(

But during my searching I found you credited in a French interview
dated 23.06.2005 with Daniel Ichbiah, author of Robots: Genesis of
artificial people.

<http://www.vieartificielle.com/nouvelle/?id_nouvelle=929>

Translation of the appropriate paragraph (Google + me):

During the preparation of this book, which meeting, human or
robot-like, had the biggest effect on you?

Philippe Druillet, whom I had interviewed at the time of the release
of the video game The Ring 2 agreed to meet me for The Robots and he
gave me a brilliant analysis of the phenomenon. I also liked the
interview Brian Carlisle of Adept Technology gave me because it had
the straightforward direct approach of an engineer who knows his
business well. For a very different point of view, I found that
Natasha Vita-More, who supports the good foundation of bionics,
superbly defended her viewpoint, and I say this with all the more
intensity because my position was very skeptical in this area. Lastly,
on a purely personal basis, the meeting that I liked the most, that
fascinated me the most, is that with the New York artist Chico
Mcmutrie. He creates groups of robots which you interact with.


BillK


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jul  4 17:54:33 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:54:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704125235.029089c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 12:39 PM 7/4/2005, BillK wrote:
>On 7/4/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> >  The French glossy culture/style magazine, "Le Magazine De L'Optimum" 
> covers
> > my latest ideas and designs in its "Techno - Multimedias" section, page 56.
> >
>
>Apparently not available online.  :(

Yes, I know.


>But during my searching I found you credited in a French interview
>dated 23.06.2005 with Daniel Ichbiah, author of Robots: Genesis of
>artificial people.
>
><http://www.vieartificielle.com/nouvelle/?id_nouvelle=929>
>
>Translation of the appropriate paragraph (Google + me):
>
>During the preparation of this book, which meeting, human or
>robot-like, had the biggest effect on you?
>
>Philippe Druillet, whom I had interviewed at the time of the release
>of the video game The Ring 2 agreed to meet me for The Robots and he
>gave me a brilliant analysis of the phenomenon. I also liked the
>interview Brian Carlisle of Adept Technology gave me because it had
>the straightforward direct approach of an engineer who knows his
>business well. For a very different point of view, I found that
>Natasha Vita-More, who supports the good foundation of bionics,
>superbly defended her viewpoint, and I say this with all the more
>intensity because my position was very skeptical in this area. ...

How lovely to read this. Thank you!

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/20050704/c3a2cf42/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jul  4 17:54:50 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 18:54:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050704105478a3f8d7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/05, BillK wrote:
> Lastly,
> on a purely personal basis, the meeting that I liked the most, that
> fascinated me the most, is that with the New York artist Chico
> Mcmutrie. He creates groups of robots which you interact with.
> 

That last sentence is wrongly translated. While it is correct, i.e.
that is what Chico does, the french phrase should be translated as 'He
creates groups of robots which leave you stunned.'

Sorry. The translator had trouble with the word 'pantois'.

BillK


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Jul  4 19:58:32 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:58:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha 
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c580d2$c19c9880$0200a8c0@Nano>

Congratulations Natasha! Will there be somewhere online that we can see it? 
Kind regards, Gina`
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ; futuretag at yahoogroups.com ; wta at transhumanism.org 
  Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:06 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha 


  The French glossy culture/style magazine, "Le Magazine De L'Optimum" covers my latest ideas and designs in its "Techno - Multimedias" section, page 56.

  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/20050704/4db4e58c/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Jul  4 20:02:25 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:02:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704105636.02912958@pop-server.austin.rr.com><ee50357e050704103920566d95@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050704125235.029089c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c580d3$4f277d50$0200a8c0@Nano>


Oops, I should have read all of my email before I asked my question!
Gina

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: BillK ; ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Le Magazine De L'Optimum - Natasha


  At 12:39 PM 7/4/2005, BillK wrote:

    On 7/4/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
    >  The French glossy culture/style magazine, "Le Magazine De L'Optimum" covers
    > my latest ideas and designs in its "Techno - Multimedias" section, page 56.
    > 

    Apparently not available online.  :(

  Yes, I know.  



    But during my searching I found you credited in a French interview
    dated 23.06.2005 with Daniel Ichbiah, author of Robots: Genesis of
    artificial people.

    < http://www.vieartificielle.com/nouvelle/?id_nouvelle=929>

    Translation of the appropriate paragraph (Google + me):

    During the preparation of this book, which meeting, human or
    robot-like, had the biggest effect on you?

    Philippe Druillet, whom I had interviewed at the time of the release
    of the video game The Ring 2 agreed to meet me for The Robots and he
    gave me a brilliant analysis of the phenomenon. I also liked the
    interview Brian Carlisle of Adept Technology gave me because it had
    the straightforward direct approach of an engineer who knows his
    business well. For a very different point of view, I found that
    Natasha Vita-More, who supports the good foundation of bionics,
    superbly defended her viewpoint, and I say this with all the more
    intensity because my position was very skeptical in this area. ...

  How lovely to read this. Thank you!

  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/20050704/e81efcb9/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  4 20:09:52 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050704200952.51375.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mike, this is such a comprehensive answer it took
99.9% of the strut out of me. Almost nothing left to
say. I grew up in the early '70s, becoming interested
in libertarianism gradually throughout that decade, in
a remore philosophical sense, it was one of the many
fads floating around at that time. There was
periodically someone passing out flyers at a mall with
the headline, "do as thou will" or somesuch. After
reading this post the only wind in my sails concerning
libertarianism is that is a creation of intellectuals,
and we intellectuals are many things-- including
tricksters. So libertarianism itself is to be taken
seriously yet not too seriously. The actual practicing
of freedom is something else.

>Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Veterans benefits are indeed for past services,
> which at the time were
> very poorly paid for (without those benefits, the
> real hourly wage of
> an E-1 through E-3 isn't much more than minimum
> wage). Earned benefits
> don't need to be justified on libertarian grounds,
> any more than any
> employee of any corporation needs to justify their
> benefits.
>  What needs to be justified on libertarian grounds
is
> what services the
> individual renders for the government. Is one a tax
> collector, or a
> welfare administrator, or a bureaucrat who writes
> tax or welfare
> regulations, or a BATF or DEA agent? 
> I was an electrical/environmental/avionics tech on
> F-15 and F-111
> aircraft. The closest I came to being even
> tangentially working in
> support of government activities I thought
> questionable from a
> libertarian standpoint was when Bush 41 modified
> posse comitatus to
> have the military assist in the drug war. The F-15
> unit I was in at the
> time was already tasked as a fighter interceptor
> unit for NORAD and
> intercepted every aircraft that didn't identify
> itself in the pacific
> northwest, so there wasn't any real change in our
> operations and to my
> knowledge we didn't splash any drug planes while I
> was there.
 Private sector laborers generally don't risk getting
> arrested by
> competitive companies and held in prisons and
> tortured for years. Nor
> do most industrial or other workplace accidents
> maime the worker so
> thoroughly that repair and rehabilitation is so
> difficult. Nor do they
> get paid to intentionally put themselves in harms
> way (except for, say,
> cops and firemen). Private employers generally want
> you to follow OSHA
> rules at all times.
> I have never heard that any service member 'gets'
> rights by enlisting.
> If anything, the service member gives up rights,
> including agreeing to
> be held to justice under the UCMJ rather than
> civilian law, and to
> pretty much be told what to do with his or her life,
> which may include
> being separated from spouse and kids for long
> periods of time.
> 
> About the only right we gain is the right to tell
> obnoxious
> know-it-alls to go to hell when they start telling
> us we are baby
> killers, mercenaries, or didn't earn our pay and/or
> benefits. In a
> world where most civilians either don't own guns,
> don't believe in
> guns, or the military, or the common militia, or in
> self-defense, the
> risking and bleeding and dying that military members
> do enables such
> self-deluded idiots to continue to live in their
> fantasy worlds of
> poorly estimated risk. This includes a few
> individuals who claim to be
> libertarians but interpret the zero agression
> principle as pacifism
> with a shuck and jive, betting their bluff will
> never be called, rather
> than responsible self-defense as it should be.
> 
> I know of few real libertarians (counting all
> libertarians and not just
> absolutist anarchists living in their air castles in
> denial of reality)
> who do not recognise that one of the few legitimate
> functions of the US
> government under the US Constitution, or even the
> Articles of
> Confederation, if you disbelieve in the validity of
> the Constitution,
> is the military. While keeping a standing army is
> generally wrong in
> libertarian eyes, a full time Navy and any other
> means of power
> projection with large capital equipment (which IMHO
> includes air power,
> space power, as well as ships), is legitimate.
> 
> If you still think otherwise, then fine, come and
> bitch at me once
> you've gone and dismantled the 90% of the US
> government that ISN'T
> constitutionally allowed. Until then, you've got a
> lot bigger fish to
> fry than my veterans benefits. At the time I
> enlisted, I was a
> republican. You could say the Air Force made me a
> libertarian, so in
> that sense, the US military made the world a
> slightly better place by
> one person (though some may dispute that).
> 
> I know of a number of other libertarians who went
> through similar
> experiences, who enlisted. I believe the older ones
> who enlisted back
> when there was a draft followed Heinlein's advice
> that the best place
> to hide from a draft is in the military.
> 
> 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!?
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jul  4 20:25:58 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:25:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42C99B56.6040500@pobox.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> If you still think otherwise, then fine, come and bitch at me once
> you've gone and dismantled the 90% of the US government that ISN'T
> constitutionally allowed. Until then, you've got a lot bigger fish to
> fry than my veterans benefits. At the time I enlisted, I was a
> republican. You could say the Air Force made me a libertarian, so in
> that sense, the US military made the world a slightly better place by
> one person (though some may dispute that).

I would, on the strict grounds that convincing people of ideologies counts for 
nothing - is no triumph for the ideology.  Only what people do matters.  It 
benefits humanity nothing when one more human becomes convinced of, say, the 
Singularity Institute's reading material, unless that human should be 
motivated to do something differently thereby, and even then the belief still 
matters nothing of itself.  This is something that I emphasize in all causes I 
join, doing my helpful part to prevent those causes from becoming religions; 
belief counts for nothing.

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  4 21:24:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050704200952.51375.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050704212431.5308.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Glad I could be of service and I hope I wasn't too abrasive for you to
get the point. While I am well versed in the orthodox libertarian
gospel, as an individualist I generally don't accept even the word of
Rothbard or L Neil Smith as gospel. I think for myself, thanks. 

I try to live in "is" and work at baby steps toward getting the world
to 'ought'. I don't pout and stamp my footie and demand the world
accomodate me, like so many absolutists do. While I score 100%x100% on
the WSPQ, I don't demand the world become 100% libertarian
immmediately, nor do I insist the people I work with politically be the
same, so long as we are all making progress daily. While I'm on the
Freedom Train chugging down the tracks, those living in air castles are
still back in slaves-ville living in the hallucination that reality
will stop existing if you stop believing in it.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike, this is such a comprehensive answer it took
> 99.9% of the strut out of me. Almost nothing left to
> say. I grew up in the early '70s, becoming interested
> in libertarianism gradually throughout that decade, in
> a remore philosophical sense, it was one of the many
> fads floating around at that time. There was
> periodically someone passing out flyers at a mall with
> the headline, "do as thou will" or somesuch. After
> reading this post the only wind in my sails concerning
> libertarianism is that is a creation of intellectuals,
> and we intellectuals are many things-- including
> tricksters. So libertarianism itself is to be taken
> seriously yet not too seriously. The actual practicing
> of freedom is something else.
> 
> >Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Veterans benefits are indeed for past services,
> > which at the time were
> > very poorly paid for (without those benefits, the
> > real hourly wage of
> > an E-1 through E-3 isn't much more than minimum
> > wage). Earned benefits
> > don't need to be justified on libertarian grounds,
> > any more than any
> > employee of any corporation needs to justify their
> > benefits.
> >  What needs to be justified on libertarian grounds
> is
> > what services the
> > individual renders for the government. Is one a tax
> > collector, or a
> > welfare administrator, or a bureaucrat who writes
> > tax or welfare
> > regulations, or a BATF or DEA agent? 
> > I was an electrical/environmental/avionics tech on
> > F-15 and F-111
> > aircraft. The closest I came to being even
> > tangentially working in
> > support of government activities I thought
> > questionable from a
> > libertarian standpoint was when Bush 41 modified
> > posse comitatus to
> > have the military assist in the drug war. The F-15
> > unit I was in at the
> > time was already tasked as a fighter interceptor
> > unit for NORAD and
> > intercepted every aircraft that didn't identify
> > itself in the pacific
> > northwest, so there wasn't any real change in our
> > operations and to my
> > knowledge we didn't splash any drug planes while I
> > was there.
>  Private sector laborers generally don't risk getting
> > arrested by
> > competitive companies and held in prisons and
> > tortured for years. Nor
> > do most industrial or other workplace accidents
> > maime the worker so
> > thoroughly that repair and rehabilitation is so
> > difficult. Nor do they
> > get paid to intentionally put themselves in harms
> > way (except for, say,
> > cops and firemen). Private employers generally want
> > you to follow OSHA
> > rules at all times.
> > I have never heard that any service member 'gets'
> > rights by enlisting.
> > If anything, the service member gives up rights,
> > including agreeing to
> > be held to justice under the UCMJ rather than
> > civilian law, and to
> > pretty much be told what to do with his or her life,
> > which may include
> > being separated from spouse and kids for long
> > periods of time.
> > 
> > About the only right we gain is the right to tell
> > obnoxious
> > know-it-alls to go to hell when they start telling
> > us we are baby
> > killers, mercenaries, or didn't earn our pay and/or
> > benefits. In a
> > world where most civilians either don't own guns,
> > don't believe in
> > guns, or the military, or the common militia, or in
> > self-defense, the
> > risking and bleeding and dying that military members
> > do enables such
> > self-deluded idiots to continue to live in their
> > fantasy worlds of
> > poorly estimated risk. This includes a few
> > individuals who claim to be
> > libertarians but interpret the zero agression
> > principle as pacifism
> > with a shuck and jive, betting their bluff will
> > never be called, rather
> > than responsible self-defense as it should be.
> > 
> > I know of few real libertarians (counting all
> > libertarians and not just
> > absolutist anarchists living in their air castles in
> > denial of reality)
> > who do not recognise that one of the few legitimate
> > functions of the US
> > government under the US Constitution, or even the
> > Articles of
> > Confederation, if you disbelieve in the validity of
> > the Constitution,
> > is the military. While keeping a standing army is
> > generally wrong in
> > libertarian eyes, a full time Navy and any other
> > means of power
> > projection with large capital equipment (which IMHO
> > includes air power,
> > space power, as well as ships), is legitimate.
> > 
> > If you still think otherwise, then fine, come and
> > bitch at me once
> > you've gone and dismantled the 90% of the US
> > government that ISN'T
> > constitutionally allowed. Until then, you've got a
> > lot bigger fish to
> > fry than my veterans benefits. At the time I
> > enlisted, I was a
> > republican. You could say the Air Force made me a
> > libertarian, so in
> > that sense, the US military made the world a
> > slightly better place by
> > one person (though some may dispute that).
> > 
> > I know of a number of other libertarians who went
> > through similar
> > experiences, who enlisted. I believe the older ones
> > who enlisted back
> > when there was a draft followed Heinlein's advice
> > that the best place
> > to hide from a draft is in the military.
> > 
> > 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!?
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Sports 
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
> http://football.fantasysports.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
"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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jul  4 21:33:20 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:33:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <42C99B56.6040500@pobox.com>
References: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42C99B56.6040500@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050704143315958793@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I would, on the strict grounds that convincing people of ideologies counts for
> nothing - is no triumph for the ideology.  Only what people do matters.  It
> benefits humanity nothing when one more human becomes convinced of, say, the
> Singularity Institute's reading material, unless that human should be
> motivated to do something differently thereby, and even then the belief still
> matters nothing of itself.  This is something that I emphasize in all causes I
> join, doing my helpful part to prevent those causes from becoming religions;
> belief counts for nothing.
> 

Not quite nothing. You mean the intellectual belief that does not
result in any action counts for nothing.
You have to have the belief first as a driving force for your actions.
"machshavosav ni'karos mi'toch ma'asav..."

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jul  4 22:26:30 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:26:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
By Artyom Liss
BBC News, Moscow

Hours after a Nasa probe crashed into Comet Tempel 1, legal reverberations 
were felt in a Moscow court.

Judges in the tiny courtroom normally deal with matters much more mundane 
than space exploration.

But Judge Litvinenko opened hearings into a case which could see Nasa pay a 
local amateur astrologist millions of dollars in damages.

Writer Marina Bay claims that by slamming the probe into the comet, Nasa 
endangered the future of civilisation.

"Nobody has yet proven that this experiment was safe," says Ms Bay's lawyer 
Alexander Molokhov.

"This impact could have altered the orbit of the comet, so now there is a 
chance that the Tempel may well destroy the Earth some day!"

If your phone went down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then get in 
touch with us
Alexander Molokhov
Marina Bay's lawyer

This claim was brushed aside by Nasa mission engineer Shadan Ardalan.

"The analogy is a mosquito hitting the front of an airliner in flight. The 
effect is negligible," Mr Ardalan told BBC News.

However, even if the comet stays at a safe distance from Earth, Ms Bay's 
own life, she thinks, will never be the same again.

An amateur astrologist, she believes that any variation in the orbit or the 
composition of the Tempel comet will certainly affect her own fate.

So Ms Marina's claims to be experiencing "a moral trauma" - which only a 
payment of $300m (252m euros; ?170m) can put right.

This is roughly what Nasa has spent on the experiment so far.

Volunteers request

Moscow representatives of the American space agency have ignored Monday's 
court hearing.

But, by Russian law, this will not prevent the judge from continuing with 
the case.

Marina Bay's legal team remain confident, and they are even looking for 
volunteers to join in on the claim.

"The impact changed the magnetic properties of the comet, and this could 
have affected mobile telephony here on Earth. If your phone went down this 
morning, ask yourself Why? and then get in touch with us," says Mr Molokhov.

So now it is up to the Moscow Presnya court to find an answer to this, 
truly universal, question.

The final decision is not likely to be announced for at least another month.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4649987.stm

Published: 2005/07/04 17:54:10 GMT



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jul  4 22:32:24 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:32:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
References: <20050703200403.84755.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com><42C99B56.6040500@pobox.com>
	<ee50357e050704143315958793@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005b01c580e8$4035c1c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

> On 7/4/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> I would, on the strict grounds that convincing people of ideologies 
>> counts for
>> nothing - is no triumph for the ideology.  Only what people do matters. 
>> It
>> benefits humanity nothing when one more human becomes convinced of, say, 
>> the
>> Singularity Institute's reading material, unless that human should be
>> motivated to do something differently thereby, and even then the belief 
>> still
>> matters nothing of itself.  This is something that I emphasize in all 
>> causes I
>> join, doing my helpful part to prevent those causes from becoming 
>> religions;
>> belief counts for nothing.
>>
>
> Not quite nothing. You mean the intellectual belief that does not
> result in any action counts for nothing.
> You have to have the belief first as a driving force for your actions.
> "machshavosav ni'karos mi'toch ma'asav..."

I guess that tee shirt "Don't believe. Think !" won't be arriving anytime
soon then :-)

Brett Paatsch 




From weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com  Mon Jul  4 23:38:52 2005
From: weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com (Edward Smith)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:38:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws
Message-ID: <D1DE1D1F375024D4BBDC96AD7926E260@weg9mq.centralmail.zzn.com>

This reference may be copied and distributed freely.

PART 1: Corrections, Enhancements, And Species Names

All human bodies have numerous flaws which can be eliminated
by geneticly modifying the zygote. Those flaws exist because
their elimination was and is not necessary for the survival of the
human species. However, their elimination would greatly
increase the efficiency of our actions, and thus both our physical
prosperity and our quality of life.

A distinction must be made between corrections and
enhancements. Corrections are removals of negatives whereas
enhancements are additions of positives. The line between a
correction and an enhancement is not entirely defined, but most
modifications clearly fall on one side or the other.

A correction constitutes the replacement of an important trait
that had evolved away due to lack of necessity, or the
correction of a trait that had evolved wrongly due to
evolutionary expedience, except when the correction of such a
trait satisfies the criteria for being an enhancement. An
enhancement constitutes any augmentation of ones abilities that
are characterized as being competitive, other than the removal
of specific weaknesses, or any elaborate or unnatural addition.
Many examples of enhancements are: 1. enhancements, beyond
the removal of specific weaknesses, of muscle strength, muscle
disinhibition, muscle endurance, cardiovascular endurance, skill,
sensory breadth, sensory sensitivity, intelligence, mental skills,
appearance, speed of development, or ability to feel pleasure,
2. the ability to extract energy from sunlight, hydrocarbons, or
other sources that are unnatural for animals, 3. chameleon-like
color-changing ability or other camouflage, 4. echolocation
ability (which is mostly applicable in the dark), 5. built-in
phosphorescent light(s), 6. built-in fire lighter(s) (most likely
phosphoric and sulfuric), 7. wings, fins, claws, gills, serpentine
arms, cold-bloodedness, or any other complex animal-like
traits, 8. built-in weapons, 9. built-in armor beyond the removal
of any specific weaknesses, 10. any purely cosmetic alteration.
Obviously, some of such enhancements would not even be
practical, especially since artificial non-biological objects can
serve many of those functions, though such artificial
non-biological objects are often expensive and in any case they
depend upon a technological industrial infrastructure and access
to that infrastructure.

It is important to first focus on corrections rather than
enhancements, the reason being that corrections are limited
in their scope (there are most likely only 35-45 possible
corrections) and mostly benefit an individual by themself,
whereas enhancements are virtually unlimited in their scope, are
mostly beneficial to an individual in competition with others,
and/or are prone to abuse. Pursuing the latter traits may thus
touch off a rash of socially mutually-destructive genetic
competition if it is not clear that such enhancements must only
be made with the most rightful and socially responsible of
intentions, as characterized by the geneticly-determined
character of the enhanced beings, such that they have a fine,
clear, rightness-seeking abstract focus (caused by the H1, M1,
and M3 receptors in unmodified humans), which works in
opposition to both crude blind wrongness-seeking focus
(caused by the 5-HT2A, 5-HT2B, and 5-HT2C receptors in
unmodified humans) and ethically indifferent greed. Luckily
though, if a person is rational enough to support transhumanism,
then they are more likely to be rational enough to realize that
responsibility. The various possible human modifications fall on
a spectrum between being a correction and being an
enhancement (which may be called the correction-enhancement
spectrum), with most possible modifications clearly falling on
one side or the other. The further a trait falls toward the
[competitive] enhancement end of the spectrum, the more
dangerous it is, and thus the more rightful it's bearer's
temperament must be.

Being as highly modified humans that can reproduce certainly
constitute a new subspecies of homo sapien, there should be
specific species names to distinguish significantly-modified
humans from unmodified or minimally-modified humans, and to
distinguish humans that have only been modified by significant
corrections from those that have been modified by significant
enhancements (with or without significant corrections also).
Species names, by custom, are latin, meaning that latin terms
should be used to describe the 3 human types, following the
species name 'homo sapien'. The most appropriate latin
subspecies names for humans that are not significantly-modified,
significantly-corrected only, and significantly-enhanced,
respectively, are 'rudis', 'correctus', and 'altus', which mean in
latin, respectively: 'rough, raw, or crude', 'corrected', and
'grown or improved'.

There are also different categories of modifications for both
correction and enhancement modifications, which can serve to
classify the modifications when making lists. Those categories
are: 1. biochemical, 2. gross physical, and 3. neurological. A
modification can fall under multiple categories to some extent,
especially if it is complex, but such traits should be classified
into the categories that they best fall under. Those categories
may also have subcategories where appropriate, such as
'growth', 'autonomy', 'mobility', 'durability', etcetera, though not
all modifications may fall into one of the subcategories.


PART 2: Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws

The reference below describes many of, and most likely the vast
majority of, geneticly-correctable omnipresent evolutionary
flaws of unmodified humans (descriptions begin with "In
unmodified humans,"), their corresponding corrected state
(descriptions begin with "In the corrected state," and use the
verb "will"), and any other relevant basic information. Closely
related flaws are described as a single flaw:

(Due to an email size limit of 30 kilobytes, this large section can
not fit into this email. The entire reference is at the URL:
http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/th.html )


PART 3: Application

As of now, mid 2005, transhumanist work has consisted of
nothing except discussions, news-sharing, political debating, and
some political work on behalf of issues that are related to
transhumanism. There have apparently been no attempts at
actually IMPLEMENTING transhumanism, that is, modifying
human zygotes (probably produced in test tubes), most likely
via a retroviral gene-delivery vector. The genome of an
unmodified human has approximately 22,000 genes (in contrast
to an early crude estimate of approximately 30,000 genes).

Before the genetic modification of human zygotes occurs, it is
first necessary to research the relevant genes and proteins of the
various traits that are to be modified. That constitutes identifying
what genes and proteins produce a specific trait; discovering
how they produce that trait; learning their sequences; using that
information to extrapolate the nature of the modified genes and
proteins and their sequences; and testing the modified genes in
animals (preferably fast-growing animals) that are sufficiently
geneticly similar to humans in the relevant genes, until the
modified genes function successfully. An other option is to
geneticly engineer laboratory animals to grow more rapidly (so
as to get faster test results) and/or to have more human-like
genes (so as to get more accurate test results).

It is therefore in the immediate interest of transhumanists to
share any of the aforementioned research information. To that
end, and to facilitate implementing transhumanism in general, I
recommend the creation of a new extropy institute mailing list,
probably best called 'extropy-research', which serves the
purpose of exchanging such information, and any other
necessary logistical information involved in actively implementing
transhumanism. To organize the information presented on that
list, an extropy institute reference should be created that is a
well-organized conglomeration of that information, and it should
incorporate this very reference as a guideline for research. The
new extropy institute reference is probably best called the
'extropy institute active transhumanism reference'. The active
transhumanism reference should be backed up on many users'
computers and on disks, in case theocratic terrorists manage to
hack into and destroy the online reference. I also advise that
transhumanists that intend to actively implement transhumanism
obtain a college degree in genetics, as that official recognition
will give you more clout when dealing with any
anti-transhumanists that will try to obstruct these goals. I have
already made an equivalent proposal to the WTA, but they have
not shown interest. I am hoping that the extropy institute is more
proactive.


Get your Free E-mail at http://centralmail.cjb.net
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Mon Jul  4 22:45:42 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:45:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42C9BC16.7060107@humanenhancement.com>

Even the folks on the pagan news websites I frequent are saying this 
person is a complete idiot.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)

Damien Broderick wrote:

> Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
> By Artyom Liss
> BBC News, Moscow
>
> Hours after a Nasa probe crashed into Comet Tempel 1, legal 
> reverberations were felt in a Moscow court.
>
> Judges in the tiny courtroom normally deal with matters much more 
> mundane than space exploration.
>
> But Judge Litvinenko opened hearings into a case which could see Nasa 
> pay a local amateur astrologist millions of dollars in damages.
>
> Writer Marina Bay claims that by slamming the probe into the comet, 
> Nasa endangered the future of civilisation.
>
> "Nobody has yet proven that this experiment was safe," says Ms Bay's 
> lawyer Alexander Molokhov.
>
> "This impact could have altered the orbit of the comet, so now there 
> is a chance that the Tempel may well destroy the Earth some day!"
>
> If your phone went down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then get 
> in touch with us
> Alexander Molokhov
> Marina Bay's lawyer
>
> This claim was brushed aside by Nasa mission engineer Shadan Ardalan.
>
> "The analogy is a mosquito hitting the front of an airliner in flight. 
> The effect is negligible," Mr Ardalan told BBC News.
>
> However, even if the comet stays at a safe distance from Earth, Ms 
> Bay's own life, she thinks, will never be the same again.
>
> An amateur astrologist, she believes that any variation in the orbit 
> or the composition of the Tempel comet will certainly affect her own 
> fate.
>
> So Ms Marina's claims to be experiencing "a moral trauma" - which only 
> a payment of $300m (252m euros; ?170m) can put right.
>
> This is roughly what Nasa has spent on the experiment so far.
>
> Volunteers request
>
> Moscow representatives of the American space agency have ignored 
> Monday's court hearing.
>
> But, by Russian law, this will not prevent the judge from continuing 
> with the case.
>
> Marina Bay's legal team remain confident, and they are even looking 
> for volunteers to join in on the claim.
>
> "The impact changed the magnetic properties of the comet, and this 
> could have affected mobile telephony here on Earth. If your phone went 
> down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then get in touch with us," 
> says Mr Molokhov.
>
> So now it is up to the Moscow Presnya court to find an answer to this, 
> truly universal, question.
>
> The final decision is not likely to be announced for at least another 
> month.
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4649987.stm
>
> Published: 2005/07/04 17:54:10 GMT
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul  4 22:56:02 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:56:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] computer chess again
In-Reply-To: <200506281449.j5SEnZR03672@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506281449.j5SEnZR03672@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42C9BE82.10905@cox.net>

spike wrote:

>>Alejandro Dubrovsky
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>Note though that enhanced humans are not for finished yet.  The Hydras,
>>both 16 and 32 CPU versions, got hammered just a month ago in an
>>advanced chess comp.
>>alejandro
>>    
>>
>
>Ja I noticed that.  {8-]
>
>alejandro, we should point out for the chess-nongeeks that
>advanced chess is a competition that allows the humans to
>use computers and team up.  I see it as wonderful advertisement
>for computer enhancement of humans in athletic competitions.
>
>spike
>
>
>  
>
Wow!. I quit following chess some time ago in the belief that we had
already learned what we could from it: algorithms plus raw computing
power inevitably surpass human skills in this problem domain. Now you
tell me that while I was not looking, we have a whole new experiment
underway: human-computer collaboration can still beat algorithms and raw
computing capacity!

But why restrict this to sports? Chess is a "sport," but it is also an 
exercise
in problem solving. If we adapt the collaborative techniques used in
this competition to activities such as programming, chip design, and other
logic-based problem domains, we can possibly increase our intellectual
productivity. at the extreme we create a seed SI based on a human-computer
collaboration. There is a huge economic incentive to pursue as a way to
increase the productivity of software and hardware developers. There is no
need to treat that as a purely academic or theoretical exercise. Next step:
research the chess collaboration to see if it can be generalized.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  4 23:05:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
In-Reply-To: <42C9BC16.7060107@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050704230514.56569.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, the impactor imparted 372 trillion ft-lbs/sec, or
89875517873681764 m^2 s^-2 of specific energy. That this energy was
imparted against the direction of the comet's travel when the comet was
at perigee should result in a measurable change in apogee distance from
the sun, though no change in the perigee distance from the sun, or from
Earth's orbit around the Sun.

That the impactor struck the comet near the end closest to earth may
cause much of the energy to be translated into a change in angular
momentum (spin).

--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> Even the folks on the pagan news websites I frequent are saying this 
> person is a complete idiot.
> 
> Joseph
> 
> Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
> http://www.humanenhancement.com
> New Jersey Transhumanist Association:
> http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
> PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated
> 6/14/05)
> 
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> > Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
> > By Artyom Liss
> > BBC News, Moscow
> >
> > Hours after a Nasa probe crashed into Comet Tempel 1, legal 
> > reverberations were felt in a Moscow court.
> >
> > Judges in the tiny courtroom normally deal with matters much more 
> > mundane than space exploration.
> >
> > But Judge Litvinenko opened hearings into a case which could see
> Nasa 
> > pay a local amateur astrologist millions of dollars in damages.
> >
> > Writer Marina Bay claims that by slamming the probe into the comet,
> 
> > Nasa endangered the future of civilisation.
> >
> > "Nobody has yet proven that this experiment was safe," says Ms
> Bay's 
> > lawyer Alexander Molokhov.
> >
> > "This impact could have altered the orbit of the comet, so now
> there 
> > is a chance that the Tempel may well destroy the Earth some day!"
> >
> > If your phone went down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then
> get 
> > in touch with us
> > Alexander Molokhov
> > Marina Bay's lawyer
> >
> > This claim was brushed aside by Nasa mission engineer Shadan
> Ardalan.
> >
> > "The analogy is a mosquito hitting the front of an airliner in
> flight. 
> > The effect is negligible," Mr Ardalan told BBC News.
> >
> > However, even if the comet stays at a safe distance from Earth, Ms 
> > Bay's own life, she thinks, will never be the same again.
> >
> > An amateur astrologist, she believes that any variation in the
> orbit 
> > or the composition of the Tempel comet will certainly affect her
> own 
> > fate.
> >
> > So Ms Marina's claims to be experiencing "a moral trauma" - which
> only 
> > a payment of $300m (252m euros; ?170m) can put right.
> >
> > This is roughly what Nasa has spent on the experiment so far.
> >
> > Volunteers request
> >
> > Moscow representatives of the American space agency have ignored 
> > Monday's court hearing.
> >
> > But, by Russian law, this will not prevent the judge from
> continuing 
> > with the case.
> >
> > Marina Bay's legal team remain confident, and they are even looking
> 
> > for volunteers to join in on the claim.
> >
> > "The impact changed the magnetic properties of the comet, and this 
> > could have affected mobile telephony here on Earth. If your phone
> went 
> > down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then get in touch with
> us," 
> > says Mr Molokhov.
> >
> > So now it is up to the Moscow Presnya court to find an answer to
> this, 
> > truly universal, question.
> >
> > The final decision is not likely to be announced for at least
> another 
> > month.
> > Story from BBC NEWS:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4649987.stm
> >
> > Published: 2005/07/04 17:54:10 GMT
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jul  4 23:10:59 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:10:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847

So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
keep in mind?


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jul  4 23:19:09 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:19:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070416196e9a90c6@mail.gmail.com>

Lawsuit aside, it was a darned impressive impact. (paste, paste...)
The Planetary Society's Emily Lakdawalla put together a fairly nice
animated GIF of the impact and posted it to the Society's official
blog:

http://planetary.org.nyud.net:8090/deepimpact/images/encounter/animation-small.gif
http://planetary.org/blog/

Her description: "OK, I've managed to get back on the raw image
website, and I grabbed a whole bunch of the images that we were
apparently looking at earlier. I just threw together this little
animation, showing mostly Impact Targeting Sensor images, but moving
at the end to some Medium Resolution Imager images. Now, I've probably
dropped some frames, and these images are smaller than the ones the
scientists get to use, but I have to say that this is pretty sweet as
it is. I can't wait to see what the scientists produce! "

On 7/4/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
> By Artyom Liss
> BBC News, Moscow


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul  4 23:14:54 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:14:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] computer chess again
In-Reply-To: <42C9BE82.10905@cox.net>
References: <200506281449.j5SEnZR03672@tick.javien.com>
	<42C9BE82.10905@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42C9C2EE.30208@cox.net>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Wow!. I quit following chess some time ago in the belief that we had
> already learned what we could from it: algorithms plus raw computing
> power inevitably surpass human skills in this problem domain. Now you
> tell me that while I was not looking, we have a whole new experiment
> underway: human-computer collaboration can still beat algorithms and raw
> computing capacity!
>
> But why restrict this to sports? Chess is a "sport," but it is also an 
> exercise
> in problem solving. If we adapt the collaborative techniques used in
> this competition to activities such as programming, chip design, and 
> other
> logic-based problem domains, we can possibly increase our intellectual
> productivity. at the extreme we create a seed SI based on a 
> human-computer
> collaboration. There is a huge economic incentive to pursue as a way to
> increase the productivity of software and hardware developers. There 
> is no
> need to treat that as a purely academic or theoretical exercise. Next 
> step:
> research the chess collaboration to see if it can be generalized.
> _______________________________________________

And responding to my own post:
Google is your friend.
My point is discussed at some length at:
http://ieet.org/writings/Dvorsky20050302.htm
and of course, clicking on the home page:
http://ieet.org/index.php
we find that Nick Bostrom is the Chair of IEET.

Yes, Google remains the best current exemplar of a computer-based
intelligence enhancer.




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul  4 23:21:21 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws
In-Reply-To: <D1DE1D1F375024D4BBDC96AD7926E260@weg9mq.centralmail.zzn.com>
Message-ID: <20050704232121.59662.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Edward Smith <weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com> wrote:
> As of now, mid 2005, transhumanist work has consisted of
> nothing except discussions, news-sharing, political debating, and
> some political work on behalf of issues that are related to
> transhumanism.

Ha ha ha wrong.  Although I can see how one would come to such an
erroneous conclusion.

> There have apparently been no attempts at
> actually IMPLEMENTING transhumanism, that is, modifying
> human zygotes (probably produced in test tubes), most likely
> via a retroviral gene-delivery vector.

One step at a time, yo.  The human genome ain't the easiest learning
tool out there.  There's been tons of ongoing work just trying to
understand what all the various bits are.  See any number of mainstream
biomedical research publications focussing on genetic anything.

In the mean time, there's been work on modifying the genomes of
plants (look up Genetically Modified Organisms - which work has been so
widespread as to have provoked debate in many nations, and
unfortunately legal restrictions in some) and some animals.  A few
people have tried basic gene therapy on humans; unfortunately, we know
so little that the attempts killed people.  The regulating bodies have
been discussing safeguards to make sure deaths don't happen again;
they've put a halt to actual gene therapy for now, but they definitely
do not want that halt to last forever - just until there's a good
chance they won't kill anyone else.  (Of course, they're ignoring all
the deaths their delay is causing in the mean time, but they tend to do
that a lot.)  See
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml#status

I'll leave commenting on the proposal for a new list and archive to
others.  But the fact that it is so easy to believe transhumanism is
all talk and no action says something.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul  4 23:26:33 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050704232633.30247.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847
> 
> So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
> possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
> keep in mind?

Read the responses to that comment.  (By date/timestamp, some of them
apparently written after you posted the above.)  Yes, there will be
individuals who spread misinformation and negative opinions about us.
Get the facts out there enough, and the light of truth will start
blasting away these shadows almost on its own.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 00:14:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 17:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050705001436.63025.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847
> 
> So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
> possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
> keep in mind?

The socialist left-wing slant of slashdot readers is notorious,
primarily because it is the paper of record for the open source
community. The anti-property anti-enterprise slant of Stallman is the
primary reason so many get into the movement. It isn't surprising there
is a heavy overlap with those in the left wing who hate or fear technology.

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  Tue Jul  5 00:17:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 17:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05070416196e9a90c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050705001758.45694.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

the word is that the impact crater is still venting significant amounts
of gas and may do so for some time, so there may actually wind up being
a significant change in the orbit of the comet, as the vents act as
thrusters. I wonder if anybody simulated significant venting from the
impact changing the orbit...

--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lawsuit aside, it was a darned impressive impact. (paste, paste...)
> The Planetary Society's Emily Lakdawalla put together a fairly nice
> animated GIF of the impact and posted it to the Society's official
> blog:
> 
>
http://planetary.org.nyud.net:8090/deepimpact/images/encounter/animation-small.gif
> http://planetary.org/blog/
> 
> Her description: "OK, I've managed to get back on the raw image
> website, and I grabbed a whole bunch of the images that we were
> apparently looking at earlier. I just threw together this little
> animation, showing mostly Impact Targeting Sensor images, but moving
> at the end to some Medium Resolution Imager images. Now, I've
> probably
> dropped some frames, and these images are smaller than the ones the
> scientists get to use, but I have to say that this is pretty sweet as
> it is. I can't wait to see what the scientists produce! "
> 
> On 7/4/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
> > By Artyom Liss
> > BBC News, Moscow
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Tue Jul  5 00:21:37 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 17:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws
In-Reply-To: <20050704232121.59662.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705002137.71305.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, he obviously doesn't think of the x-prize, the methuselah mouse
prize, the free state project, the electronic freedom foundation, etc
etc as 'transhumanist' because they are things that have already
happened. This is the strawman: as soon as we accomplish something, it
is part of the past and therefore by definition not part of the
transhumanist future that we've been predicting and working on for
years.

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

> --- Edward Smith <weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com> wrote:
> > As of now, mid 2005, transhumanist work has consisted of
> > nothing except discussions, news-sharing, political debating, and
> > some political work on behalf of issues that are related to
> > transhumanism.
> 
> Ha ha ha wrong.  Although I can see how one would come to such an
> erroneous conclusion.
> 
> > There have apparently been no attempts at
> > actually IMPLEMENTING transhumanism, that is, modifying
> > human zygotes (probably produced in test tubes), most likely
> > via a retroviral gene-delivery vector.
> 
> One step at a time, yo.  The human genome ain't the easiest learning
> tool out there.  There's been tons of ongoing work just trying to
> understand what all the various bits are.  See any number of
> mainstream
> biomedical research publications focussing on genetic anything.
> 
> In the mean time, there's been work on modifying the genomes of
> plants (look up Genetically Modified Organisms - which work has been
> so
> widespread as to have provoked debate in many nations, and
> unfortunately legal restrictions in some) and some animals.  A few
> people have tried basic gene therapy on humans; unfortunately, we
> know
> so little that the attempts killed people.  The regulating bodies
> have
> been discussing safeguards to make sure deaths don't happen again;
> they've put a halt to actual gene therapy for now, but they
> definitely
> do not want that halt to last forever - just until there's a good
> chance they won't kill anyone else.  (Of course, they're ignoring all
> the deaths their delay is causing in the mean time, but they tend to
> do
> that a lot.)  See
>
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml#status
> 
> I'll leave commenting on the proposal for a new list and archive to
> others.  But the fact that it is so easy to believe transhumanism is
> all talk and no action says something.
> _______________________________________________
> 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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jul  5 00:52:34 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:52:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <20050705001436.63025.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050705001436.63025.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42C9D9D2.80700@cox.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847
>>
>>So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
>>possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
>>keep in mind?
>>    
>>
>
>The socialist left-wing slant of slashdot readers is notorious,
>primarily because it is the paper of record for the open source
>community. The anti-property anti-enterprise slant of Stallman is the
>primary reason so many get into the movement. It isn't surprising there
>is a heavy overlap with those in the left wing who hate or fear technology.
>
>  
>
Mike, this is a preposterous assertion.

Slashdot's editorial stance is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."

The editors do not care about left-right, liberal-conservative, or
green-blue. They try to post stuff that Nerds care about. commentary is then
added by many random people with many random opinions. A great many of the
posts on Slashdot appear to be from teenagers. These kids do not in 
general have
a particular political position. Rather, they feel that they are being 
screwed by the
entertainment industry, and they are therefore morally justified in 
acquiring the music
they like. The RIAA is perceived as evil. The slightly older crowd 
treats the BSA as
equivalent to RIAA. In general the posters align themselves on the "nerd"
axis. Left-right and conservative-liberal are irrelevant. People who 
self-associate on these
older axes tend to look at the posts on Slashdot as being opposed to 
their own views.
A liberal sees Slashdot as conservative, You see Slashdot as Liberal. 
Slashdot sees
you as irrelevant.

Many posts on Slashdot refer to Stallman as a nut-case. Slashdot does 
does not
support Stallman. It supports Nerds. Many (Most?) Slashdot readers 
prefer the more
pragmatic "Open Source" approach to Stalmans's "free software" concept, and
Stallman's insistence on the "GNU/Linux" nomenclature is clearly very
irritating to a large portion of the Slashdot community.




From riel at surriel.com  Tue Jul  5 01:05:54 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:05:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws
In-Reply-To: <D1DE1D1F375024D4BBDC96AD7926E260@weg9mq.centralmail.zzn.com>
References: <D1DE1D1F375024D4BBDC96AD7926E260@weg9mq.centralmail.zzn.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507042104471.21251@imladris.surriel.com>

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Edward Smith wrote:

>  There have apparently been no attempts at actually IMPLEMENTING 
> transhumanism,

I suspect we'll end up going the cyborg way, with cell phones
and/or computers growing into something very closely coupled
to our body.

I mean, they are already pretty closely coupled to our mind...

-- 
"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  Tue Jul  5 01:11:53 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <42C9D9D2.80700@cox.net>
References: <20050705001436.63025.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42C9D9D2.80700@cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507042106410.21251@imladris.surriel.com>

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Mike, this is a preposterous assertion.

Yeah, just when you think Mike couldn't possibly make any
more of a fool out of himself, he manages to amaze us once
again.  

Impressive as it is, it makes me sad to think that Mike
might be putting others off transhumanist ideas with this
writing style ;(

> Many posts on Slashdot refer to Stallman as a nut-case. Slashdot does 
> does not support Stallman. It supports Nerds. Many (Most?) Slashdot 
> readers prefer the more pragmatic "Open Source" approach to Stalmans's 
> "free software" concept, and Stallman's insistence on the "GNU/Linux" 
> nomenclature is clearly very irritating to a large portion of the 
> Slashdot community.

The vast majority of open source developers are also not 
free software fanatics.  Yes, people care about others not
infringing on their copyright (eg. GPL), but that's about
it.

Pragmatism is the dominant factor in open source development,
which shows in the fact that many developers work on multiple
pieces of software, some GPL, some BSD, some Artistic and
sometimes other licenses too.

-- 
"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 spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jul  5 03:38:20 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:38:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <20050701193626.91146.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507050340.j653eQR05195@tick.javien.com>


> Yes, the Constitution bans states from signing treaties with other
> nations...
> 
> Mike Lorrey

Vermont was home to Col. Ethan Allan, who attempted to make
a separate treaty with Canada in the revolutionary war 
times.  My grandmother applied for membership into the Daughters
of the American Revolution on being descended from 
Col. Allan.  She was told that Col. Allan was considered 
an ally of George Washington but was not in Washington's command,
therefore the descendants of Allan and the rest of Vermont's
Green Mountain Boys were not eligible for DAR membership.

spike


...ding dong, the cows are gone,
the wicked cows are gooooone...

{8-]





From amara at amara.com  Tue Jul  5 05:57:37 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 07:57:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep Impact mission goals (was: astrology suit
	against NASA)
Message-ID: <p06210200beefcfae89d5@[23.237.66.13]>


The Deep Impact mission is not without its psychological baggage though.
I saw in the news yesterday an editorial by my friend David Grinspoon

"Collision with a Comet"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/opinion/edcomet.php

that defended the idea of hitting the comet. His points are good with
the exception of one [he talked as if it were a long-period comet, of
which there are many, but that this is a short-period comet, of which
there are only about 100], but I think that David doesn't spend enough
time outside of the US to understand how strongly that many people
perceive the Deep Impact mission as a sign of aggression, given the
perception in the world that the US is a military country. It 'looks'
like the Deep Impact space mission is something "military-related".

An Australian journalist at the Deep Impact press conference yesterday
asked the mission manager:

"You are shooting a comet on America's 4th-of-July holiday, can you say
something to that point?"

And the JPL manager did not address it. I think he missed an opportunity
to make better press and help people understand better about the mission
goals.

The mission, whatever its psychological baggage, was executed yesterday
flawlessly. I'm most interested in  the chemistry they find, and I hope
that their spectroscopy can answer that point. The comet astronomers I
know  (and me!) are keen to know if the isotopic deuterium ratio
difference between Standard Mean Ocean Water ('SMOW') and that of
Halley/Hyakatake/Hale-Bopp, which are long-period comets, is similar to
the deuterium ratio difference between SMOW and short period comets,
like Tempel 1. Nobody knows yet the deuterium isotopic ratio of
short-period comets. Did comets bring significant amounts of water to
the Earth or not? How can we know what life outside of the Earth might
be like, if we don't even know how Earth got its water?

This data is likely to be the best chemistry data on comets until
Rosetta arrives at its target comet. So then pretty exciting time for
planetary scientists.

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'm just moving clouds today - tomorrow I'll try mountains."
     --Ashleigh Brilliant


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jul  5 05:58:40 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:58:40 -0700
Subject: SCOTUS rulings and replacements Re: [extropy-chat] finding old
	(andnew) sf
In-Reply-To: <088c01c57f70$b11909c0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <200507050600.j6560jR21200@tick.javien.com>

> Brett Paatsch
> 
> Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that liberal
> and conservative are talked about as if those categories are opposites.
> Is that the case in the US?


Well Brett, those two were opposite at one time, but 
we are having an ever-harder time telling them apart.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jul  5 06:16:42 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:16:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
In-Reply-To: <20050703143900.33517.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507050618.j656IiR26383@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
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
> 
...
> 
> China, for example, with its one-child policy, now has a generation
> that is heavily dominated by a high percentage of males. The effect of
> this on chinese society will create stresses that are similar to the
> artificially created wife shortage in the muslim world that is created
> by the tribal control of resources and the quranic allowance of four
> wives for those who can afford them...
> 
> Mike Lorrey


This is something that has puzzled me.  Wars have decimated
male populations since forever, and some societies have
accepted men having multiple wives.  But in a few cases
there are societies with excess males, such as in the old
American west, the Alaskan frontier and China today.  But I 
know of no society that has accepted a woman having two or more 
husbands.  Has there ever been such a thing?  Should we count 
societies that have legal of prostitution as being a kind
of de-facto polyandrogamy?

spike





From amara at amara.com  Tue Jul  5 06:44:26 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:44:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
Message-ID: <p06210201beefdb0331d5@[23.237.66.13]>

>But I know of no society that has accepted a woman having two or more
>husbands.  Has there ever been such a thing?

Yes.
Spike: You might need to search for the information, however here
is something from me.

Amara

-------cutting and pasting from my extropians post on December 14, 2002,
titled: " Hawaii and the Canaries"

I am terribly curious why sea-faring is not part of every culture
that develops on an island. One would think that, if a human can see
another land mass on the horizon separated by a body of water, that
the human would be drawn to learn what was 'over there', and learn
how to build boats and sail. However this is not at all true in the
Canary Islands.

The Canary Islands are an archipelago of many volcanic islands/islets
(principal islands: Tenerife, Grand Canary, La Palma,
La Gomera, El Hierro, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura) that are similar
in size and separation from each other as are the Hawaiian Islands.
On Tenerife on a clear day you can see easily see Gomera -- it is as
close (10 nautical miles) as Molokai looks to someone standing on
windward side of Oahu.

Yet the original populations of the Canaries were ignorant of the
art of navigation, and developed in isolation of each other, and at
different rates of cultural (religious and technical too) evolution,
based on different population triggers that brought the different
peoples to the islands in the first place.

This leads to the question of how the people arrived in the Canary
Islands in the first place- in Hawaii, the migration looks pretty
clear to the historians, (from Tahiti, Samoa, etc.), but it's not at
all clear the case in the Canary Islands. The Guanches, that is, the
original people in the Canaries, arrived with their animals: goats,
sheep, dogs, with them as if colonizers, and these people dedicated
themselves totally to agriculture and pasture, and not to the sea.

Even though there is not alot of information available about the
Guanches, there is _something_ and the archeologists and historians
have pieced together some aspects of the life,and are still actively
trying to find answers. In the little book below that I found in a
archeological museum in Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, last year, I read
the following about the marriage customs on the different islands that
made me smile, so then a smile for your Saturday:

<begin quote, pg. 66, 67>

"In Grand Canary, men were monogamous. Wives were subjected one month
before matrimony, to a fattening diet, to strengthen them, so that
later they would have strong and robust children.

During the wedding night, the woman could, if she wished, sleep with
a noble of her liking, and if as a result of this union a child was
born, he would be named "Caballero" (gentleman).

The legitimate husband, meanwhile, waiting for the news of a
pregnancy brought about by this irregular union, was not permitted
any carnal contact with her.

In La Gomera, things were easier. There free love existed and so
there were few problems encountered in finding an ideal partner,
either for the man or the woman.

The sacredness of the conjugal condition was not felt here as it was
in the other islands, and in fact there existed a strange custom
called "hospitality of the bed" in which any husband could offer the
delights of his wife to house guests.

It seems that this usage, which it must be said is sometimes found
towns of other nations was also found Grand Canary.

In Lazarote polygamy was normal, and so women there had three
husbands, who alternated each month in their marital duties.

During the abstinence period, the other two husbands were obliged to
revere and serve the wife in all her necessities and desires.

In El Hierro, marriage was contracted by the delivery, as payment,
of a certain quantity of cattle to the parents of the wife.

It is a fact that in almost all the islands a quasi-matriarchy
existed, which made the condition of being a woman always most
favourable.

Respect for women was so high among these people that, on meeting
one in your path, you were obliged to wait until she had passed. You
had to avoid speaking, or look at them without permission. Insulting
a woman was considered a crime worthy of punishment of the utmost
severity."

<end quote>

Reference:

Tenerife: From its Origins to the Spanish Conquest, by Paolo Ludovisi
and Elizabeth Blue, Paolo Ludovisi Publications, Los Realejos,
Tenerife, 1998.


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/
********************************************************************
"Oh you damned observers, you always find extra things."
    -- Fred Hoyle [quoted by Richard Ellis at IAU Symposium 183]


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 06:56:35 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:56:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050704232633.30247.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050704232633.30247.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050704235671eec71a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847
> >
> > So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
> > possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
> > keep in mind?
> 
> Read the responses to that comment.  (By date/timestamp, some of them
> apparently written after you posted the above.)  Yes, there will be
> individuals who spread misinformation and negative opinions about us.
> Get the facts out there enough, and the light of truth will start
> blasting away these shadows almost on its own.

Indeed.

On a related note, I think most of the anti-transhumanist arguments
I've come across have tended to follow one of the following themes:

1. Religion: Certain advanced technologies violate the will of God.
2. Environmentalism: Advanced technologies will increase humanity's
capability to ruin the environment. (I suspect most environmentalists
would object to turning the solar system's mass into a Dyson sphere)
3. Social justice: The rich, western world, and/or corporations will
get access to advanced technologies first, leading to greater economic
and social disparities.

Perhaps it would be useful to put together a resource (maybe a wiki?)
of arguments we often encounter, along with useful counter-arguments?
We of course don't want to end up being like certain
anarcho-syndicalists, with their never-ending verbatim quotation of
Chomsky talking-points, but having such a resource could still be
useful.

-- Neil


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 06:58:49 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:58:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] destroying gardens?
In-Reply-To: <200507050618.j656IiR26383@tick.javien.com>
References: <20050703143900.33517.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200507050618.j656IiR26383@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070423585b0e818f@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> This is something that has puzzled me.  Wars have decimated
> male populations since forever, and some societies have
> accepted men having multiple wives.  But in a few cases
> there are societies with excess males, such as in the old
> American west, the Alaskan frontier and China today.  But I
> know of no society that has accepted a woman having two or more
> husbands.  Has there ever been such a thing?  Should we count
> societies that have legal of prostitution as being a kind
> of de-facto polyandrogamy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry#Occurrence

"Polyandry has occured in Tibet (Polyandry in Tibet), Zanskar, Nepal,
and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of China
(especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African
and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern
Brazil). It has been reported among the Nairs of Kerala, the Nymba of
North India, and the people of Ladakh (a region of northern India
adjacent to Tibet). In other societies, there are people who live in
de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law."


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Tue Jul  5 07:30:54 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 00:30:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil charity luncheon auction launched
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05070423585b0e818f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEDKGDAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5592464719
http://www.mprize.org/auction/

You have 9 days and 23 hours left to gather together six like-minded folks
to bid for a lunch with Ray Kurzweil, the proceeds to go to the Mprize for
rejuvenation and longevity research, there to be used to encourage
scientists to develop the technologies of radical life extension:

http://www.mprize.org/

I and the other Mprize volunteers would greatly appreciate it if you
well-connected folks would get out there and tell your friends, submit to
Slashdot, BoingBoing, etc, and generally make a noise.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From xander25 at adelphia.net  Tue Jul  5 02:06:22 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:06:22 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
Message-ID: <42C9EB1E.9020907@adelphia.net>

In response to Mr. Halelamien,

Speaking as a former anti-technology guy (very short period of time in
my life), my fears of transhumanism came from two sources:

1) Destructive to the human spirit

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the less interested
it is in matters that concern his well-being.  Likewise, he becomes
increasingly incapable of handling changing factors that endanger it. 
Examine for instance the phenomona of the internet.  How many computer
enthusiasts get out these days?  How many get out into, appreciate, and
learn about nature?  How many learn to socialize with others?  I would
think these are fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. 
Translated into transhumanism it becomes a matter of how will this new
technology affect humans?  It could make our lives easier yes, but in
doing so makes us slaves to the technology that was meant to help us. 
This is possibly where I think the slashdot poster was coming from, as
he wasn't clear.  However, who says that technology needs to be enslaving?

a. It opens doors to undiscovered potential we haven't been capable of
in the past.
b. The human spirit is about overcoming and adapting.  It's there where
our strength appears.  To figure out ways to preserve who we are, and
yet advance at the same time.  Take for example the automobile.  It
opened up a world of new possibilities.  The caveat now is that we no
longer have to toil in ways done in the past.  Humans developed
excercise (hence adapting) to reclaim to what was lost.

2) Damaging to organic tissue along with it's not natural!  This can be
solved with time, it's just a matter of study.  The problem is vastly
overstated.  The unnatural part is refuted by asking what is natural? 
If science and it's application is a product of the human mind, and if
the human mind is natural, then how is it unnatural?

I am utterly shocked that both arguments come from either side of the
political fence (though seems to come more from the left).  So, I don't
think it is a mainly political argument.

--Jacob Bennett


From xander25 at adelphia.net  Tue Jul  5 02:55:44 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:55:44 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of slashdotters (was transhumanism ==
	militant fascism)
Message-ID: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

Many posts on Slashdot refer to Stallman as a nut-case. Slashdot does 
does not
support Stallman. It supports Nerds. Many (Most?) Slashdot readers 
prefer the more
pragmatic "Open Source" approach to Stalmans's "free software" concept, and
Stallman's insistence on the "GNU/Linux" nomenclature is clearly very
irritating to a large portion of the Slashdot community.

As a slashdotter myself, I concur.  Men like Mr. Stallman and Mr. Perens
seem to be under the impression that all software should be open, going
as far as proposing legislation.  I personally believe it should be up
to the individual.

Slashdot itself tends to be a very diverse group.  It is geared more
towards the open source/Linux crowd, but it is far more diverse than
simply that.  I take everything I read on there with a grain of salt
anyways.  The posts range from the good and useful all the way to the
utterly useless.

--Jacob Bennett


From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 12:57:29 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:57:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gates: Get ready for chip implants
Message-ID: <470a3c5205070505571bbc2449@mail.gmail.com>

CNN <http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/04/gates.implants.ap/> reports that 
Bill Gates thinks computers will be implanted in the human brain someday. 
Though not volunteering for the process, he acknowledges this is the 
direction technology is moving toward.
Technological advances will one day allow computers to be implanted in the 
human body and could help the blind see and the deaf hear, according to Bill 
Gates.
Meshing people directly with computers has been a science fiction subject 
for years, from downloading memories onto computer chips to replacement 
robotic limbs controlled by brain waves. The fantasy is coming closer to 
reality as advances in technology mean computers are learning to interact 
with human characteristics such as voices, touch -- even smell.
[Gates] cited author Ray Kurzweil <http://www.kurzweilai.net/>, whom he 
called the best at predicting the future of artificial intelligence, as 
believing that such computer-human links would become mainstream.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050705/0455b5b3/attachment.html>

From davidmc at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 14:15:50 2005
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:15:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson in the news
Message-ID: <c934387b05070507156866555d@mail.gmail.com>

The Expositor, July 2, 2005

Scientology foe seeks refugee status here

Keith Henson talks about his years-long battle with controversial
organization

By SUSAN GAMBLE EXPOSITOR STAFF / BRANTFORD

He's accused of being a convicted hate criminal, a child molester, an
Internet terrorist, a self-proclaimed bomb expert and a fugitive from
justice.

Well, that last part is true, says Keith Henson, a mild-mannered 63
year-old with a boisterous laugh and thinning hair.

The fugitive living in Brantford doesn't exactly fit the part written
for him on the Internet by the Church of Scientology as a hate filled
terrorist bomber, but he is somewhat peeved that his quiet life in
Brantford has been disturbed.

Once, Henson was in the forefront as a critic of Scientology, posting
the organization's secrets on the Internet, protesting outside the
group's film studio in California and fighting its lawyers in court. 

[full article at http://tinyurl.com/cy6k5 ]


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Jul  5 15:37:39 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:37:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil charity luncheon auction launched
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEDKGDAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNEEDKGDAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <61C7244E-AF6F-459D-A72A-DFEA75712D48@bonfireproductions.com>


This is great!

I'm the current high bidder!

For the next 15 minutes I guess...


Bret Kulakovich

On Jul 5, 2005, at 3:30 AM, Reason wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5592464719
> http://www.mprize.org/auction/
>
> You have 9 days and 23 hours left to gather together six like- 
> minded folks
> to bid for a lunch with Ray Kurzweil, the proceeds to go to the  
> Mprize for
> rejuvenation and longevity research, there to be used to encourage
> scientists to develop the technologies of radical life extension:
>
> http://www.mprize.org/
>
> I and the other Mprize volunteers would greatly appreciate it if you
> well-connected folks would get out there and tell your friends,  
> submit to
> Slashdot, BoingBoing, etc, and generally make a noise.
>
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 16:52:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Question of Constitutional Law
In-Reply-To: <200507050340.j653eQR05195@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050705165204.58809.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> > Yes, the Constitution bans states from signing treaties with other
> > nations...
> > 
> > Mike Lorrey
> 
> Vermont was home to Col. Ethan Allan, who attempted to make
> a separate treaty with Canada in the revolutionary war 
> times.  My grandmother applied for membership into the Daughters
> of the American Revolution on being descended from 
> Col. Allan.  She was told that Col. Allan was considered 
> an ally of George Washington but was not in Washington's command,
> therefore the descendants of Allan and the rest of Vermont's
> Green Mountain Boys were not eligible for DAR membership.

Vermont's Green Mountain Boys are an  interesting case. You see,
Vermont was originally part of NH, but in the early 1770's land
speculators in New York hatched a scheme by which they lied to King
George and made presentations that NY owned Vermont, which he concurred
in. The speculators then went to the various settlers in the green
mountains and attempted to make them repurchase their land from the New
Yorkers.

This was repugnant of course, so representatives of the towns gathered
in Windsor, VT and declared their independence of New York, recognising
in their first Constitution that they belonged to New Hampshire by
right, and formed the Republic of Vermont. Vermont was not a member of
the Continental Congress throughout the war and the Green Mountain Boys
were most noted for keeping the British out of Vermont, and assisting
Benedict Arnold (when he was on our side) with his naval battles on
Lake Champlain against the advances of General "Gentleman Johnny"
Burgoyne southward. They also assisted with the takeover of Fort
Ticonderoga and the transportation of some of its cannon to Breeds Hill
in Boston for the Battle of Bunker Hill.

All that being said, it is factually correct for the DAR to do what
they did, since Vermont was not a member of the Continental Congress,
but certainly not in the spirit. It is an interesting thing in these
parts, because Grafton County, NH, which I grew up in, seceded and
joined Vermont during the War because the merchants in Portsmouth who
controlled the government refused to direct any tax funds to maintain
roads in the county or provide soldiers pay that was owed to the
families they left behind. The DAR in these parts tends to make
allowances.

This being said, I have a friend who must be a relative of yours. John
Stark, a farmer I have shot sporting clays with on occasion, is a
direct descendant of both General John Stark of New Hampshire, and Ira
Allen, Ethan's brother who was the more cerebral of the pair.

The DAR are an exclusive snotty bunch anyways.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jul  5 17:23:28 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050704235671eec71a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050705172328.69608.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On a related note, I think most of the anti-transhumanist arguments
> I've come across have tended to follow one of the following themes:
> 
> 1. Religion: Certain advanced technologies violate the will of God.

Common answer: whose God?  (See refutations of Pascal's Wager.)

Less common answer: point out that some interpretations of God would
actually see advanced technologies as not only okay, but part of God's
plan for us - specifically, allowing us to better understand God's
wisdom and to better accomplish God's work, just like we have for all
of human history.

> 2. Environmentalism: Advanced technologies will increase humanity's
> capability to ruin the environment. (I suspect most environmentalists
> would object to turning the solar system's mass into a Dyson sphere)

Common answer: it will also increase humanity's capability to save and
restore the environment - as, for example, it has measurably done ever
since the environmentalist movement started.  (Actually before, but
environmentalists are more likely to accept this counter if they are
allowed to take some credit for it.)  There is every reason to believe
this trend will continue.

Less common answer: if things really go to heck, advanced technologies
will allow us to completely evacuate humanity from the Earth, to let
the Earth recover while our lives go on.

> 3. Social justice: The rich, western world, and/or corporations will
> get access to advanced technologies first, leading to greater
> economic
> and social disparities.

Common answer: look at the current definition of "poverty", versus the
definition many decades ago.  Note that, for example, few people
actually starve in industrial countries, unlike in the 1800s.  Why
should we care if some people get super-rich and go play in their own
world, if in the bargain we can drastically improve living conditions
for the world's poor?

Less common answer: of course it will.  But the faster we develop the
technologies, the faster we can get them to the rest of the world and
correct not only those disparities but the ones we currently face.

> Perhaps it would be useful to put together a resource (maybe a wiki?)
> of arguments we often encounter, along with useful counter-arguments?
> We of course don't want to end up being like certain
> anarcho-syndicalists, with their never-ending verbatim quotation of
> Chomsky talking-points, but having such a resource could still be
> useful.

A Wiki specific to us might never be known to the vast majority of
people to whom the information would be of use.  I wonder if we could
put it on some entry in Wikipedia without violating their NPOV.  (If
we violate it, they'll remove our text, and our effort will have been
for naught or even counterproductive.)


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 18:01:24 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <42C9EB1E.9020907@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Here's another personal experience: I was very influenced by the 'back to nature' world view that attained wide popular currency around 1969 and continues to this day (reaching its period of maximum intensity, I would say, about 1971-' 73) 
At any rate, science at that time gave me the sensation of being one of a pair of dice on a darwinian roulette table; though I knew nature eventually became an enemy of an older person, I thought the aging process could be counteracted to a shall we say socially acceptable extent by gradually improved nutrition and of course exercise, physical therapy, etc. It was not so much at the time I thought lengthening lifespans was unnatural, but rather nebulous thoughts revolved around the idea that lengthening lifespans might lead to certain diminishing returns in a longer but more complicated and not necessarily more pleasant and/or happier life; the exasperations of a more complicated life might shorten or ruin that life. The latter has been proven to me as valid in many cases, but most people-- as you imply-- can rise to the challenges & opportunities of overcoming and adapting.
 
 

Jacob <xander25 at adelphia.net> wrote:
In response to Mr. Halelamien,

Speaking as a former anti-technology guy (very short period of time in
my life), my fears of transhumanism came from two sources:

1) Destructive to the human spirit

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the less interested
it is in matters that concern his well-being. Likewise, he becomes
increasingly incapable of handling changing factors that endanger it. 
Examine for instance the phenomona of the internet. How many computer
enthusiasts get out these days? How many get out into, appreciate, and
learn about nature? How many learn to socialize with others? I would
think these are fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. 
Translated into transhumanism it becomes a matter of how will this new
technology affect humans? It could make our lives easier yes, but in
doing so makes us slaves to the technology that was meant to help us. 
This is possibly where I think the slashdot poster was coming from, as
he wasn't clear. However, who says that technology needs to be enslaving?

a. It opens doors to undiscovered potential we haven't been capable of
in the past.
b. The human spirit is about overcoming and adapting. It's there where
our strength appears. To figure out ways to preserve who we are, and
yet advance at the same time. Take for example the automobile. It
opened up a world of new possibilities. The caveat now is that we no
longer have to toil in ways done in the past. Humans developed
excercise (hence adapting) to reclaim to what was lost.

2) Damaging to organic tissue along with it's not natural! This can be
solved with time, it's just a matter of study. The problem is vastly
overstated. The unnatural part is refuted by asking what is natural? 
If science and it's application is a product of the human mind, and if
the human mind is natural, then how is it unnatural?

I am utterly shocked that both arguments come from either side of the
political fence (though seems to come more from the left). So, I don't
think it is a mainly political argument.

--Jacob Bennett
_______________________________________________
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/20050705/bc94d5fb/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 18:17:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705172328.69608.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On a related note, I think most of the anti-transhumanist arguments
> > I've come across have tended to follow one of the following themes:
> > 
> > 1. Religion: Certain advanced technologies violate the will of God.
> 
> Common answer: whose God?  (See refutations of Pascal's Wager.)
> 
> Less common answer: point out that some interpretations of God would
> actually see advanced technologies as not only okay, but part of
> God's
> plan for us - specifically, allowing us to better understand God's
> wisdom and to better accomplish God's work, just like we have for all
> of human history.

Or: Says who? The bible says nothing about nanotechnology, space
travel, or genetic engineering. In fact, it appears that Jesus cured
people of diseases that were genetic in origin, which could only be
done by genetic engineering, while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
for a galactic joyride. Furthermore, humans, according to God's alleged
design, were capable of living as long as 999 years (Methuselah), which
was cut short by diseases put upon us by our own sinful and corrupt
living. Additionally, if Mary was impregnated and gave birth as a
virgin, such could only have been accomplished with nanotechnology, so
nanotech is apparently 'god's will'.

> 
> > 2. Environmentalism: Advanced technologies will increase humanity's
> > capability to ruin the environment. (I suspect most
> environmentalists
> > would object to turning the solar system's mass into a Dyson
> sphere)
> 
> Common answer: it will also increase humanity's capability to save
> and restore the environment - as, for example, it has measurably done
> ever since the environmentalist movement started. (Actually before,
> but environmentalists are more likely to accept this counter if they
> are allowed to take some credit for it.)  There is every reason to
> believe this trend will continue.
> 
> Less common answer: if things really go to heck, advanced
> technologies will allow us to completely evacuate humanity from
> the Earth, to let the Earth recover while our lives go on.

As demonstrated by Peter Huber, it is primitive farming and rural
populations that causes the most environmental damage. Dense living in
cities and high tech farming technologies (including genetic
engineering and cloning of more productive plants and animals) allows
us to feed more people on less acrage, allowing more land to return to
nature.

Advancing technology not only improves our ability to use resources
more efficiently, but improves the efficiency by which we are able to
recover them from nature with less damage.

> 
> > 3. Social justice: The rich, western world, and/or corporations
> will
> > get access to advanced technologies first, leading to greater
> > economic
> > and social disparities.
> 
> Common answer: look at the current definition of "poverty", versus
> the
> definition many decades ago.  Note that, for example, few people
> actually starve in industrial countries, unlike in the 1800s.  Why
> should we care if some people get super-rich and go play in their own
> world, if in the bargain we can drastically improve living conditions
> for the world's poor?
> 
> Less common answer: of course it will.  But the faster we develop the
> technologies, the faster we can get them to the rest of the world and
> correct not only those disparities but the ones we currently face.

The rich always pay the development costs of technology, and the more
they are allowed to do so, the less expensive those technologies become
over time (and sooner), which means that more people will eventually be
able to utilize them... Better the rich pay the development costs
directly rather than everyone pay for them indirectly through taxation,
which will waste half the money on government bureaucracy.

> 
> > Perhaps it would be useful to put together a resource (maybe a
> wiki?)
> > of arguments we often encounter, along with useful
> counter-arguments?
> > We of course don't want to end up being like certain
> > anarcho-syndicalists, with their never-ending verbatim quotation of
> > Chomsky talking-points, but having such a resource could still be
> > useful.
> 
> A Wiki specific to us might never be known to the vast majority of
> people to whom the information would be of use.  I wonder if we could
> put it on some entry in Wikipedia without violating their NPOV.  (If
> we violate it, they'll remove our text, and our effort will have been
> for naught or even counterproductive.)

Wikipedia's NPOV is a POV that is determined by the people who run
Wikipedia, much as MSM purport their editorial slant is 'moderate' and
'middle-of-the-road', or at their most honest "slightly left of
center", when in fact they are significantly left leaning and fascist
tending.

Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own NPOV
as specifically extropic in outlook. This exists to a degree in Neal
Stephenson's Metaweb (http://www.metaweb.com), which I write articles
for, but is focused on his writing specifically, although other authors
works have been covered and Neal does want it to become a general resource.

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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 18:42:14 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705184214.37373.qmail@web34411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Or let us say that God doth not shoot blanks. :-}
The clincher for me is that the collective fear of dying outweighs the advantages of a pious, more 'nature'- oriented life. This and also that my weak stomach turns me off the thought of all bodily functions.
 To turn Tennyson's verse on its head: "I say hush this talk of nature 'til a thousand years have passed".


Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
if Mary was impregnated and gave birth as a
virgin, such could only have been accomplished with nanotechnology
__________________________________________________
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/20050705/352e436c/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Jul  5 17:52:27 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:52:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson in the news
In-Reply-To: <c934387b05070507156866555d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c934387b05070507156866555d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42CAC8DB.6090302@sasktel.net>

Keith is not the only list member pushing the hot buttons.
Our Ag-Pharm business is a tiny hole in the wall commercializing med-pot 
from hemp
and challenging quite a few  folks to accept this sort of thing  or
step forward to quash our existence.

And like Keith we are in Canada which is  quickly getting the
reputation of being the most european part of North America.

MFJ


David McFadzean wrote:

>The Expositor, July 2, 2005
>
>Scientology foe seeks refugee status here
>
>Keith Henson talks about his years-long battle with controversial
>organization
>
>By SUSAN GAMBLE EXPOSITOR STAFF / BRANTFORD
>
>He's accused of being a convicted hate criminal, a child molester, an
>Internet terrorist, a self-proclaimed bomb expert and a fugitive from
>justice.
>
>Well, that last part is true, says Keith Henson, a mild-mannered 63
>year-old with a boisterous laugh and thinning hair.
>
>The fugitive living in Brantford doesn't exactly fit the part written
>for him on the Internet by the Church of Scientology as a hate filled
>terrorist bomber, but he is somewhat peeved that his quiet life in
>Brantford has been disturbed.
>
>Once, Henson was in the forefront as a critic of Scientology, posting
>the organization's secrets on the Internet, protesting outside the
>group's film studio in California and fighting its lawyers in court. 
>
>[full article at http://tinyurl.com/cy6k5 ]
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jul  5 18:53:01 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia's NPOV (was Re: themes in anti-transhumanist
	arguments)
In-Reply-To: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705185301.9050.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia's NPOV is a POV that is determined by the people who run
> Wikipedia,

This is true.

> much as MSM purport their editorial slant is 'moderate'
> and
> 'middle-of-the-road', or at their most honest "slightly left of
> center", when in fact they are significantly left leaning and fascist
> tending.

This is not true, at least of Wikipedia.

> Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own
> NPOV
> as specifically extropic in outlook.

You're not getting the concept of a "Neutral" Point Of View.  It's not
extropic, it's not fascist, it's not anything like that.  It exists
completely outside of those axis.  It's trying to get at what really
happened - a simple statement of the facts, without any labelling
unless the labelled parties themselves would agree to it (or there is
general agreement by institutions set up to judge these things, like
the courts - at least, in matters where most people would trust the
courts).

Specifically, your issue with them is that you put up a rant about how
certain people and organizations are "Neo-Luddite", which label would
be in dispute.  You then refused to acknowledge that Wikipedians don't
want such politics in their entries - and that, rightly or wrongly,
they believe there is a way to state the facts that is completely free
of said politics.  The Wikipedians would like an article saying what
Neo-Luddism is, with relevant facts about the movement per se (which
can include common criticisms, which I'm sure we can easily provide),
without using it as a vehicle to denounce specific people and
organizations.

For example, see this bit I added: "Those who are called neo-luddites
tend to call themselves greens, conservatives, or other labels, but
with an anti-technology focus.  This causes friction with pro-tech
greens and others, who sometimes cite the negative environmental
consequences of neo-luddites' goals to challenge their right to call
themselves "green"."  This basic statement of facts, while roundly
denouncing neo-luddism, doesn't actually target anyone, and so has been
left in place - even defended by others.

If you want to denounce specific people and organizations, the first
step is to move *all* such discussion to pages specifically about said
people and organizations.  The second step is to argue the case against
them without any resort to loaded terms or anything else but the bare
facts, presented as unemotionally as possible.  Think like someone
reporting lists of crimes to a UN human rights commission.  Also see
their page on "moral panic" and related terms for tactics *not* to
employ: one aspect of their goals is to defuse, rather than to inflame,
moral panics by dousing hype and exaggerations with facts.

I believe you could learn from them if, instead of angrily rejecting
their position, you were to study their guides as to how to present
statements of fact.  Indeed, if you adopted elements of their style, I
suspect you would be able to persuade many more people, both inside ExI
and among the general public, of the rightness of your points of view.


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 20:56:39 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705184214.37373.qmail@web34411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705205639.77329.qmail@web34412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What I mean by a weak stomach turning me off that which is 'natural':
 
when you are young you want to get dressed up and go to a fancy restaurant; when you are old you want to get out of a restaurant so as to ingest some metamucil and lie down.
 
When one is young one wants to get someone in bed for sex; when one is old one wants to get someone out of bed so as to put the dentures in to soak for the night.

 

__________________________________________________
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/20050705/de4aa267/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul  5 21:45:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:45:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] astrology suit against NASA
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050704172543.01c79298@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <16F4615B-BF3E-4351-AFD5-7F88F3E86586@mac.com>

Damn!  I could get rich if I could successfully sue people for being  
utterly stupid.  I guess (hope) the Russian courts simply have a  
wacky sense of humor.   Without that (or worse) the case should have  
been immediately thrown out.   I am sure the astrologist [sic] is  
traumatized.  She lives in a world of metaphors and sympathetic  
magic.  So to her the great enemy has attacked her very essence and  
reason for being.

with compassion for all crazed chimps everywhere,

     samantha


On Jul 4, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Russian sues Nasa for comet upset
> By Artyom Liss
> BBC News, Moscow
>
> Hours after a Nasa probe crashed into Comet Tempel 1, legal  
> reverberations were felt in a Moscow court.
>
> Judges in the tiny courtroom normally deal with matters much more  
> mundane than space exploration.
>
> But Judge Litvinenko opened hearings into a case which could see  
> Nasa pay a local amateur astrologist millions of dollars in damages.
>
> Writer Marina Bay claims that by slamming the probe into the comet,  
> Nasa endangered the future of civilisation.
>
> "Nobody has yet proven that this experiment was safe," says Ms  
> Bay's lawyer Alexander Molokhov.
>
> "This impact could have altered the orbit of the comet, so now  
> there is a chance that the Tempel may well destroy the Earth some  
> day!"
>
> If your phone went down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then  
> get in touch with us
> Alexander Molokhov
> Marina Bay's lawyer
>
> This claim was brushed aside by Nasa mission engineer Shadan Ardalan.
>
> "The analogy is a mosquito hitting the front of an airliner in  
> flight. The effect is negligible," Mr Ardalan told BBC News.
>
> However, even if the comet stays at a safe distance from Earth, Ms  
> Bay's own life, she thinks, will never be the same again.
>
> An amateur astrologist, she believes that any variation in the  
> orbit or the composition of the Tempel comet will certainly affect  
> her own fate.
>
> So Ms Marina's claims to be experiencing "a moral trauma" - which  
> only a payment of $300m (252m euros; ?170m) can put right.
>
> This is roughly what Nasa has spent on the experiment so far.
>
> Volunteers request
>
> Moscow representatives of the American space agency have ignored  
> Monday's court hearing.
>
> But, by Russian law, this will not prevent the judge from  
> continuing with the case.
>
> Marina Bay's legal team remain confident, and they are even looking  
> for volunteers to join in on the claim.
>
> "The impact changed the magnetic properties of the comet, and this  
> could have affected mobile telephony here on Earth. If your phone  
> went down this morning, ask yourself Why? and then get in touch  
> with us," says Mr Molokhov.
>
> So now it is up to the Moscow Presnya court to find an answer to  
> this, truly universal, question.
>
> The final decision is not likely to be announced for at least  
> another month.
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4649987.stm
>
> Published: 2005/07/04 17:54:10 GMT
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul  5 22:25:06 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:25:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce050704161031beffc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <934BAFA2-9C44-4129-82E7-F9D611F63E99@mac.com>

There is no need for debate with such creatures but only antidotes to  
their venom.  Here is a brief response I posted.

"Do we want a future dominated by technophobes who would condemn all  
humans to hideous decrepitude and death after a mere 70ish years?  I  
don't think so.  Kurzweil's vision is highly benign and has no  
fascism or borg-like parts at all.  The poster's slur is beneath  
contempt.  What could be more fascist than the poster's implied wish  
to outlaw thoughts the poster finds uncomfortable? "

-s

On Jul 4, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Neil Halelamien wrote:

> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154788&threshold=0&cid=12979847
>
> So how does one go about debating people like this? Is it even
> possible? Are there any relevant points they make which we need to
> keep in mind?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 22:34:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia's NPOV (was Re: themes in
	anti-transhumanist arguments)
In-Reply-To: <20050705185301.9050.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705223427.41535.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Wikipedia's NPOV is a POV that is determined by the people who run
> > Wikipedia,
> 
> This is true.
> 
> > much as MSM purport their editorial slant is 'moderate'
> > and
> > 'middle-of-the-road', or at their most honest "slightly left of
> > center", when in fact they are significantly left leaning and
> fascist
> > tending.
> 
> This is not true, at least of Wikipedia.

I didn't say it was, I said it was of MSM, which is "main stream
media". Wikipedia's slant is somewhere in the area of left-liberal
anarchist with significant players who are rabid left-liberals who are
skilled at making articles appear ostensibly NPOV but careful semantic
analysis shows is still significantly left-leaning, particularly of the
verbs, adverbs and adjectives used to describe left versus right
arguments.

> 
> > Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own
> > NPOV
> > as specifically extropic in outlook.
> 
> You're not getting the concept of a "Neutral" Point Of View.  It's
> not
> extropic, it's not fascist, it's not anything like that.  It exists
> completely outside of those axis.  It's trying to get at what really
> happened - a simple statement of the facts, without any labelling
> unless the labelled parties themselves would agree to it (or there is
> general agreement by institutions set up to judge these things, like
> the courts - at least, in matters where most people would trust the
> courts).

This is a silly and improbable as believing in the easter bunny. It is
impossible to state 'facts' in a world when nobody agrees on what the
'facts' are. For example, the accepted dictionary definition of
'fascism' is a philosophy that advocates the state allowing private
property, but dictating who can own it and how they use it, yet the
biased people on wikipedia who claim to be more NPOV refuse to define
political policies that fit the above definition as 'fascist'.

> 
> Specifically, your issue with them is that you put up a rant about
> how
> certain people and organizations are "Neo-Luddite", which label would
> be in dispute.  You then refused to acknowledge that Wikipedians
> don't
> want such politics in their entries - and that, rightly or wrongly,
> they believe there is a way to state the facts that is completely
> free
> of said politics.  The Wikipedians would like an article saying what
> Neo-Luddism is, with relevant facts about the movement per se (which
> can include common criticisms, which I'm sure we can easily provide),
> without using it as a vehicle to denounce specific people and
> organizations.

If an act is a crime, stating it is a crime is not denouncing. If a
person's actions or statements are generally thought negatively of by
the general population, words like 'infamous' or 'notorious' are not
POV, they are purely descriptive. If something fits the dictionary
definition of a word, then you can call it or describe it with that
word.


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 sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul  5 22:46:12 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:46:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of slashdotters (was transhumanism ==
	militant fascism)
In-Reply-To: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>
References: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>


On Jul 4, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Jacob wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
> Many posts on Slashdot refer to Stallman as a nut-case. Slashdot does
> does not
> support Stallman. It supports Nerds. Many (Most?) Slashdot readers
> prefer the more
> pragmatic "Open Source" approach to Stalmans's "free software"  
> concept, and
> Stallman's insistence on the "GNU/Linux" nomenclature is clearly very
> irritating to a large portion of the Slashdot community.
>
> As a slashdotter myself, I concur.  Men like Mr. Stallman and Mr.  
> Perens
> seem to be under the impression that all software should be open,  
> going
> as far as proposing legislation.  I personally believe it should be up
> to the individual.

I do not concur.  RS and Perens both believe strongly in the right of  
creators to decide how to offer their creation.  They believe that  
non-open software is more or less immoral but not that everyone  
should be forced to offer their software creations under licenses of  
their liking.  Besides, the issue from an extropian viewpoint is one  
of what forms of licensing of what kinds of software under what  
circumstances expand extropy.   That this or that original light or  
exponent of Free/Open Software has opinions distasteful to some of us  
is not terribly important.

>
> Slashdot itself tends to be a very diverse group.  It is geared more
> towards the open source/Linux crowd, but it is far more diverse than
> simply that.  I take everything I read on there with a grain of salt
> anyways.  The posts range from the good and useful all the way to the
> utterly useless.

I am often surprised by the gibbering monkey chatter level and the  
seeming serious level of ignorance.  I am also surprised to encounter  
a lot of young geeks who seem to have not a clue of how fast  
technology is changing the world and  possess no positive vision (to  
say the least).    It seems to be uncool to dream and seek to make  
the dream real.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050705/d7f9a157/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jul  5 23:21:16 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:21:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Methuselah Foundation Offers Once-in-a-Lifetime
 Lunch with Luminary Ray Kurzweil
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050705161157.055bd530@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050705161157.055bd530@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050705181553.03ff7cb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>>Dr. Ray Kurzweil, recipient of the U.S. National Medal of
>>Technology, and author of numerous books including "Fantastic Voyage: 
>>Live Long Enough To Live Forever"

Here's my rather over-simplified and non-critical pop sci review for the 
Weekend ustralian newspaper, published last weekend:

Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever
By Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D.
Rodale, 452pp, $US 24.95

Reviewed by Damien Broderick


In 1994, a beauty pageant entrant made a fool of herself by blurting out 
something that almost everyone believes. Miss America's host asked Miss 
Alabama: "If you could live forever, would you, and why?" Thinking aloud, 
she replied: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, 
because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, 
but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever."

This apparently circular word salad makes her seem an airhead. But that's 
unkind. Her impromptu analysis, read charitably, makes perfect sense from 
either a Bible Belt or an evolutionary viewpoint. Here's her logic, 
de-garbled: "It'd only be right to want eternal life if that were part of 
God's or nature's plan. Actually, though, we're mortal beings, that's part 
of our very nature. So it would be wrong to wish to escape death, and I 
don't." This suddenly looks like a perfectly sensible appraisal. Haven't 
humans evolved to live, mature, grow old and die, leaving the world to our 
children, and they to theirs?

Luckily, as philosophers have known for several centuries, that really 
isn't a good argument after all, any more than the claim that if God or 
Darwin had wanted us to fly, we'd have propellers. Intelligence often finds 
ways to improve on nature, even if our limitations sometimes botch the job. 
It's no sin against deity or natural selection to swallow an aspirin, get a 
tooth filled, or watch television beside a cooling fan. The main problem 
with living forever is just that nobody has worked out yet how to do it. 
Snake oil salesmen once promised endless health, but they're buried 
alongside their gullible customers.

But science did enable a couple of Ohio bicycle builders to fly, an 
otherwise impossible dream, and within a single lifetime flung humans to 
the Moon. It now seems likely that powerful research programs will let us 
first slow and then halt the major causes of death--heart disease, cancer, 
stroke, infections--and then, perhaps, reverse ageing itself, that slow, 
terrible corrosion of our youthful flesh and lively minds. Or is this no 
more than wishful thinking? If it's not, is it at least wicked thinking, 
ruinous for individual and society alike? These are increasingly urgent 
questions. Kurzweil and Grossman explore them from many angles in their 
significant new book. As a bonus, they suggest ways to stave off the Grim 
Reaper until the longevity doctor arrives.

Ray Kurzweil is a highly awarded inventor and computer expert, not a 
medical researcher, but his insights into the pace of change are what drive 
this collaboration with medico Grossman. Knowledge is doubling and 
deepening at a prodigious rate, and even that rate is itself accelerating, 
something the book rather immodestly calls "his most profound observation". 
It's not a true scientific law, of course, and could suffer setbacks in its 
pace due to global terrorism, environmental collapse, or political 
opportunism directed against research (such as current US government 
hostility to stem cell work). If this "Law of Accelerating Returns" does 
hold up, though, Kurzweil projects a future where ageing will become an 
unthinkable horror of the past, as polio and smallpox are today. Some of 
those alive now might thrive indefinitely, kept youthful by the same 
recuperative processes that build brand-new babies from aging sperm and ova.

Are the rest of us doomed to be the last mortal generation? Perhaps not, if 
a kind of maintenance engineering can be applied to our ailing bodies. The 
remedy might be complicated: genomic profiling, pills, supplements, 
stringent diet, more exercise than we care for, and even intravenous shots 
of hormone top-ups and entirely new pharmaceuticals. But many of us already 
take daily doses of Lipitor, to lower bad cholesterol, and drugs to fight 
hypertension. In the slightly longer term, our bodies might be infused with 
swarms of machines not much larger than viruses, nanobots designed to 
scavenge wastes and repair tissue damage at the scale of cells. Unnatural? 
In a sense, as is wearing contact lenses. In another, not at all, since 
modifying our lives in the light of hard-won knowledge is precisely what 
makes us human.

The longevity program recommended by Kurzweil and Grossman is meant to get 
us over the hump, allow us to survive "long enough to live 
forever"--although this doesn't mean we might become literally immortal, 
unable to be killed. It does imply a future where every human will have the 
choice of staying healthily young indefinitely, or of stepping aside, if 
they choose, to make room for a new life--assuming, of course, that we 
linger on this planet, and that we remain strictly human. Some ethicists 
are dismayed at these choices, finding them inhuman and degrading. No doubt 
the arguments will continue for generations until all those opposed to 
endless life have died. Meanwhile, anyone wishing to try for the goal of 
extended life could do worse than study Kurzweil and Grossman's detailed 
prospectus. You might end up looking like a pin-cushion and gulping 250 
pills a day (Aggressive Supplementation, they call it--"Take them all, and 
let your body use what it needs"), but it's more fun than rotting in the 
ground.








From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jul  5 23:43:26 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia's NPOV (was Re: themes in
	anti-transhumanist arguments)
In-Reply-To: <20050705223427.41535.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050705234327.70509.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't say it was, I said it was of MSM, which is "main stream
> media".

Ah, okay.  Just making sure.  Thanks for the correction.

> This is a silly and improbable as believing in the easter bunny. It
> is
> impossible to state 'facts' in a world when nobody agrees on what the
> 'facts' are.

Actually...it is.  ^_^

There are many tricks and techniques to it.  Finding a way to speak the
undisputed truth when many basic facts are in dispute is a skill in
itself, much like (for example) computer programming.  It usually
requires more than one mind, since even the best-trained single mind
will still often put in some bias - thus the push for and success of
collaborative efforts, like Wikipedia.  But it also requires tricks and
techniques on the individual level.  A couple of the basics are trying
to find what facts *are* generally agreed upon (for instance, most
people agree that "1+1=2", while there is less agreement on "the Earth
was created from nothing within the past 10,000 years"), and more
importantly, taking the attitude of searching for the truth (and
contributing your piece of the puzzle, as you see it) rather than
assuming you know the truth - because no one (not you, not me, not
anyone we know, not anyone we don't know, *no one*) ever knows the
compete truth.

> For example, the accepted dictionary definition of
> 'fascism' is a philosophy that advocates the state allowing private
> property, but dictating who can own it and how they use it,

Some dictionaries define it that way, but it definitely isn't how I
hear it used in public use.  This may come as a shock, but even
dictionaries aren't always the last word in saying what words mean - no
matter how good of an attempt they often make.  Especially since
different dictionaries give different definitions.  From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism :

1. often Fascism
  1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
     a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
     opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy
     of belligerent nationalism and racism.
  2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a
     system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

As the focus is on oppression, not private property per se (private
property may be one tool for oppression, but not the only one), this
seems to be far different from your dictionary's definition.
Conclusion: just because you see it in one dictionary, doesn't always
mean it's so.

> yet the
> biased people on wikipedia who claim to be more NPOV refuse to define
> political policies that fit the above definition as 'fascist'.

Because they're using their own dictionaries.  As a guess, I think the
definition you gave would be closer to their definition of "communist"
than of "fascist".  A non-oppressive communist government can be
envisioned and dreamt of, and thus discussed, even if in practice
communism seems to inherently give rise to oppression (and thus be
"fascist" in both your and their senses of the term).

> If an act is a crime, stating it is a crime is not denouncing. If a
> person's actions or statements are generally thought negatively of by
> the general population, words like 'infamous' or 'notorious' are not
> POV, they are purely descriptive. If something fits the dictionary
> definition of a word, then you can call it or describe it with that
> word.

All three of these, while true, can be used to give the appearance of
justification to things they do not in fact justify, if one takes a
slightly blind eye to certain aspects.  For example (not saying you did
these, just that they are common mistakes):

\* Whether or not some act is in fact a crime may be in dispute, as is
  whether or not a certain person did indeed commit that act.  In this
  circumstance, it would not necessarily be correct that the person
  committed a crime.  It might be correct to say that the person is
  suspected or accused of a crime, though.

* If a small subset of the general population to which you happen to
  belong - for example, just Extropians or even just all transhumanists
  - considers a certain act negatively, that is a far cry from the
  general population seeing the same act negatively.  For instance, it
  is quite possible that a greater number of human beings see the
  Precautionary Principle in a positive light than in a negative light.
  We may attempt to change that, but in the mean time, it would not be
  purely descriptive to say that a certain person or organization is
  "infamous" for using the Precautionary Principle a lot, unless you
  are clearly speaking from or about the POV of a group (like
  transhumanists) which would have that perception - which is almost
  never the case in a Wikipedia article.  The solution here is to
  honestly see things from the uninvolved, and often un- or only
  slightly educated (with respect to this issue), person's POV.  This
  can be extremely difficult for most people, as it absolutely requires
  setting aside (and recognizing!) one's personal beliefs and
  prejudices.

* As pointed out above, just because something technically fits one
  dictionary definition, does not always mean that it fits the
  definition that most people use.  If you're getting pushback on the
  application of a particular word, the most likely cause is that the
  definition you were using conflicts with the definition those who
  take exception are using.  In this case, one of the early important
  steps to defusing and refining is to ask them what their definition
  is.  If there is a disagreement, *then* maybe cite your definition -
  in the unusual case that they could be persuaded to change
  definitions.  Usually, you have to use your audience's definitions,
  with no chance to make up your own (unless you're trying to confuse
  the issue - which some politicians and lawyers do for a living, but
  which would probably just get bad results for us).

You might want to spend some time reading and mulling over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
in particular the sections "An example" (especially the bit about how
we don't need to say that "so-and-so is evil" when we can present
evidence that speaks for itself - which is one advantage transhumanists
often have over neo-luddites!), "There's no such thing as objectivity",
"Morally offensive views" (making sure to note what we find morally
offensive, like the Precautionary Principle), "Giving "equal
validity"", "Making necessary assumptions", and "Writing for the
"enemy" POV".


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 23:50:55 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:50:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050705172328.69608.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0507051650ee5f86f@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/5/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own NPOV
> as specifically extropic in outlook. This exists to a degree in Neal
> Stephenson's Metaweb (http://www.metaweb.com), which I write articles
> for, but is focused on his writing specifically, although other authors
> works have been covered and Neal does want it to become a general resource.

FYI, it also seems that the new-and-improved Betterhumans.com site has
its own Wiki:

http://betterhumans.com/Wiki/tabid/54/Default.aspx


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jul  5 23:48:26 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:48:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of slashdotters (was transhumanism
	==	militant fascism)
In-Reply-To: <114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>
References: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>
	<114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42CB1C4A.9010808@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> I am often surprised by the gibbering monkey chatter level and the 
> seeming serious level of ignorance.  I am also surprised to encounter 
> a lot of young geeks who seem to have not a clue of how fast 
> technology is changing the world and  possess no positive vision (to 
> say the least).    It seems to be uncool to dream and seek to make the 
> dream real.
>
> - samantha
>
The SNR in the comments at Slashdot is so low that I rarely read the 
comments any more except on stories that really interest me. For 
discussions of intellectual property philosophy, Groklaw is far superior.

I personally prefer to use and contribute to GPLed software,  As a 
practical matter, GPLed software is cheaper because the the costs (in 
time and hassle) of license compliance are so much lower than with 
proprietary software. As a philosophical matter, I see the GPL as an 
enabler for a powerful collaborative system that generates high-quality 
software very efficiently and quickly. The Open Source community and its 
various sub-constituencies comprise an evolving collaborative 
intelligence that has a computer component. The computer component 
(Internet, email, CVS,and many development tools) currently contributes 
critical infrastructure, but is not yet doing any of the "thinking." 
This will change. As a trivial example, a team has now implemented 
automated regression tests for Linux: each time a new release happens, 
it is completely tested by the regression suite on many hardware 
platforms in a very short period of time. The concept is not new: almost 
none of the individual concepts are new. However, the bug-finding time 
for a large class of bugs has dropped to mere hours and the humans 
become more efficient.


From xander25 at adelphia.net  Tue Jul  5 18:05:32 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:05:32 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of slashdotters (was transhumanism
	==	militant fascism)
In-Reply-To: <114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>
References: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>
	<114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42CACBEC.3060203@adelphia.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I do not concur.  RS and Perens both believe strongly in the right of
> creators to decide how to offer their creation.  They believe that
> non-open software is more or less immoral but not that everyone should
> be forced to offer their software creations under licenses of their
> liking.  Besides, the issue from an extropian viewpoint is one of what
> forms of licensing of what kinds of software under what circumstances
> expand extropy.   That this or that original light or exponent of
> Free/Open Software has opinions distasteful to some of us is not
> terribly important.

I concurred based on the idea that slashdotters typically are a diverse
crowd, not necessarily based on the licenses that are supported on
there.  I confess to be somewhat new to extropy and this list.  I am
curious as to what opinions are present on here on the issue of
licensing/patents/IP etc...  My experience has mainly been centered
around the computing industry in general, and Linux/open source
specifically, and not necessarily focused on transhumanism, though it's
very quickly becoming a topic of interest for me.

> I am often surprised by the gibbering monkey chatter level and the
> seeming serious level of ignorance.  I am also surprised to encounter
> a lot of young geeks who seem to have not a clue of how fast
> technology is changing the world and  possess no positive vision (to
> say the least).    It seems to be uncool to dream and seek to make the
> dream real.

Exactly.  I spent a brief time in nature centric preoccupations, which
denied things such as technology and transhumanism.  Having quickly lost
my interest, i went back to computers and quickly realized the conundrum
of being technologically oriented and at the same time being
anti-technology minded.  The far better response would be to find
rational solutions to advance mankind rather than be controlled by an
irrational fear.

--Jacob


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jul  6 00:28:44 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:28:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) AP: Most Iraq Suicide Bombs by Foreigners
Message-ID: <42CB25BC.2020400@mindspring.com>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5109609,00.html

AP: Most Iraq Suicide Bombs by Foreigners

Thursday June 30, 2005 7:01 PM

By PATRICK QUINN and KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press Writers

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq 
are thought to be foreigners - mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs - 
and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North 
Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and 
Iraqi officials say.

The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq 
from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly 
bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their 
deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are 
not so much fighters as human bombs - a relatively small but deadly 
component of the Iraqi insurgency.

``The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the 
wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide 
situation,'' said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for 
the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country 
through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were 
behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in 
recent months has confirmed that thinking.

Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind 
the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, 
U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of 
anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.

There have been a few exceptions.

On election day Jan. 30, a mentally handicapped Iraqi boy, wearing a 
suicide vest, attacked a polling station. An attack on a U.S. 
military mess hall in the northern city of Mosul in December that 
killed 22 also was believed to have been carried out by an Iraqi, as 
was a deadly June 11 attack on the heavily guarded Baghdad 
headquarters of the Interior Ministry's feared Wolf Brigade.

Since 2003, less than 10 percent of more than 500 suicide attacks 
have been carried out by Iraqis, according to one defense official. 
So far this year, there have been at least 213 suicide attacks - 172 
by vehicle and 41 by bombers on foot - according to an AP count.

Another U.S. official said American authorities believe Iraqis are 
beginning to look at suicide bombers as a liability. ``Just as there 
is no shortage of people willing to do this, nor is there any 
shortage of targets, and they tend to be police,'' the official said.

The trend doesn't mean Iraqis aren't part of the bloody insurgency: 
On the contrary, Iraqi insurgents are thought to be responsible for 
much of the violence and fighting in the country, although most of 
those are non-suicide attacks.

``I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day 
activity, is Iraqi - the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons 
fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire,'' said Kenneth Katzman, a 
Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which 
advises U.S. lawmakers.

But he added: ``The foreign fighters attract the headlines with the 
suicide bombings, no question.''

The key role of foreign fighters in suicide attacks is one reason 
many senior military officials, including the top U.S. general in the 
Middle East, tend to view the war in Iraq as slowly developing into 
an international struggle against militant Islam.

The military brass say Islamic extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 
and his al-Qaida in Iraq organization are determined to start a civil 
war in Iraq by attacking Iraqi security forces and members of the 
country's Shiite majority.

``It's not about one man. It's about his network,'' the top general 
in the region, U.S. Gen. John Abizaid, said recently. ``His network 
exists inside Iraq. It's connected to al-Qaida. It's got facilitation 
nodes in Syria. It brings foreign fighters in from Saudi Arabia and 
from North Africa.''

One Iraqi official, Sabah Kadhim, an Interior Ministry spokesman, 
said the suicide attackers' main aim ``is to keep the country in 
chaos.''

They have managed to do just that.

In all, there have been more than 484 car bombings since the U.S. 
handed sovereignty to the United States one year ago, and the pace of 
attacks has escalated since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's 
government was named two months ago. Those attacks alone, mostly car 
bombs and suicide attacks, have killed about 1,350, according to an 
AP count.

A suicide bomber was responsible for the single deadliest act since 
the fall of Saddam Hussein two years ago - a Feb. 28 attack against a 
medical clinic in Hillah, south of Baghdad, that killed 125 people. 
Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack by a man driving a 
pickup truck.

Another Interior Ministry official, Lt. Col. Ahmed al-Azawi, said 
some suicide bombers are as young as 15 - and he insisted that none 
were Iraqis.

The foreign militants are believed to come into the country for only 
a short time before they are sent on a suicide operation, said one 
senior U.S. military intelligence official in Iraq, who asked not to 
be named for security reasons.

``They are brought in, there is a lot of indoctrination that is 
forced on them here and they are moved very rapidly into a mission to 
deliver the bomb to commit suicide,'' the official said.

A U.S. official in Washington shared that assessment.

Overall, the number of foreign fighters coming into the country seems 
to be on the rise, compared to six months ago, Abizaid said. 
``There's probably about 1,000 foreign fighters and about somewhere 
less than 10,000 committed insurgents in the field,'' he said.

Of the 10,000 people being detained in Iraq, about 400 are 
foreigners, the U.S. military says.

The majority of foreign bombers in Iraq are believed to come from 
countries in the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen as well 
as Jordan, U.S. officials say. They say many are transported to Syria 
and then smuggled into Iraq, mostly overland through Qaim - a 
frontier city in Iraq's western desert.

U.S. Marines taking part in a major operation around Qaim on June 20 
found foreign passports and one roundtrip air ticket from Tripoli, 
Libya, to Damascus, Syria. They also found two passports from Sudan, 
two from Saudi Arabia, two from Libya, two from Algeria and one from 
Tunisia.

Up to 20 percent of the bombers might be from Algeria, according to 
forensic investigations after attacks, senior U.S. military officials 
have said on condition they not be named for security reasons. 
Another 5 percent each might be from Morocco and Tunisia, the 
officials said.

``We've also seen an influx of suicide bombers from North Africa, 
specifically Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco,'' Abizaid said.

Robert Baer, a CIA officer from 1976 to 1997 who spent the much of 
his career in the Middle East, recently returned to the region for a 
month to study suicide bombers as part of an investigation for 
Britain's Channel 4. His trip included a 10-day visit to 
predominantly Shiite Iran.

Baer said Sunni Arabs who take carry out suicide attacks feel Shiites 
are attacking Sunnis in Iraq. ``They look at the war in Iraq as an 
attack on Sunni Islam, not Iraq, not Saddam,'' he said.

In interviews while visiting prisons, terror groups and government 
officials, he was told that there are so many suicide bombers coming 
out of the Persian Gulf states that the loose networks that deploy 
jihadist martyrs - many run through mosques - are turning away 
potential attackers.

He said the mentality is: ``They have taken what is ours and they 
will take more if we don't stop them.''

---



-- 
"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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 01:44:57 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] whoever heard of a moderate terrorist?
In-Reply-To: <42CB25BC.2020400@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20050706014457.74079.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sure, before they can change their minds they are
blown up. Isn't that sweet, blowing those as young as
15 into bloody fragments in the name of Allah? 
And they call terrorists extremists. Well, whoever
heard of a moderate terrorist:
 "Hi, my name is Akbar, fly me to Iraq. I only
horribly maim people, rather than kill them, being
that I am a moderate terorist".



> The foreign militants are believed to come into the
> country for only a short time before they are sent
on a suicide
> operation [...] They are brought in, there is a lot
of
> indoctrination that is  forced on them here and they
are moved very >rapidly into a mission to deliver the
bomb to commit suicide,'' the >official said.


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


From xander25 at adelphia.net  Tue Jul  5 20:30:01 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:30:01 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CAEDC9.1090307@adelphia.net>

I agree with you whole-heartedly.  I would also suggest a system of
thought not too dissimilar to silver-grey thought from John C. Wright's
Golden Age designed to hold on to what it means to be human as well as
to allow mankind to progress.  Yet another adaptation that I think
mankind is fully capable of, and could occur naturally when some future
men begin to realize the effects of the technological changes they made.

--jb

c c wrote:

> Here's another personal experience: I was very influenced by the 'back
> to nature' world view that attained wide popular currency around 1969
> and continues to this day (reaching its period of maximum intensity, I
> would say, about 1971-' 73)
> At any rate, science at that time gave me the sensation of being one
> of a pair of dice on a darwinian roulette table; though I knew
> nature eventually became an enemy of an older person, I thought the
> aging process could be counteracted to a shall we say
> socially acceptable extent by gradually improved nutrition and of
> course exercise, physical therapy, etc. It was not so much at the time
> I thought lengthening lifespans was unnatural, but rather nebulous
> thoughts revolved around the idea that lengthening lifespans might
> lead to certain diminishing returns in a longer but more complicated
> and not necessarily more pleasant and/or happier life; the
> exasperations of a more complicated life might shorten or ruin that
> life. The latter has been proven to me as valid in many cases, but
> most people-- as you imply-- can rise to the challenges &
> opportunities of overcoming and adapting.
>  
>  
>
> */Jacob <xander25 at adelphia.net>/* wrote:
>
>     In response to Mr. Halelamien,
>
>     Speaking as a former anti-technology guy (very short period of time in
>     my life), my fears of transhumanism came from two sources:
>
>     1) Destructive to the human spirit
>
>     The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the less
>     interested
>     it is in matters that concern his well-being. Likewise, he becomes
>     increasingly incapable of handling changing factors that endanger it.
>     Examine for instance the phenomona of the internet. How many computer
>     enthusiasts get out these days? How many get out into, appreciate, and
>     learn about nature? How many learn to socialize with others? I would
>     think these are fundamental aspects of what it means to be human.
>     Translated into transhumanism it becomes a matter of how will this new
>     technology affect humans? It could make our lives easier yes, but in
>     doing so make! s us slaves to the technology that was meant to
>     help us.
>     This is possibly where I think the slashdot poster was coming from, as
>     he wasn't clear. However, who says that technology needs to be
>     enslaving?
>
>     a. It opens doors to undiscovered potential we haven't been capable of
>     in the past.
>     b. The human spirit is about overcoming and adapting. It's there where
>     our strength appears. To figure out ways to preserve who we are, and
>     yet advance at the same time. Take for example the automobile. It
>     opened up a world of new possibilities. The caveat now is that we no
>     longer have to toil in ways done in the past. Humans developed
>     excercise (hence adapting) to reclaim to what was lost.
>
>     2) Damaging to organic tissue along with it's not natural! This can be
>     solved with time, it's just a matter of study. The problem is vastly
>     overstated. The unnatural part is refuted by asking what is natural?
>     If science and it's application is a product of the ! human mind,
>     and if
>     the human mind is natural, then how is it unnatural?
>
>     I am utterly shocked that both arguments come from either side of the
>     political fence (though seems to come more from the left). So, I don't
>     think it is a mainly political argument.
>
>     --Jacob Bennett
>     _______________________________________________
>     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 spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jul  6 02:54:59 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:54:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507060256.j662uwR27657@tick.javien.com>


> Furthermore, humans, according to God's alleged
> design, were capable of living as long as 999 years (Methuselah)...

> Mike Lorrey

Philistine!  Methuselah lived only nine hundred SIXTY nine 
years, thou heathern!

(Genesis 5:27)

Still, I would cheerfully settle for 969 years.  For now.  {8^D

spike





From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jul  6 02:58:10 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:58:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
References: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42CAEDC9.1090307@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <000e01c581d6$8b684ca0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Jacob" <xander25 at adelphia.net>

>I agree with you whole-heartedly.  I would also suggest a system of thought 
>not too dissimilar to silver-grey thought from John C. Wright's Golden Age 
>designed to hold on to what it means to be human as well as to allow 
>mankind to progress.  Yet another adaptation that I think mankind is fully 
>capable of, and could occur naturally when some future men begin to realize 
>the effects of the technological changes they made.

Curses!  Now all the slighted future women will have no choice but to fix 
your wagon.  (Ready, aim ... spokes galore!)

Olga the Maleficent






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 03:48:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <200507060256.j662uwR27657@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050706034836.54094.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> > Furthermore, humans, according to God's alleged
> > design, were capable of living as long as 999 years (Methuselah)...
> 
> > Mike Lorrey
> 
> Philistine!  Methuselah lived only nine hundred SIXTY nine 
> years, thou heathern!

I don't know who this Phil guy is, and I certainly don't support him,
but thanks for the correction.

> 
> (Genesis 5:27)
> 
> Still, I would cheerfully settle for 969 years.  For now.  {8^D

Yeah, for now. That should be enough time to journey to Fomalhaut and a
few other interesting, close-by solar systems.

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 fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jul  6 04:30:06 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:30:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead
Message-ID: <002c01c581e3$630ea2b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

We talk about life and death and technology

here ...

... and there and everywhere the dead:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/photos/war_casualties/map/m10000.html

Olga 




From xander25 at adelphia.net  Wed Jul  6 00:26:05 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:26:05 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
In-Reply-To: <000e01c581d6$8b684ca0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<42CAEDC9.1090307@adelphia.net>
	<000e01c581d6$8b684ca0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <42CB251D.5080706@adelphia.net>

Olga Bourlin wrote:

> From: "Jacob" <xander25 at adelphia.net>
>
>> I agree with you whole-heartedly.  I would also suggest a system of
>> thought not too dissimilar to silver-grey thought from John C.
>> Wright's Golden Age designed to hold on to what it means to be human
>> as well as to allow mankind to progress.  Yet another adaptation that
>> I think mankind is fully capable of, and could occur naturally when
>> some future men begin to realize the effects of the technological
>> changes they made.
>
>
> Curses!  Now all the slighted future women will have no choice but to
> fix your wagon.  (Ready, aim ... spokes galore!)
>
> Olga the Maleficent

I'm not sure how to take that, jest or otherwise.  No slight was
intended.  I threw men (which according to Merriam Webster is an
appropriate use of the word) in there as a figure of speech representing
humankind (do we also change the word "humankind"?).  Generally, I am
not given well to political slight-of-hand which is destined to divert
into a side topic, like the one we are going into now.  I'll be sure to
keep my dictionary of politically correct jargon handy from now on.

If only men are fit to become philosophers that excludes Ayn Rand.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being,
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive
achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." 
--Ayn Rand

Note her wording.  I highly doubt anyone would call her a chauvinist,
particularly since she was female, as well as being a staunch
individualist.  Atlas Shrugged by the same author, in fact, made her
central character a heroine by the name of Dagny. The above quote
applied to her as well.

--jb


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jul  6 06:53:25 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:53:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Transhumanism == militant fascism (apparently)
References: <20050705180125.88220.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<42CAEDC9.1090307@adelphia.net><000e01c581d6$8b684ca0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<42CB251D.5080706@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <000b01c581f7$68c2f6c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Jacob" <xander25 at adelphia.net>
> Olga Bourlin wrote:
>> Curses!  Now all the slighted future women will have no choice but to fix 
>> your wagon.  (Ready, aim ... spokes galore!)
>
> I'm not sure how to take that, jest or otherwise.  No slight was intended. 
> I threw men (which according to Merriam Webster is an
 appropriate use of the word) in there as a figure of speech representing 
humankind (do we also change the word "humankind"?).

Tsk, tsk ... never trust a dictionary.  And, I was being facetious.  But - 
looka here - you changed from using "mankind" (as in your original post) to 
humankind.  Nothing wrong with humankind, my friend!

>  Generally, I am not given well to political slight-of-hand which is 
> destined to divert into a side topic, like the one we are going into now. 
> I'll be sure to keep my dictionary of politically correct jargon handy 
> from now on.

Nah, whatever works for you - don't worry about it.  Ingrained habits may 
become modified (if they make sense), or they won't (because they don't make 
sense).  Often, we are inspired - or not - depending on the company we keep 
(as there's reason and purpose for the latter).  But on a list like this ... 
one never knows whom one might meet.  ;c)

> If only men are fit to become philosophers that excludes Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand?  Ayn Rand?  Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ...

> "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being,
> with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive 
> achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only 
> bsolute."  --Ayn Rand
>
> Note her wording.  I highly doubt anyone would call her a chauvinist,
> particularly since she was female, as well as being a staunch
> individualist.  Atlas Shrugged by the same author, in fact, made her
> central character a heroine by the name of Dagny. The above quote
> applied to her as well.

Chauvinist goes both ways (male chauvinist or female chauvinist), so that is 
neither here nor there.

Although that's not to say I wouldn't call Ayn Rand many things (and I 
have).  But as we discussed Ayn Rand here interminably some years ago, I 
don't want to belabor any points already made and insults already exchanged.

Welllllllll, except to say that Ayn Rand didn't have much of a sense of 
humor, did she?  Very, very unfortunate case.

Olga 




From giogavir at yahoo.it  Wed Jul  6 10:32:34 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:32:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead
In-Reply-To: <002c01c581e3$630ea2b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050706103234.65976.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

plus a cost of 200B and rising
we could have gone to mars, defeated cancer, give free
education to millions 
was it worse just to kick Saddam out?
The same think could have been accomplished the
israeli way at a minimum cost and loss of lives
just get rid of him and his cronies personally 
--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> ha scritto: 

> We talk about life and death and technology
> 
> here ...
> 
> ... and there and everywhere the dead:
> 
>
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/photos/war_casualties/map/m10000.html
> 
> Olga 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 11:08:25 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:08:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books available online - free
Message-ID: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>

The Internet Public Library 
<http://ipl.sils.umich.edu/> 
maintains an index page of many sources of online books.

<http://ipl.si.umich.edu/div/subject/browse/hum60.60.00/>

The famous Project Gutenberg is there, of course.
<http://www.gutenberg.org/>

Some other good entries from IPL:

The Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts is a collection of public
domain documents from American and English literature as well as
Western philosophy.
<http://www.infomotions.com/alex/>

Bibliomania. A thorough index of online texts ranging from Louisa May
Alcott's "Little Women" to Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray".
<http://www.bibliomania.com/>

The Online Books Page
<http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/>

Ibiblio
"Home to one of the largest 'collections of collections' on the
Internet, ibiblio.org is a conservancy of freely available
information, including software, music, literature, art, history,
science, politics, and cultural studies." There's a little of
something for everyone here -- a good place to browse.
<http://www.ibiblio.org/>

And many, many, more.  

BillK


From riel at surriel.com  Wed Jul  6 12:21:33 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of slashdotters (was transhumanism ==
	militant fascism)
In-Reply-To: <42CACBEC.3060203@adelphia.net>
References: <42C9F6B0.7030104@adelphia.net>
	<114F9869-8D2E-4121-9E3C-8A14AA701BB5@mac.com>
	<42CACBEC.3060203@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507060811430.10084@imladris.surriel.com>

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jacob wrote:

> I concurred based on the idea that slashdotters typically are a diverse
> crowd, not necessarily based on the licenses that are supported on
> there.  I confess to be somewhat new to extropy and this list.  I am
> curious as to what opinions are present on here on the issue of
> licensing/patents/IP etc... 

The issues of licensing and patents really need to be
treated as separate, because they are.

On the licensing front, I believe that it is best for
software to be made available under the license that
stimulates innovation the most, for this piece of
software.

Sometimes a proprietary license is best, because the
development can really only be done by a small team of
dedicated professionals (who need to be paid) and the
software is for a niche market.

Sometimes the software is widely used infrastructure,
and the best license is one where everybody can
contribute, without fear of anybody else doing an
"embrace and extend" on the software.  This means a
license like the GPL, since that guarantees that you
can contribute code, without your competitor creating
a proprietary fork of the project.  We have seen cases
where a company publically states they are willing to
open up their code for inclusion in a GPL project, but
not a BSD licensed project.

Sometimes the software is meant to become widely used,
for example the ogg vorbis code.  Since the creators
would like ogg audio playback to be available in
proprietary software and devices too, the BSD license
works best for this scenario.


As for patents and software - I have seen no evidence
that patents stimulate invention in software (not even
pro-patent research found any!), but I have seen lots
of evidence that software patents stifle innovation.

Because of that I am against software patents.


Note that patents and licensing could be entirely
different in other industries.  Eg. in medicine there
are years of research going into a new drug, and a
patent helps protect that effort.  

This is a sharp contrast with software, where a patent
can be filed on any brilliant idea you came up with 
while eating lunch or standing in the shower. No research
required.


-- 
"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 scerir at libero.it  Wed Jul  6 13:18:26 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:18:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Science magazine: 25 questions
References: <20050706103234.65976.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000401c5822d$31e04e10$04b01b97@administxl09yj>

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/#inscience



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 14:13:13 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050704200952.51375.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706141313.75223.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_reenlist_070505,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

"Even though the Army appears likely to miss its goal of recruiting
80,000 new soldiers this year, it's ahead of the pace needed to reach
its goal of convincing 64,162 soldiers, from privates to top sergeants,
to re-enlist by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. 
 
Through the end of May, 45,333 soldiers had re-enlisted, said Lt. Col.
Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon. That's 70 percent of
the Army's full-year goal. 

Nearly 11,000 soldiers from the elite 18th Airborne Corps, which
includes four of the Army's 10 active divisions, have "re-upped" this
year. That's about 86 percent of the corps' full-year goal, said the
corps commander, Maj. Gen. Virgil Packett. 

"The 18th Airborne Corps is carrying the Army right now in retention,"
Packett said. 

And leading the corps is the 82nd Airborne, which has reached 97
percent of its annual goal, even though it has deployed regularly to
Iraq and Afghanistan. "

First point:
This is an interesting dichotomy: the soldiers who are actually on the
ground and putting their lives at risk (and know what is really going
on in Iraq and Afghanistan) are re-enlisting far above levels the Army
was projecting, while recruitment of civilians (who only see what the
media tells them) is not likely to meet goals.

So, this seems to imply that the media is giving a biased and overly
negative view of what is really going on at the battlefront (plus
civilians are subject to a lot more negative propaganda they are more
likely to give credence to than a war veteran would).

Second Point:
The large increase in re-enlistment will mean the Army will meet its
manpower goals once again this year, i.e. no draft (sorry Samantha).
Moreover, since the manpower will constitute more experienced veterans,
the average unit effectiveness will go up and training costs (including
accidents and rookies puting comrades at risk in combat) will go down.


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


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


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed Jul  6 15:03:07 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 17:03:07 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule, was: Re: [extropy-chat]
	give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050706141313.75223.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706141313.75223.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061656020.28115@zeus>

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>First point:
>This is an interesting dichotomy: the soldiers who are actually on the
>ground and putting their lives at risk (and know what is really going
>on in Iraq and Afghanistan) are re-enlisting far above levels the Army
>was projecting, while recruitment of civilians (who only see what the
>media tells them) is not likely to meet goals.
>
>So, this seems to imply that the media is giving a biased and overly
>negative view of what is really going on at the battlefront (plus
>civilians are subject to a lot more negative propaganda they are more
>likely to give credence to than a war veteran would).

There may be other factors at work: $$ benefits for listing/re-enlisting,
having no fallback plan for de-listing, and so on.

I think a real comparison should be done not with the Army goals of
re-enlisting, but with previously rates of re-enlisting soldiers in war
and peace times, e.g. how many re-enlisting soldiers per 100,000. Army
recruitment goals can change over time depending on current pressures,
while the attractivenes of an Army re-enslisting depends on what's the
deal really is.


Alfio



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 15:39:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061656020.28115@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050706153945.21407.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
> 
> There may be other factors at work: $$ benefits for
> listing/re-enlisting, having no fallback plan for de-listing, and
> so on.
> 
> I think a real comparison should be done not with the Army goals of
> re-enlisting, but with previously rates of re-enlisting soldiers in
> war and peace times, e.g. how many re-enlisting soldiers per 100,000.

No, the proper comparison is the retention ratio to enlistment. In this
case, the recruitment goal is 90,000 and the re-enlistment goal is
64,000, which is about 70% of the recruitment goal, a very high
retention rate from my experience.

The 2004 retention goal was 56,000, which the Army beat by 800. It's
new recruitment goal in that year of 77,000 was met by an excess of 47
enlistees. Given that the 2005 goals were 8,000 higher for
re-enlistment and 13,000 higher for new recruits, it appears that my
impression was accurate. 

Regarding your claim that other concerns, such as employment options,
played the bigger role, do not seem accurate, as unemployment in the
civilian workforce is lower this year than it was last year, but
unemployment rates should hit both enlistees and reenlistees more
equally, or else favor reenlistees, because they enter the civilian job
market with more skills than a high school graduate. Re-enlistment
bonuses have been increased, primarily by making them tax-free if the
service member re-enlists while deployed to a combat zone, however
enlistment bonuses have also gone up as well by larger margins, with
three year active duty enlistment bonuses more than doubled to $20k and
job-specific bonuses doubled to $14,000. They also offer an $8k bonus
to those going to OCS. The Blue To Green program (getting USAF
personnel to reenlist over to the Army) earns a $5k-$10k bonus,
depending on skills.

In addition, last year:

"In other end-of-the year benchmarks: 
    ?The Marine Corps, whose amphibious units have fought in
Afghanistan and patrol the notorious Anbar Province in Iraq, says it is
on track to meet a goal of 36,773 recruits this fiscal year. 
    ?The Air Force three months ago exceeded a goal of retaining 55
percent of first-termers, garnering 68 percent. In fact, the branch is
20,000 over its budget-authorized personnel strength and is
transferring some airmen to the Army. 
    Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens attributed the sign-up rate
to patriotism, the civilian job market and job satisfaction. 
    "These are all trends we are seeing," she said. 
    Edgar Castillo, spokesman for Air Force Recruit Services at
Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, said the branch actually is
slashing accessions from 34,080 this year to 24,000 next year. 
    "There are people right now that want to join that we can't
accommodate," Mr. Castillo said. 
    ?The Navy will meet its marker of 39,700 enlisted recruits, as it
has for every year in recent memory, except 1998. The branch might miss
the goal for 11,000 new naval reservists, partly because active duty
retention rates are so high the pool of available recruits is shrinking
for certain skills. "

As indicated by the Navy reserve, goals for reserve and guard units are
not being met, but this is partly because so many active duty personnel
are re-enlisting and are therefore not available for reserve or guard recruitment.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed Jul  6 15:55:45 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 17:55:45 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule, was: Re: [extropy-chat]
	give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050706153945.21407.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706153945.21407.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061752300.28115@zeus>


Hmm, it's sometimes difficult to follow this kind of news from 6,000 miles
away. Given that the media picture about this is uniformly negative, while
the Army picture is instead quite positive, one cannot avoid the
impression that everything is spinned this way or the other. Thanks for
all the data.

Alfio

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
>--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
>>
>> There may be other factors at work: $$ benefits for
>> listing/re-enlisting, having no fallback plan for de-listing, and
>> so on.
>>
>> I think a real comparison should be done not with the Army goals of
>> re-enlisting, but with previously rates of re-enlisting soldiers in
>> war and peace times, e.g. how many re-enlisting soldiers per 100,000.
>
>No, the proper comparison is the retention ratio to enlistment. In this
>case, the recruitment goal is 90,000 and the re-enlistment goal is
>64,000, which is about 70% of the recruitment goal, a very high
>retention rate from my experience.
>
>The 2004 retention goal was 56,000, which the Army beat by 800. It's
>new recruitment goal in that year of 77,000 was met by an excess of 47
>enlistees. Given that the 2005 goals were 8,000 higher for
>re-enlistment and 13,000 higher for new recruits, it appears that my
>impression was accurate.
>
>Regarding your claim that other concerns, such as employment options,
>played the bigger role, do not seem accurate, as unemployment in the
>civilian workforce is lower this year than it was last year, but
>unemployment rates should hit both enlistees and reenlistees more
>equally, or else favor reenlistees, because they enter the civilian job
>market with more skills than a high school graduate. Re-enlistment
>bonuses have been increased, primarily by making them tax-free if the
>service member re-enlists while deployed to a combat zone, however
>enlistment bonuses have also gone up as well by larger margins, with
>three year active duty enlistment bonuses more than doubled to $20k and
>job-specific bonuses doubled to $14,000. They also offer an $8k bonus
>to those going to OCS. The Blue To Green program (getting USAF
>personnel to reenlist over to the Army) earns a $5k-$10k bonus,
>depending on skills.
>
>In addition, last year:
>
>"In other end-of-the year benchmarks:
>    ?The Marine Corps, whose amphibious units have fought in
>Afghanistan and patrol the notorious Anbar Province in Iraq, says it is
>on track to meet a goal of 36,773 recruits this fiscal year.
>    ?The Air Force three months ago exceeded a goal of retaining 55
>percent of first-termers, garnering 68 percent. In fact, the branch is
>20,000 over its budget-authorized personnel strength and is
>transferring some airmen to the Army.
>    Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens attributed the sign-up rate
>to patriotism, the civilian job market and job satisfaction.
>    "These are all trends we are seeing," she said.
>    Edgar Castillo, spokesman for Air Force Recruit Services at
>Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, said the branch actually is
>slashing accessions from 34,080 this year to 24,000 next year.
>    "There are people right now that want to join that we can't
>accommodate," Mr. Castillo said.
>    ?The Navy will meet its marker of 39,700 enlisted recruits, as it
>has for every year in recent memory, except 1998. The branch might miss
>the goal for 11,000 new naval reservists, partly because active duty
>retention rates are so high the pool of available recruits is shrinking
>for certain skills. "
>
>As indicated by the Navy reserve, goals for reserve and guard units are
>not being met, but this is partly because so many active duty personnel
>are re-enlisting and are therefore not available for reserve or guard recruitment.
>
>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
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
>http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 16:08:25 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Countdown to a Meltdown (Part 1)
Message-ID: <20050706160826.66885.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

I found this piece interesting.  So I'm forwarding it
for your consideration.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles

                 ********************

COUNTDOWN TO A MELTDOWN 
BY JAMES FALLOWS

Part 1
 
America's coming economic crisis. A look back from the
election of 2016
 
January 20, 2016, Master Strategy Memo
 
Subject: The Coming Year?and Beyond
 
Sir: 
. . . . . 
It is time to think carefully about the next year. Our
position is uniquely promising?and uniquely difficult.

The promise lies in the fact that you are going to win
the election. Nothing is guaranteed in politics, but 
based on everything we know, and barring an act of God
or a disastrous error on our side, one year from 
today you will be sworn in as the forty-sixth
president of the United States. And you will be the
first 
president since before the Civil War to come from
neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party.1 This
is 
one aspect of your electoral advantage right now:
having created our new party, you are already assured
of its 
nomination, whereas the candidates from the two legacy
parties are still carving themselves up in their 
primaries.2
 
The difficulty, too, lies in the fact that you are
going to win. The same circumstances that are bringing
an end 
to 164 years of two-party rule have brought tremendous
hardship to the country. This will be the first time 
since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933 that so
much is demanded so quickly from a new 
administration. Our challenge is not just to win the
election but to win in a way that gives us a chance to

address economic failures that have been fifty years
in the making.
 
That is the purpose of this memo: to provide the
economic background for the larger themes in our 
campaign. Although economic changes will be items one
through ten on your urgent "to do" list a year from 
now, this is not the place to talk about them in
detail. There will be plenty of time for that later,
with the 
policy guys. Instead I want to speak here not just as
your campaign manager but on the basis of our 
friendship and shared efforts these past twenty years.
Being completely honest about the country's problems 
might not be necessary during the campaign?sounding
pessimistic in speeches would hurt us. But we 
ourselves need to be clear about the challenge we
face. Unless we understand how we got here, we won't
be 
able to find the way out once you are in office. 

Politics is about stories?the personal story of how a
leader was shaped, the national story of how America's

long saga has led to today's dramas. Your personal
story needs no work at all. Dwight Eisenhower was the 
last president to enter office with a worldwide image
of competence, though obviously his achievements 
were military rather than technological. But we have
work to do on the national story.
 
When it comes to the old parties, the story boils down
to this: the Democrats can't win, and the Republicans 
can't govern. Okay, that's an overstatement; but the
more nuanced version is nearly as discouraging. 
 
The past fifty years have shown that the Democrats
can't win the presidency except when everything goes 
their way. Only three Democrats have reached the White
House since Lyndon Johnson decided to leave. In 
1976 they ran a pious-sounding candidate against the
political ghost of the disgraced Richard Nixon?and 
against his corporeal successor, Gerald Ford, the only
unelected incumbent in American history. In 1992 they 
ran their most talented campaigner since FDR, and even
Bill Clinton would have lost if Ross Perot had not 
stayed in the race and siphoned away votes from the
Republicans. And in 2008 they were unexpectedly saved 
by the death of Fidel Castro. This drained some of the
pro-Republican passion of South Florida's Cuban 
immigrants, and the disastrous governmental bungling
of the "Cuba Libre" influx that followed gave the 
Democrats their first win in Florida since 1996?along
with the election. But that Democratic administration 
could turn out to have been America's last. The
Electoral College map drawn up after the 2010 census 
removed votes from all the familiar blue states except
California, giving the Republicans a bigger head start

from the Sunbelt states and the South.
 
As for the Republicans, fifty years have shown they
can't govern without breaking the bank. Starting with 
Richard Nixon, every Republican president has left the
dollar lower, the federal budget deficit higher, the 
American trade position weaker, and the U.S.
manufacturing work force smaller than when he took
office. 
The story of the parties, then, is that the American
people mistrust the Republicans' economic record, and 
don't trust the Democrats enough to let them try to do
better. That is why?and it is the only reason 
why?they are giving us a chance. But we can move from
electoral to governmental success only with a clear 
understanding of why so much has gone so wrong with
the economy. Our internal polls show that nearly 90 
percent of the public thinks the economy is "on the
wrong track." Those readings should hold up, since
that's 
roughly the percentage of Americans whose income has
fallen in real terms in the past five years. 

The story we will tell them begins fifteen years ago,3
and it has three chapters. For public use we'll refer
to 
them by the names of the respective administrations.
But for our own purposes it will be clearer to think
of 
the chapter titles as "Cocking the Gun," "Pulling the
Trigger," and "Bleeding."

1. COCKING THE GUN 

Everything changed in 2001. But it didn't all change
on September 11. 
Yes, the ramifications of 9/11 will be with us for
decades, much as the aftereffects of Pearl Harbor 
explain the presence of thousands of U.S. troops in
Asia seventy-five years later. Before 2001 about 
12,000 American troops were stationed in the Middle
East?most of them in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since 
2003 we have never had fewer than 100,000 troops in
CENTCOM's theater, most of them on active 
anti-insurgency duty. The locale of the most intense
fighting keeps changing?first Afghanistan and Iraq, 
then Pakistan and Egypt, now Saudi Arabia and the
frontier between Turkey and the Republic of 
Kurdistan?but the commitment goes on.
 
Before there was 9/11, however, there was June 7,
2001. For our purposes modern economic history began 
that day.

On June 7 President George W. Bush celebrated his
first big legislative victory. Only two weeks earlier
his 
new administration had suffered a terrible political
blow, when a Republican senator left the party and
gave 
Democrats a one-vote majority in the Senate. But the
administration was nevertheless able to persuade a 
dozen Democratic senators to vote its way and
authorize a tax cut that would decrease federal tax
revenues 
by some $1.35 trillion between then and 2010.
 
This was presented at the time as a way to avoid the
"problem" of paying down the federal debt too fast. 
According to the administration's forecasts, the
government was on the way to running up $5.6 trillion
in 
surpluses over the coming decade. The entire federal
debt accumulated between the nation's founding and 
 
2001 totaled only about $3.2 trillion?and for
technical reasons at most $2 trillion of that total
could be paid 
off within the next decade.4 Therefore some $3.6
trillion in "unusable" surplus?or about $12,000 for
every 
American?was likely to pile up in the Treasury. The
administration proposed to give slightly less than
half 
of that back through tax cuts, saving the rest for
Social Security and other obligations.
 
Congress agreed, and it was this achievement that the
president celebrated at the White House signing 
ceremony on June 7. "We recognize loud and clear the
surplus is not the government's money," Bush said at 
the time. "The surplus is the people's money, and we
ought to trust them with their own money." 
If the president or anyone else at that ceremony had
had perfect foresight, he would have seen that no 
surpluses of any sort would materialize, either for
the government to hoard or for taxpayers to get back.
(A 
year later the budget would show a deficit of $158
billion; a year after that $378 billion.) By the end
of 
Bush's second term the federal debt, rather than
having nearly disappeared, as he expected, had
tripled. If 
those in the crowd had had that kind of foresight,
they would have called their brokers the next day to
unload 
all their stock holdings. A few hours after Bush
signed the tax-cut bill, the Dow Jones industrial
average 
closed at 11,090, a level it has never reached again.5


In a way it doesn't matter what the national
government intended, or why all forecasts proved so
wrong. 
Through the rest of his presidency Bush contended that
the reason was 9/11?that it had changed the budget 
as it changed everything else. It forced the
government to spend more, for war and for homeland
security, 
even as the economic dislocation it caused meant the
government could collect less. Most people outside the

administration considered this explanation misleading,
or at least incomplete. For instance, as Bush began
his 
second term the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office said that the biggest reason for growing
deficits 
was the tax cuts.6 

But here is what really mattered about that June day
in 2001: from that point on the U.S. government had
less 
money to work with than it had under the previous
eight presidents. Through four decades and through 
administrations as diverse as Lyndon Johnson's and
Ronald Reagan's, federal tax revenue had stayed within
a 
fairly narrow band. The tax cuts of 2001 pushed it out
of that safety zone, reducing it to its lowest level
as a 
share of the economy in the modern era.7 And as we
will see, these cuts?the first of three rounds8?did so

just when the country's commitments and obligations
had begun to grow. 

As late as 2008 the trend could have been altered,
though the cuts of 2003 and 2005 had made things
worse. 
But in the late summer of 2008 Senate Republicans once
again demonstrated their mastery of the basic feints 
and dodges of politics. The tax cuts enacted during
Bush's first term were in theory "temporary," and set
to 
expire starting in 2010. But Congress didn't have to
wait until 2010 to decide whether to make them 
permanent, so of course the Republican majority
scheduled the vote at the most awkward moment possible

for the Democrats: on the eve of a close presidential
election. The Democratic senators understood their 
dilemma. Either they voted for the tax cuts and looked
like hypocrites for all their past complaints, or they

voted against them and invited an onslaught of "tax
and spend" attack ads in the campaign. Enough 
Democrats made the "smart" choice. They held their
seats in the election, and the party took back the 
presidency. But they also locked in the tax cuts,
which was step one in cocking the gun.9 
 
The explanation of steps two and three is much
quicker: People kept living 
longer, and they kept saving less. Increased longevity
is a tremendous human 
achievement but a fiscal challenge?as in any household
where people outlive (May 2005) 
their savings. Late in 2003 Congress dramatically
escalated the fiscal problem 
by adding prescription-drug coverage to Medicare, with
barely any discussion 
of its long-term cost. David M. Walker, the
government's comptroller general 
at the time, said that the action was part of "the
most reckless fiscal year in the 
history of the Republic," because that vote and a few
other changes added roughly $13 trillion to the 
government's long-term commitments.
 
>From the archives: The evaporation of personal savings
was marveled at by all economists but 
explained by few. Americans saved about eight percent
of their disposable 
income through the 1950s and 1960s, slightly more in
the 1970s and 1980s, 
slightly less and then a lot less in the 1990s. At the
beginning of this century 
they were saving, on average, just about nothing.10 
  
The possible reasons for this failure to
save?credit-card debt? a false sense of personal
saving without 
wealth thanks to the real-estate bubble?11 stagnant
real earnings for much of 
the population??mattered less than the results. The
country needed money to 
run its government, and Americans themselves weren't
about to provide it. 
This is where the final, secret element of the
gun-cocking process came into 
play: the unspoken deal with China. 

The terms of the deal are obvious in retrospect. Even
at the time, economists discussed the arrangement 
endlessly in their journals. The oddity was that so
few politicians picked up on what they said. The heart
of 
the matter, as we now know, was this simple equation:
each time Congress raised benefits, reduced taxes, or 
encouraged more borrowing by consumers, it shifted
part of the U.S. manufacturing base to China. 
Of course this shift had something to do with "unfair"
trade, undereducated American workers, dirt-cheap 
Chinese sweatshops, and all the other things that
American politicians chose to yammer about. But the 
"jobless recovery" of the early 2000s and the "jobless
collapse" at the end of the decade could never have 
occurred without the strange intersection of American
and Chinese (plus Japanese and Korean) plans. The 
Chinese government was determined to keep the value of
its yuan as low as possible, thus making Chinese 
exports as attractive as possible, so that Chinese
factories could expand as quickly as possible, to
provide 
work for the tens of millions of people trooping every
year to Shanghai or Guangzhou to enter the labor 
force. To this end, Chinese banks sent their extra
dollars right back to the U.S. Treasury, in loans to
cover the 
U.S. budget deficit; if they hadn't, normal market
pressures would have driven up the yuan's value.12
This, in 
turn, would have made it harder for China to keep
creating jobs and easier for America to retain them.
But 
Americans would have had to tax themselves to cover
the deficit. 
 
This arrangement was called "Bretton Woods Two," after
the regime that kept 
the world economy afloat for twenty-five years after
World War II. The 
question economists debated was how long it could
last. One group said it 
could go on indefinitely, because it gave each
country's government what it 
really wanted (for China, booming exports and
therefore a less dissatisfied 
population; for America, the ability to spend more
while saving and taxing 
less). But by Bush's second term the warning signals
were getting louder. 
"This is starting to resemble a pyramid scheme," the
Financial Times warned 
early in 2005.13 The danger was that the system was
fundamentally unstable. 
Almost overnight it could go from working well to
collapsing. If any one of the Asian countries piling
up 
dollars (and most were doing so) began to suspect that
any other was about to unload them, all the countries 
would have an incentive to sell dollars as fast as
possible, before they got stuck with worthless
currency. 
Economists in the "soft landing" camp said that
adjustments would be gradual, and that Chinese
self-interest 
would prevent a panic. The "hard landing" camp?well,
we know all too well what they were concerned 
about. 

2. PULLING THE TRIGGER
 
But by dying when he did, at eighty-two, and becoming
the "October surprise" of the 2008 campaign, 
Castro got revenge on the Republicans who had for
years supported the Cuban trade embargo. 
Better yet, he got revenge on his original enemies,
the Democrats, too.14 Castro couldn't have 
planned it, but his disappearance was the
beginning?the first puff of wind, the trigger?of the
catastrophe 
that followed.
 
Or perhaps we should call it the first domino to fall,
because what then happened had a kind of geometric 
inevitability. The next domino was a thousand miles
across the Caribbean, in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez, 
originally elected as a crusading left-winger, was by
then well into his role as an outright military
dictator. 
For years our diplomats had grumbled that Chavez was
"Castro with oil," but after the real Castro's death
the 
comparison had new meaning. A right-wing militia of
disgruntled Venezuelans, emboldened by the news 
that Castro was gone, attempted a coup at the
beginning of 2009, shortly after the U.S. elections.
Chavez 
captured the ringleaders, worked them over, and then
broadcast their possibly false "confession" that they 
had been sponsored by the CIA. That led to Chavez's
"declaration of economic war" against the United 
States, which in practice meant temporarily closing
the gigantic Amuay refinery, the source of one eighth
of 
all the gasoline used on American roads?and reopening
it two months later with a pledge to send no 
products to American ports. 
 
That was when the fourth?and worst?world oil shock
started.15 For at least 
five years economists and oilmen alike had warned that
there was no "give" in 
the world oil market. In the early 2000s China's
consumption was growing five 
times as fast as America's?and America was no slouch.
(The main difference 
was that China, like India, was importing oil mainly
for its factories, whereas 
the United States was doing so mainly for its big
cars.16) Even a temporary 
disruption in the flow could cause major dislocations.
 
All the earlier oil shocks had meant short-term
disruptions in supply (that's 
why they were "shocks"), but this time the long term
was also in question. Geologists had argued about 
"peaking" predictions for years, but the concept was
on everyone's lips by 2009.17 
The Democrats had spent George Bush's second term
preparing for everything except what was about to hit 
them. Our forty-fourth president seemed actually to
welcome being universally known as "the Preacher," a 
nickname like "Ike" or "Honest Abe." It was a sign of
how much emphasis he'd put on earnestly talking about 
faith, family, and firearms to voters in the
heartland, in his effort to help the Democrats close
the "values 
gap." But he had no idea what to do (to be fair, the
man he beat, "the Veep," would not have known either) 
when the spot price of oil rose by 40 percent in the
week after the Chavez declaration?and then everything 
else went wrong.
 
Anyone who needed further proof that God is a
Republican would have found it in 2009. When the price
of 
oil went up, the run on the dollar began. "Fixed
exchange rates with heavy intervention?in essence,
Bretton 
Woods Two] have enormous capacity to create an
illusory sense of stability that could be shattered
very 
quickly," Lawrence Summers had warned in 2004. "That
is the lesson of Britain in 1992, of Mexico in 1994, 
of emerging Asia in 1997, of Russia in 1998, and of
Brazil in 1998." And of the United States in 2009. It 
didn't help that Hugo Chavez had struck his notorious
then-secret deal with the Chinese: preferential future

contracts for his oil, which China needed, in return
for China's backing out of Bretton Woods Two, which 
Chavez wanted. 

There had been hints of how the falling dominoes would
look as early as January of 2005. In remarks made 
at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Fan
Gang, the director of China's nongovernmental 
National Economic Research Institute, said that "the
U.S. dollar is no longer seen as a stable currency."18

This caused a quick flurry in the foreign-exchange
markets. It was to the real thing what the World Trade

Center car bomb in 1993 was to 9/11. 

When we read histories of the late 1920s, we practi-
cally want to scream, Stop! Don't buy all that 
stock on credit! Get out of the market before it's too
late! When we read histories of the dot-com 
boom in the late 1990s, we have the same agonizing
sense of not being able to save the victims 
from themselves: Don't take out that home-equity loan
to buy stocks at their peak! For God's sake, 
sell your Cisco shares when they hit 70, don't wait
till they're back at 10!
 
In retrospect, the ugly end is so obvious and
inevitable. Why didn't people see it at the time? The
same 
clearly applies to what happened in 2009. Economists
had laid out the sequence of causes and effects in a 
"hard landing," and it worked just as they said it
would. 

Once the run on the dollar started, everything seemed
to happen at once. Two days after the Venezuelan oil 
shock the dollar was down by 25 percent against the
yen and the yuan. Two weeks later it was down by 50 
percent. By the time trading "stabilized," one U.S.
dollar bought only 2.5 Chinese yuan?not eight, as it
had 
a year earlier.19 

NOTES:

1. The last one was Millard Fillmore, a Whig. We will
not emphasize this detail.
 
2. Also, though I never thought I'd say it, thank God
for the Electoral College. In only two states,
Michigan and Maine, are 
you polling above 50 percent of the total vote?in
Michigan because of the unemployment riots, in Maine
because that's what 
they're like. But you will probably have a strong
plurality in at least forty other states, yielding a
Reagan-scale electoral-vote 
"mandate." 

3. Nothing in history ever quite "begins." Did
America's problems with militant Islam begin in 2001?
Or twenty years earlier, 
when we funded the anti-Soviet mujahideen in
Afghanistan, who later turned their weapons against
us? Or sixty years before 
that, with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after
World War I? Or during the Crusades? Similarly,
warning signs of today's 
economic problems were apparent in the mid-1960s. But
the big change started fifteen years ago, at the
beginning of this 
century.
 
4. The federal debt consists of bills, notes, and
bonds that come due at different periods?thirteen
weeks, five years, twenty 
years. The main way to retire debt is to pay off
holders on the due date. Only $2 trillion worth of
debt would have matured 
within a decade, so only that much could be paid off.
That is why the Bush administration's first budget
message said, 
"Indeed, the President's Budget pays down the debt so
aggressively that it runs into an unusual problem?its
annual 
surpluses begin to outstrip the amount of maturing
debt starting in 2007." 

5. In 2005 Ben White, of The Washington Post, noted
the coincidence of the Dow's peak and Bush's signing
of the tax-cut 
bill. 
 
6. Late in January of 2005 the CBO calculated that
policy changes during Bush's first term had increased
the upcoming year's 
deficit by $539 billion. Of that amount about 37
percent could be attributed to warfare, domestic
security, and other 
post-9/11 commitments; 48 percent resulted from the
tax cuts; and the rest came from other spending
increases. 

7. This CBO chart illustrates the pattern. The big
dive is the result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. 
>From 1962 to 2002, when federal revenues were low they
were around 17.5 percent of GDP, and when they were
high they 
neared 20 percent. Once, they went even higher: to
20.8 percent in Clinton's last year, driven there by
higher tax rates and 
by capital-gains revenue from the bubble economy. The
2001 changes pushed tax receipts down toward 16
percent?the 
lowest level since 1959. 

8. In 2003 Congress approved a second round of tax
cuts. In 2005, after a fifty-fifty deadlock, the
Senate failed to enact a 
"pay as you go" provision, which would have required
the administration to offset any tax cuts or spending
increases by 
savings in the budget.
 
9. Through the early 2000s the Government
Accountability Office issued warnings about the
consequences of extending the 
tax cuts. This chart, from 2004, showed what would
happen to the budget if the tax cuts were locked in. 
Its main point was that the basic operating costs of
the federal government (interest payments, Social
Security, and 
Medicare and Medicaid?the unglamorous long-term
payments it is legally committed to make) were
growing, and the money 
to cover them was not. As the GAO had predicted, our
tax revenue in 2015 left only a small margin after
covering fixed 
costs. From that remainder comes the Pentagon, the
national parks, and everything else. Soon revenues
won't cover even 
the fixed costs.
 
10. "In the last year, the net national savings rate
of the United States has been between one and two
percent," the 
economist and then president of Harvard Lawrence
Summers said in 2004, a year before the rate hit its
nadir. "It represents 
the lowest net national savings rate in American
history and, I believe, that of any major nation."
Summers gave the speech 
five years after his appointment as Treasury secretary
and five years before his nomination as chairman of
the Federal 
Reserve Board. 

11. Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, was ahead of
most other observers in predicting the collapse of the
tech-stock 
bubble of the 1990s and the personal-real-estate
bubble a decade later. In a paper for the National
Bureau of Economic 
Research, published in 2001, he and two colleagues
observed that the housing boom intensified the savings
collapse. Every 
time homeowners heard that a nearby house had sold for
an astronomical price, they felt richer, even if they
had no 
intention of selling for years. That made them more
likely to go out and spend their theoretical
"gains"?and not to bother 
saving, since their house was doing it for them. "The
estimated effect of housing market wealth on
consumption is significant 
and large," Shiller and his colleagues concluded. If
people felt rich, they spent that way. 

12. As background for the speechwriters, here is the
longer version of what was happening. 
In normal circumstances economic markets have a way of
dealing with families, companies, or countries that
chronically 
overspend. For families or companies that way is
bankruptcy. For countries it is a declining currency.
By normal economic 
measures the American public was significantly
overspending in the early 2000s. For every $100 worth
of products and 
services it consumed, it produced only about $95 worth
within our borders. The other $5 worth came from
overseas. 
Normally an imbalance like this would push the dollar
steadily down as foreigners with surplus dollars from
selling oil or cars 
or clothes in America traded them for euros, yuan, or
yen. As demand for dollars fell and their value
decreased, foreign 
goods would become more expensive; Americans wouldn't
be able to afford as many of them; and ultimately
Americans 
would be forced to live within the nation's means. 
That is in fact what happened in America's trade with
Europe?and to a large extent with the oil-producing
world. The euro 
skyrocketed in value against the dollar, and oil
prices?which until the crisis of 2009 were fixed in
dollars?went up too, 
which preserved Saudi and Kuwaiti buying power for
European goods. 
It didn't work this way with China. Americans bought
and bought Chinese goods, and Chinese banks piled up
dollars?but 
didn't trade them back for yuan. Instead China's
central bank kept the yuan-to-dollar exchange rate
constant and used the 
dollars to buy U.S. Treasury notes. That is, they
covered the federal budget deficit. (Since Americans,
on average, were 
saving nothing, they couldn't cover it themselves.) To
a lesser extent Korean and Japanese banks did the same
thing. 
This was different from the situation in the 1980s and
1990s, when foreigners earned dollars from their
exports and used 
those dollars to buy American companies, real estate,
and stock. In those days foreigners invested heavily
in America 
because the payoff was so much greater than what they
could get in Frankfurt or Tokyo. In an influential
paper published in 
2004 the economists Nouriel Roubini, of New York
University, and Brad Setser, of Oxford University,
demonstrated that this 
was no longer the case. Increasingly it was not
individuals or corporations but foreign governments?in
particular, 
state-controlled banks in Asia?that were sending money
to America. And America was using it to finance the
federal budget 
deficit. 

13. The paper used this chart to show how foreign
money was supporting U.S. 
spending. 

14. We now know from the memoirs of his eldest son,
Fidelito, that Castro never 
moderated his bitter view of the Kennedy brothers?Jack
for authorizing the Bay 
of Pigs invasion, Bobby for encouraging the CIA to
assassinate Castro?and, by 
extension, their Democratic Party. Castro told his
children that if the United 
States and Cuba ever reconciled, he dreamed of doing
two things: throwing an 
opening-day pitch at Yankee Stadium, and addressing a
Republican convention in 
prime time. (From Mi Papa: The Castro I Knew, Las
Vegas: HarperCollins, 2009.)
 
15. The first one, starting in 1973, transformed the
world more than most wars 
do. It empowered OPEC; enriched much of the Middle
East; brought on five years 
of inflation, slow growth, and stock-market stagnation
in the United States; 
pushed Japan toward a radically more energy-efficient
industry; and more. The 
second, after the Iranian revolution of 1979, caused
the inflation that helped 
drive Jimmy Carter from office, and spilled over into
the recession of Ronald 
Reagan's first two years. The third, after Iraq's 1990
invasion of Kuwait, 
disrupted world trade enough to lay the groundwork for
Bill Clinton's "It's the 
economy, stupid" attack against George H.W. Bush. And
seven years after the 
shock of 2009 began, we are still feeling its effects.


16. After the first oil shock U.S. oil consumption
actually fell in absolute terms. In 1973, as the first
shock began, Americans 
consumed 35 "quads," or quadrillion BTUs, of oil. Ten
years later, with a larger population and a stronger
economy, they 
consumed only 30. But from that point on total
consumption moved back up. In 2003 Americans consumed
39 quads?and 
two thirds of that oil was for transportation.
Consumption for most other purposes, notably heating
and power generation, 
actually went down, thanks to more-efficient systems.
Industrial consumption was flat. So bigger cars and
longer commutes 
did make the difference.
 
17. Every oil field follows a pattern of production:
Its output rate starts slow and keeps getting faster
until about half the oil 
has been pumped from the field. Then the rate steadily
declines until the other half of the oil is gone.
Since total world 
production is the aggregate of thousands of fields, it
is presumed to follow a similar pattern. In 2005 the
research and 
engineering firm SAIC released a report commissioned
by the U.S. government on best guesses about the
worldwide peak 
and what would happen when it came. "No one knows with
certainty when world oil production will reach a
peak," the report 
said, "but geologists have no doubt that it will
happen." Of the twelve experts surveyed for the
report, six predicted that the 
peak would have occurred before 2010, and three more
that it would happen by 2020. 

The world was not going to "run out" of oil?at least
not immediately. Even at the peak, by definition, as
much as had ever 
been pumped in history was still there to be
extracted. But the rate of production, barrels per day
and per year, would 
steadily lessen while the rate of demand kept
increasing. The report was released when oil crossed
$50 a barrel; we are long 
into the era of oil at 30 euros, or $90.

18. That turned out to be the next-to-last convening
of the Davos conference, before the unproven but
damaging 
accusations that it was a front for the A. Q. Khan
combine. 

19. What happened to America almost exactly repeated
what had happened ten years earlier to Thailand,
Indonesia, and 
other countries during the Asian panic of 1997-1998.
South Korea lost 50 percent of the value of its
currency in two months; 
Indonesia lost 80 percent over the course of a year.
As in America, the collapse of each currency led to
equally deep 
stock-market declines. The Asian crash also turned
into a foreign-policy nightmare for the United States,
with Prime Minister 
Mahathir of Malaysia leading the denunciation of
U.S.-based financiers, including the "moron" George
Soros, for the 
"criminal" speculations that destroyed the economies
of smaller nations like his. Since Malaysia and
Indonesia are largely 
Muslim, and the financiers could be cast as part of
the great shadowy U.S.-Zionist cabal, the crash
worsened U.S. relations 
with the Islamic world. 



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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 16:11:17 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Countdown to a Meltdown (Part 2)
Message-ID: <20050706161117.53566.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com>

COUNTDOWN TO A MELTDOWN 
BY JAMES FALLOWS

Part 2

As the dollar headed down, assets denominated in
dollars suddenly looked like losers. Most Americans
had 
no choice but to stay in the dollar economy (their
houses were priced in dollars, as were their savings
and 
their paychecks), but those who had a choice unloaded
their dollar holdings fast.20 The people with choices 
were the very richest Americans, and foreigners of
every sort. The two kinds of assets they least wanted
to 
hold were shares in U.S.-based companies, since the
plummeting dollar would wipe out any conceivable 
market gains, and dollar-based bonds, including U.S.
Treasury debt. Thus we had twin, reinforcing panics: a

sudden decline in share prices plus a sudden selloff
of bonds and Treasury holdings. The T-note selloff 
forced interest rates up, which forced stock prices
further down, and the race to the bottom was on. 
Because interest rates had been so low for so long,
much of the public had forgotten how nasty life could
be 
when money all of a sudden got tight.21 Every part of
the cycle seemed to make every other part worse. 
Businesses scaled back their expansion or investment
plans, since borrowed money was more expensive. 
That meant fewer jobs. Mortgage rates went up, so
buyers who might have bid on a $400,000 house could 
now handle only $250,000. That pushed real-estate
values down; over time the $400,000 house became a 
$250,000 house. Credit-card rates were more onerous,
so consumers had to cut back their spending. Some 
did it voluntarily, others in compliance with the
Garnishee Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act of 2008. 
Businesses of every sort had higher fixed costs: for
energy, because of the oil-price spike; for imported 
components, because of the dollar's crash; for
everything else, because of ripple effects from those
changes 
and from higher interest rates. Those same businesses
had lower revenues, because of the squeeze on their 
customer base. Early in Bush's second term economists
had pointed out that the U.S. stock indexes were 
surprisingly weak considering how well U.S.
corporations had been doing.22 The fear of just these 
developments was why. 

Americans had lived through a similar
self-intensifying cycle before?but not since the late
1970s, when 
many of today's adults were not even born. Back in
those days the sequence of energy-price spike, dollar 
crash, interest-rate surge, business slowdown, and
stock-market loss had overwhelmed poor Jimmy 
Carter?he of the promise to give America "a government
as good as its people." This time it did the same to 
the Preacher, for all his talk about "a new Democratic
Party rooted in the oldest values of a free and
faithful 
country." When he went down, the future of his party
almost certainly went with him. 
The spate of mergers and acquisitions that started in
2010 was shocking at the time but looks inevitable in 
retrospect. When the CEOs of the three remaining U.S.
airlines had their notorious midnight meeting at the 
DFW Hilton, they knew they were breaking two dozen
antitrust laws and would be in financial and legal 
trouble if their nervy move failed. But it worked.
When they announced the new and combined AmFly 
Corporation, regulators were in no position to call
their bluff. At their joint press conference the CEOs
said, 
Accept our more efficient structure or we'll all
declare bankruptcy, and all at once. The efficiencies
meant 
half as many flights (for "fuel conservation") as had
been offered by the previously competing airlines, to
150 
fewer cities, with a third as many jobs (all
non-union).23 Democrats in Congress didn't like it,
nor did most 
editorialists, but the administration didn't really
have a choice. It could swallow the deal?or it could
get 
ready to take over the routes, the planes, the
payrolls, and the passenger complaints, not to mention
the 
decades of litigation. 

Toyota's acquisition of General Motors and Ford, in
2012, had a similar inevitability. Over the previous 
decade the two U.S. companies had lost money on every
car they sold. Such profit as they made was on 
SUVs, trucks, and Hummer-style big rigs. In 2008, just
before the oil shock, GM seemed to have struck gold 
with the Strykette?an adaptation of the Army's Stryker
vehicle, so famous from Iraq and Pakistan, whose 
marketing campaign attracted professional women. Then
the SUV market simply disappeared. With gasoline 
at $6 a gallon, the prime interest rate at 15 percent,
and the stock and housing markets in the toilet, no
one 
wanted what American car makers could sell.24 The weak
dollar, and their weak stock prices, made the 
companies a bargain for Toyota.25
 
For politicians every aspect of this cycle was a
problem: the job losses, the gasoline lines, the
bankruptcies, 
the hard-luck stories of lifetime savings vanishing as
the stock market headed down. But nothing matched 
the nightmare of foreclosures. 

For years regulators and financiers had worried about
the "over-leveraging" of the American housing market. 
As housing prices soared in coastal cities, people
behaved the way they had during the stock-market
run-up 
of the 1920s: they paid higher and higher prices; they
covered more and more of the purchase price with 
debt; more and more of that debt was on "floating
rate" terms?and everything was fine as long as prices 
stayed high and interest rates stayed low. 

When the market collapsed, Americans didn't behave the
way economic theory said they should.26 They 
behaved the way their predecessors in the Depression
had: they stayed in their houses, stopped paying their

mortgages, and waited for the banks to take the next
step. Through much of the Midwest this was a 
manageable problem: the housing market had gone less
berserk to begin with, and, as in the Great 
Depression, there was a longer-term, more personal
relationship between customers and financiers. But in
the 
fastest-growing markets?Orlando, Las Vegas, the
Carolina Research Triangle, northern Virginia?the
banks 
simply could not wait. The deal brokered at the White
House Security-in-Shelter Summit was ingenious: 
federal purchase of one million RVs and mobile homes,
many of them built at idle auto or truck factories; 
subsidies for families who agreed to leave foreclosed
homes without being evicted by marshals, such that 
they could buy RVs with no payments for five years;
and the use of land at decommissioned military bases 
for the new RV villages. But it did not erase the
blogcam live broadcasts of families being evicted, or
the 
jokes about the "Preachervilles" springing up at Camp
Lejeune, the former Fort Ord, and the Philadelphia 
naval shipyard. 

Here is how we know that a sitting president is going
to lose: he is seriously challenged in his own party's

primaries.27 So if the economic tailspin had left any
doubts about the prospects for the Preacher and his 
party, they were removed by the clamor to run against
him in the Democratic primaries of 2012. The party's 
biggest names were all there: the senators from New
York, Illinois, and Florida; the new governors of 
California and Pennsylvania; the mayor of New York,
when it looked as if the Olympic Games would still be 
held there that fall; and the actor who in his three
most recent films had captured Americans' idea of how
a 
president should look and sound, and who came closest
to stealing the nomination from the incumbent. 
He and the rest of them were probably lucky that their
campaigns fell short?not that any politician ever 
believes that. The Democratic nomination in 2012 was
obviously a poisoned chalice, but a politician can't 
help thinking that a poisoned chalice is better than
no chalice at all. The barrier none of them could have

overcome was the financial crisis of state and local
government.  

All that befell the federal budget during the collapse
of 2009-2012 happened to state and local governments, 
too, but more so. They had to spend more?on welfare,
Medicaid, jails, police officers?while taking in less.

One by one their normal sources of funding dried up.28
Revenues from the multi-state lottery and the 
FreedomBall drawings rose a bit. Unfortunately, the
surge of spending on casino gambling in forty-three 
states and on legalized prostitution in thirty-one
didn't benefit state and local governments, because
except in 
Nevada those activities were confined to Indian
reservations, and had only an indirect stimulative
effect. 
And many governors and mayors faced a reality the
president could avoid: they operated under
constitutions 
and charters that forbade deficit spending. So they
had no practical choice but to tighten the clamps at
both 
ends, cutting budgets and raising taxes. The process
had begun before the crash, as politicking in most
state 
capitols was dominated by "intractable" budget
disputes.29 When the downturn really hit, even
governors 
who had never heard of John Maynard Keynes sensed that
it was a bad idea to raise taxes on people who 
were being laid off and evicted. But they were obliged
by law to balance their budgets. All mayors and 
governors knew that it would be dicey to renege on
their basic commitments to education, public safety, 
public health, and public infrastructure. But even in
hindsight it is hard to know what else they could have

done. California did too much too fast in closing
sixty-three of its 110 community colleges30 and
imposing 
$9,500 annual "user fees" in place of the previous
nominal fees. Its solution to the financing crisis on
its 
high-end campuses was defter?especially the "Great
Pacific Partnership" between the University of 
California and Tsinghua University, in Beijing. This
was a win-win arrangement, in which the Chinese 
Ministry of Education took over the funding of the UC
Berkeley physics, computer-science, and biology 
laboratories, plus the genomics laboratory at UC San
Francisco, in exchange for a 51 percent share of all 
resulting patents. 

State and local governments across the country did
what they could. Fee-for-service became the norm?first

for "enrichment" programs in the schools, then to
underwrite teachers' salaries, then for emergency
police 
calls, then for inclusion in routine police and fire
patrols. First in Minnesota, soon after in Michigan,
New 
York, and Pennsylvania, there were awkward moments
when the governor, exercising his power as 
commander in chief of the state National Guard,
ordered the Guard's medical units to serve in
hospitals that 
had furloughed nurses and emergency-room doctors. The
Democratic president decided not to force the 
question of who had ultimate control over these
"citizen soldiers." This averted a showdown in the
short 
term, but became one more attack point for the
Republicans about weak and vacillating Democrats.
Cities 
within 150 miles of the Mexican border opened
police-service and trash-hauling contracts to
companies 
based in Mexico. The state of Georgia, extending a
practice it had begun in the early 2000s, said that it
would 
hire no new public school teachers except under the
"Partnership for Excellence" program, which brought in

cut-rate teachers from India.31 

The chaos in public services spelled the end for the
administration, and for the Democratic Party in the
long 
run. The Democrats couldn't defend the unions. They
couldn't defend pensioners. They couldn't even do 
much for their limousine liberals. The nation had
never been more in the mood for firm leadership. When
the 
"Desert Eagle" scored his astonishing coup in the
Saudi Arabian desert just before Christmas of 2011, 
America knew who its next leader would be. For a
four-star general to join his enlisted men in a
nighttime 
HALO32 special-operations assault was against all
established practice. The Eagle's determination to go 
ahead with the stunt revealed him to be essentially a
MacArthuresque ham. But the element of surprise was 
total, and the unit surrounded, captured, and gagged
Osama bin Laden before he was fully awake. 
The general's news conference the next day had the
largest live audience in history, breaking the record
set a 
few months earlier by the coronation of England's King
William V. The natural grace of this new American 
hero was like nothing the world had seen since Charles
Lindbergh landed in Paris. His politics were 
indistinct, but if anything, that was a plus. He was
strong on defense; urgent (without details) about
"fighting 
smart against our economic enemies"; and broadly
appealing on "values"?a devout Catholic who had 
brought the first openly gay commandos into a
front-line combat unit. ("When we were under fire, I
never 
asked who they loved, because I knew they loved our
flag.") Political pros had always assumed that 
America's first black president would be a Republican
and a soldier, and they were right. He just didn't
turn 
out to be Colin Powell. 

The only suspense in the election was how big the win
would be. By Labor Day it was clear that the 
Democrats might lose even the District of Columbia,
whose rich residents were resentful about their
ravaged 
stock portfolios, and whose poor residents had been
cut off from Medicaid, welfare, and schools. As the 
nation went, so went the District, and after
fifty-seven presidential elections the United States
had its first 
across-the-board electoral sweep.
  
3. BLEEDING 

The emergencies are over. As our current president
might put it, it's a war of attrition now. His 
administration hasn't made anything worse?and we have
to admit that early on his ease and 
confidence were like a balm. But he hasn't made
anything better, either. If not fully tired of him,
the 
public has grown as fatalistic about the Republicans'
ability to make any real difference as it already 
was about the Democrats'. The two-party system had
been in trouble for decades. It was rigid, polarizing,
and 
unrepresentative. The parties were pawns of special
interests. The one interest group they neglected was
the 
vast center of the American electorate, which kept
seeking split-the-difference policies. Eight years of
failure 
from two administrations have finally blown apart the
tired duopoly. The hopes of our nation are bleeding 
away along with our few remaining economic resources.
 
Here is the challenge: 

Our country no longer controls its economic
fundamentals. 
Compared with the America of the past, it has become
stagnant, classbound, and brutally unfair. 
Compared with the rest of the world, it is on the way
down. We think we are a great power?and our 
military is still ahead of China's. Everyone else
thinks that over the past twenty years we finally
pushed our 
luck too far. 

To deal with these problems once in office, we must
point out basic truths in the campaign. 
These truths involve the past sources of our growth:
savings, investment, education, innovation. We've 
thrown away every one of these advantages. What we
would do right now to have back the $1 trillion that 
Congress voted away in 2008 with the Freedom From
Death Tax Act!33 A relatively small share of that 
money might have kept our aerospace programs
competitive with Europe's34?to say nothing of
preparing us 
for advances in other forms of transportation. A
little more might have made our road and highway
system at 
least as good as China's.35 With what was left over,
our companies might have been able to compete with 
Germany's in producing the superfast, quiet, efficient
maglev trains that are now doing for travel what the
jet 
plane did in the 1950s. Even if we couldn't afford to
make the trains, with more money at least some of our 
states and regions might have been able to buy them,
instead of just looking enviously at what China,
India, 
and Iran have done.36 

Or we could have shored up our universities. True, the
big change came as early as 2002, in the wake of 
9/11, when tighter visa rules, whatever their effect
on reducing terrorism, cut off the flow of foreign
talent 
that American universities had channeled to American
ends.37 In the summer of 2007 China applied the 
name "twenty Harvards" to its ambition, announced in
the early 2000s, to build major research institutions 
that would attract international talent. It seemed
preposterous (too much political control, too great a 
language barrier), but no one is laughing now. The
Chinese mission to Mars, with astronauts from
Pakistan, 
Germany, and Korea, indicates the scope of China's
scientific ambition. And necessity has pushed China
into 
the lead in computerized translation technology, so
that foreign students can read Chinese characters. The

Historic Campus of our best-known university, Harvard,
is still prestigious worldwide. But its role is 
increasingly that of the theme park, like Oxford or
Heidelberg, while the most ambitious students compete 
for fellowships at the Har-Bai and Har-Bei campuses in
Mumbai and Beijing. These, of course, have become 
each other's main rivals?whether for scores on the
World Ingenuity Test or in the annual meeting of the 
teams they sponsor at the Rose Bowl. 

Or we could at last have begun to grapple with
health-care costs. We've managed to create the worst
of all 
worlds?what the Democrats call the "30-30 problem."
Thirty percent of our entire economy goes for health 
and medical costs,38 but 30 percent of our citizens
have no regular contact with the medical system.
(Except, 
of course, during quarantines in avian-flu season.)
For people who can afford them, the "tailored
therapies" 
of the past decade represent the biggest breakthrough
in medicine since antibiotics or anesthesia. The big 
killers?heart disease and cancers of the colon, lung,
breast, and prostate?are now manageable chronic 
diseases at worst, and the big moral issues involve
the question of whether Baby Boomers are living "too 
long." But the costs are astronomical, which raises
questions of both efficiency and justice. Google's 
embedded diagnostic technology dramatizes our problem:
based on nonstop biometric testing of the 
thirty-seven relevant enzymes and organ-output levels,
it pipes into cell-phone implants instructions for 
which treatment, pill, or action to take next. The
system is extremely popular?for the 10 million people
who 
can afford it. NetJet flights to the Bahamas for organ
replacement illustrate the point even more sharply, 
although here the breakthrough was less medical than
diplomatic. The World Trade Organization, after the 
most contentious proceeding in its history, ruled that
prohibiting commerce in human organs for transplant 
was an unjust trade barrier. The ruling may have
caused the final, fatal split in the Republican Party 
(libertarians were jubilant, religious conservatives
appalled), but it became the foundation of an
important 
Caribbean industry after threats of violence dissuaded
many transplant centers from operating within the 
United States. Meanwhile, despite the Strong
America-Strong Americans Act of 2009, which tied 
income-tax rates to body-mass index and cigarette
consumption, smoking and eating junk food have become 
for our underemployed class what swilling vodka was
for the dispossessed in Boris Yeltsin's Russia. 
All these issues involve money, and we can't avoid
talking about money in this campaign. But your ability
to 
address an even harder issue will largely determine
whether you can succeed in the job the voters are
about to 
give you. 

That problem is the sense of sunset, decline,
hopelessness. America has been so resilient as a
society because 
each American has imagined that the sky was the limit.
Obviously it was not for everyone, or always. From 
the beginning we've had a class system, and a
racial-caste system, and extended periods?the 1890s,
the 
1930s, the 1970s, the past few years?when many more
people than usual were struggling merely to survive. 
But the myth of equal opportunity has been closer to
reality here than in any other society, and the myth
itself 
has mattered.
 
My father, in explaining why it was so painful for him
to see a lifetime's savings melt away after the 
Venezuelan crisis, told me about a political speech he
remembered from his own youth. It was by Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who later became
a politician. In the late 1960s, when American 
prosperity held despite bitter political turmoil,
Moynihan told left-wing students why preserving that 
prosperity should be important even to them. We know
Europe from its novels, Moynihan said: the old ones, 
by Austen and Dickens and Stendahl, and the more
recent ones, too. We know it as a static society.
Young 
people, seeking opportunity, have to wait for old
people to die. A whole life's prospects depend on the
size of 
an inheritance. People know their place. America,
Moynihan said fifty years ago, must never become a
place 
like that. 

That is the place we have become. Half this country's
households live on less than $50,000 a year. That 
sounds like a significant improvement from the $44,000
household median in 2003. But a year in private 
college now costs $83,000, a day in a hospital $1,350,
a year in a nursing home $150,000?and a gallon of 
gasoline $9. Thus we start off knowing that for half
our people there is no chance?none?of getting ahead 
of the game. And really, it's more like 80 percent of
the public that is priced out of a chance for future 
opportunity. We have made a perfect circle?perfect in
closing off options. There are fewer attractive jobs
to 
be had, even though the ones at the top, for
financiers or specialty doctors, are very attractive
indeed. And 
those who don't start out with advantages in getting
those jobs have less and less chance of moving up to 
them. 

Jobs in the middle of the skill-and-income
distribution have steadily vanished if any aspect of
them can be 
done more efficiently in China, India, or Vietnam. The
K-12 schools, the universities, the ambitious research

projects that could help the next generation qualify
for better jobs, have weakened or dried up.39 A
dynamic 
economy is always losing jobs. The problem with ours
is that we're no longer any good at creating new ones.

America is a less attractive place for new business
because it's a less attractive place, period.40 
In the past decade we've seen the telephone companies
disappear. Programming, data, entertainment, 
conversation?they all go over the Internet now.
Pharmaceuticals are no longer mass-produced but,
rather, 
tailored to each patient's genetic makeup. The big
airlines are all gone now, and much of publishing,
too. The 
new industries are the ones we want. When their
founders are deciding where to locate, though, they'll
see us 
as a country with a big market?and with an
undereducated work force, a rundown infrastructure,
and a 
shaky currency. They'll see England as it lost its
empire. They'll see Russia without the oil reserves, 
Brezhnev's Soviet Union without the repression.
They'll see the America that Daniel Patrick Moynihan 
feared. 

This story is now yours to tell, and later I'll turn
to notes for the stump speech. But remember that the
reality 
of the story reaches backward, and that is why I have
concentrated on the missed opportunities, the 
spendthrift recklessness, the warnings America heard
but tuned out. To tell it that way in public would of 
course only make things worse, and we can't afford the
recriminations or the further waste of time. The only 
chance for a new beginning is to make people believe
there actually is a chance.

NOTES:

20. Once the foreigners knew that the dollar had hit
bottom, they came back to buy shares at bargain
prices. But the 
currency run of 2009 showed the same pattern as the
tech-stock crash of 2000 and, indeed, the generalized
market panic of 
the 1930s: prices stayed depressed for years, because
investors who had suffered heavy losses were
understandably slow to 
return. 

21. Let's make up flash cards for the speechwriters,
so they are clear about the role of interest rates. 
When interest rates go up, these things go down:
stock-market prices, bond prices, housing prices,
overall economic growth 
rates, overall investment, overall job creation. 

The most important thing that goes up when interest
rates rise is the value of the dollar. We'll save the
cause and effect for 
our policy guys, but make sure the writers have these
points straight. 
For the speechwriters' benefit, let's spell this out
too: Why did the dollar panic raise interest rates?
Two related reasons. 
First, interest rates are ultimately set by supply and
demand. If the Treasury can't sell enough notes at
four percent to cover 
the deficit, it will keep raising the rate?to five,
six, ten percent?until it gets the money it needs.
Second, the main way a 
government can keep up the value of its currency is to
raise interest rates, hoping to attract investments
that would 
otherwise be made in yuan, euros, or yen.
 
22. In the spring of 2005, as stock averages slid week
by week, W. Bowman Cutter, a managing partner of the 
investment-banking firm Warburg Pincus, asked, "Why
are we not in a bull market now?" He said that if you
looked at the 
traditional measures of economic strength?high
corporate investment, rapid productivity improvements,
strong overall 
growth rates?"you would have to say that 2004 was the
best year of the past twenty." Interest rates at the
time were still 
very low. "If you transposed this to any other era in
history," Cutter said, "you would have a very strong
bull market. Why 
not now? Because the market is looking to the
long-term structural problems." If the market couldn't
go up when conditions 
were promising, it had no cushion when the crisis
began. 

23. Jobs in the airline industry had been plummeting
for years. In 2000 the eight largest carriers employed
432,000 people. 
Four years later a third of those jobs were gone. That
meant the loss of 136,000 mainly unionized, mainly
high-wage jobs, 
offset by a small increase in lower-paid jobs at
regional and discount airlines. 

24. U.S. auto companies and the U.S. auto-buying
public suffered in different ways from the "slowness"
of America's industry 
compared with Japan's, China's, and Korea's. It took
Detroit companies three years to shift production from
trucks and SUVs 
to hybrid cars; by that time the Asian brands owned
the market. Also, it took the American fleet as a
whole a surprisingly 
long time to change. The average car on America's
roads is nine years old, and in the course of a decade
only half of all cars 
are replaced. It takes a long time to work the older
gas-guzzlers out of the system.
 
25. The rising value of the euro and the troubled
state of the airline market might well have made
Boeing a similar target for 
the new Airbus-Mitsubishi consortium?but for the
Transformational Air Mobility Industrial Base Act of
2011, which converted 
Boeing's factories to national-defense production
facilities on a par with Navy shipyards.
 
26. Through the boom years speculators would borrow
the entire cost of a house. If they could "flip" it in
a year or two, the 
profit on the sale would offset the interest they'd
paid. But after mortgage rates "floated" up above 10
percent, the 
calculation changed. The house's value was heading
down, and the cost of covering the mortgage was
heading up. If the 
house were just another asset, the rational choice
would be to move out and give it back to the bank. But
houses aren't 
normal assets, and that's not what people did. 

27. The pattern goes back to the very beginning of the
modern primary system, after World War II, and it has
no exceptions. 
If an incumbent faces a serious, vote-getting rival
for his party's nomination, he goes on to lose the
White House. If not, he 
stays in.
 
28. State and local governments tax income, which was
falling; property, whose value was plummeting; and
retail sales, 
which were down as well. The blue states were somewhat
cushioned against the shocks in comparison with the
many red 
states that had declined to impose state income taxes.
Those states depended on property taxes, a
fast-disappearing 
revenue source. Also, since the Nixon years red and
blue states alike had relied on federal revenue
sharing. This was slashed 
as part of the Emergency Budget Act of 2012. 

29. In 2002 the Rockefeller Institute of Government
projected budget trends for the states through 2010,
and found that 
forty-four of them were headed for long-term deficits
like the ones plaguing the federal government. The
difference, again, is 
that many states were obliged to change their policies
to avoid the deficits. 

30. This accelerated a trend that had begun a decade
earlier in California. For instance, when the 2003
school year began, 
some 175,000 students could not find space in
community colleges?which, like K-12 public schools,
had previously offered 
enrollment to all eligible students.
 
31. Gwinnett County, near Atlanta, opened many school
administrators' eyes to this possibility in 2004, when
it brought in 
twenty-seven teachers from Hyderabad. In 2005 an
examination board in England outsourced the grading of
high-school 
achievement exams to workers in India. 

32. For "high-altitude, low-opening" parachute jump.
The jumpers leave the plane at 30,000 feet, free-fall
for nearly two 
minutes, and open their chutes at 1,000 feet, a few
seconds before impact. Because the airplanes are so
high, they cannot 
be seen or heard from the ground; and the jumpers
spend almost no time with their chutes visibly
deployed. 

33. In the spring of 2005 the Congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation estimated that ending the estate
tax would directly 
cut federal revenue by $72 billion in 2015. Other
groups calculated that the total impact on the budget,
including higher 
interest payments on a larger federal debt, would be
$100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade. All
this tax relief flowed 
to the wealthiest one percent of Americans.
 
34. In 1990 the American aerospace industry employed
1,120,000 people. By 2004 that number had fallen by
nearly half, to 
593,000. During those same years the European
aerospace industry was growing in both sales and work
force. In 2003 
Airbus overtook Boeing in world market share for
commercial airliners.
 
35. In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers
released a "report card" on the state of America's
infrastructure?roads, 
dams, bridges, aviation, and so on. The overall grade
was D, with the highest mark being C+, for solid-waste
handling. 
According to the report, the most dramatic
underinvestment involved the nation's roads. Simply
maintaining the roads at the 
same level would cost $94 billion, the report said?or
half again as much as actual yearly investment levels.
Improving the 
roads would require about twice as much as the United
States was spending. 

36. In 2003 the city of Shanghai opened the world's
fastest maglev line, whose trains average 267 miles
per hour and arrive 
on schedule 99.7 percent of the time. An editor's note
in the Journal of the American Society of Civil
Engineers pointed out 
that half a dozen maglev proposals for American cities
were "stalled in one stage or another of planning,
permitting, or 
budgeting." The result, the journal's editor observed,
was this: "Traffic congestion on U.S. roads worsens,
energy prices 
fluctuate unpredictably, and, at least for the moment,
China pulls ahead of the United States on the path to
a safe, reliable, 
fast, and efficient means of transporting passengers."


37. Foreign enrollment in U.S. universities increased
steadily from 1971 through 2002. It fell the next
year, and has gone 
down ever since. 

38. It was under 8 percent in 1990 and under 12
percent in 2000. 

39. It's hard to remember or even to believe, but not
that long ago the school system was a valuable social
equalizer. More 
important, it was seen that way. Through the three
golden decades, from the late 1940s (when the GI Bill
kicked in) to the 
late 1970s (when Proposition 13 passed in California),
the federal government and the states put more money
than ever 
before into elementary schools, high schools, and
universities. More students than ever before finished
high school; more 
finished college; more felt they could go further than
their parents had. Proposition 13 was the California
ballot measure that 
cut property taxes by 30 percent and then capped their
future growth. It prefigured the federal tax cuts of
the early 2000s, 
because it pushed the level of revenue below its
historic "band." Before Proposition 13 California's
per capita spending on 
public schools was high, like Connecticut's or New
York's. Twenty years later it was well below the
national average, just 
ahead of Arkansas's.
 
40. In the early 2000s one third of American public
high school students failed to graduate on time. Niels
Christian Nielsen, a 
member of several corporate boards in Europe and the
United States, said at the University of California in
2005, "The big 
difference between Europe and America is the
proportion of people who come out of the system really
not being functional 
for any serious role. In Finland that is maybe two or
three percent. For Europe in general maybe fifteen or
twenty. For the 
United States at least thirty percent, maybe more. In
spite of all the press, Americans don't really get the
education 
difference. They generally still feel this is a
well-educated country and work force. They just don't
see how far the country is 
falling behind.



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


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 16:28:57 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:28:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books available online - free
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070609282c364ee1@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/05, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Internet Public Library
> <http://ipl.sils.umich.edu/>
> maintains an index page of many sources of online books.
> ...

In addition to the good sources you mentioned, there have recently
been some new sci-fi novels released as free downloads. Below is the
text of one of my slashdot submissions which keeps on getting
rejected:

Two prominent science fiction authors have released their newest
novels as <a
href=http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/publisher/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000968186>free
downloads</a> (in addition to bookstore physical copies). The first is
<a href=http://craphound.com/someone/000363.html>Someone Comes to
Town, Someone Leaves Town</a>, by <a
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow>Cory Doctorow</a>.
This is an unconventional story about an entrepreneur (who happens to
be the child of a mountain and a washing machine) who gets involved in
a scheme to blanket Toronto with free wireless mesh network, among
other things.  The second is <a
href=http://www.accelerando.org/>Accelerando</a>, by <a
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stross>Charles Stross</a>,
which tells the tale of three generations of the Macx family
(beginning with perptually-slashdotted venture altruist Manfred Macx)
in the years leading up to and beyond a technological singularity. To
help provide more info on certain technical topics from Stross's
novel, I've started up a <a
href=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Accelerando_Technical_Companion>Technical
Companion</a> on wikibooks.

Without html: Two prominent science fiction authors have released their newest
novels as free downloads (in addition to bookstore physical copies).
The first is Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town, by Cory
Doctorow. This is an unconventional story about an entrepreneur (who
happens to be the child of a mountain and a washing machine) who gets
involved in a scheme to blanket Toronto with free wireless mesh
network, among other things. The second is Accelerando, by Charles
Stross, which tells the tale of three generations of the Macx family
(beginning with perptually-slashdotted venture altruist Manfred Macx)
in the years leading up to and beyond a technological singularity. To
help provide more info on certain technical topics from Stross's
novel, I've started up a Technical Companion on wikibooks.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 16:52:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061752300.28115@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050706165230.42900.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> 
> Hmm, it's sometimes difficult to follow this kind of news from 6,000
> miles
> away. Given that the media picture about this is uniformly negative,
> while
> the Army picture is instead quite positive, one cannot avoid the
> impression that everything is spinned this way or the other. Thanks
> for all the data.

See, this is the sort of bias I'm talking about. I've pretty much
proven my prior assertion, and the best you are willing to do is say
"everything is spinned this way or the other", as if that is somehow a
neutral appraisal that both sides are guilty. How does a soldier on the
street in Bagdad or the hills of Afghanistan spin his own opinion away
from the reality of his or her own experiences? That is just nonsensical.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 17:24:18 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:24:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] South Korean firm plans hospital for stem cell
	therapy
Message-ID: <470a3c5205070610248a9b1d9@mail.gmail.com>

Yahoo News report<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050705/sc_afp/healthskoreastem>that
a South Korea medical company said it plans to open the world's first
hospital exclusively providing treatment using stem cells obtained from 
umbilical cord blood.
Histostem Co. Ltd. <http://www.histostem.co.kr/english/english_1.htm> said 
it is close to a final agreement with an unnamed European investment company 
to set up the hospital in the southern resort island of Jeju in the first 
half of 2007. This will be the world's first hospital exclusively for 
umbilical cord blood stem-cell therapy.
In videotaped testimony screened at a press conference, several patients 
suffering from Buerger's disease, diabetes and liver cirrhosis said they had 
been improving remarkably following umbilical cord blood stem cell 
transplants.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050706/fbc12b20/attachment.html>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Wed Jul  6 17:30:41 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:30:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Countdown to a Meltdown (Part 1)
Message-ID: <1120671041.439@whirlwind.he.net>

Jeff Davis wrote:
> I found this piece interesting.  So I'm forwarding it
> for your consideration.


What is it supposed to be, badly crafted satire?  It is a nominal
prediction of the future based on caricatures, non sequiturs, and false
analogies.  There are a number of things looming, but it won't look like
this in play.


j. andrew rogers
 


From weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com  Wed Jul  6 18:39:47 2005
From: weg9mq at centralmail.zzn.com (Edward Smith)
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:39:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human
	Flaws
Message-ID: <A4E1C51DCBFD5174189CBEEF5B0C7143@weg9mq.centralmail.zzn.com>

"One step at a time, yo.  The human genome ain't the easiest learning
tool out there.  There's been tons of ongoing work just trying to
understand what all the various bits are."

That is why I said, in part 3 (Application), that research must be
conducted first, and that research should be the main focus of the
new mailing list and it's corresponding reference. I even named the
mailing list 'extropy-research'.


"A few
people have tried basic gene therapy on humans; unfortunately, we know
so little that the attempts killed people."

Gene therapy (which has caused cancer in humans) is the
genetic modification of grown beings, not the genetic
modification of zygotes, and what I am proposing is the genetic
modification of human zygotes. The modification of animal
zygotes (mostly experimental laboratory mice) has not caused
death, cancer, or any other problems, so that will be the case in
humans. In the rare cases that it may cause such problems, it is
only the death of a zygote and not the death of a grown being.


Get your Free E-mail at http://centralmail.cjb.net
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed Jul  6 17:58:56 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:58:56 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule, was: Re: [extropy-chat]
	give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050706165230.42900.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706165230.42900.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061935440.17628@zeus>

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, it's sometimes difficult to follow this kind of news from 6,000
>> miles
>> away. Given that the media picture about this is uniformly negative,
>> while
>> the Army picture is instead quite positive, one cannot avoid the
>> impression that everything is spinned this way or the other. Thanks
>> for all the data.
>
>See, this is the sort of bias I'm talking about. I've pretty much
>proven my prior assertion, and the best you are willing to do is say
>"everything is spinned this way or the other", as if that is somehow a
>neutral appraisal that both sides are guilty. How does a soldier on the
>street in Bagdad or the hills of Afghanistan spin his own opinion away
>from the reality of his or her own experiences? That is just nonsensical.

My previous message was poor wording (sorry, English is still a second
language). The "spin you don't know if it can believed or not" refers to
when you don't have numbers and other data. You did a pretty good research
and now there are some numbers. A negative media influence at home is a
possible and reasonable cause. Different thinkers can anyway arrive at
different conclusions, because it's different to prove things like this
without doubts.

If one was to make a Wikipedia-style NPOV statement, the result would be
something like this:

== Begin wikipedia article fragment ==

While new recruitment for the Army have been lower than expected,
re-enlisting numbers are higher than Army goals (lots of numbers and
examples follow. References to actual Army releases are even better...).

A possible explanation is that potential soldiers are negatively impressed
by an overly-negative media coverage of the war, while instead soldiers
who have seen the war first-hand have a more positive view of the subject,
in a significant enough way to substantially change their opinion. This
would point to a bias in the media coverage of the war (see [[Media
coverage of the Iraq war]] for a detailed analysis of this topic).

Opponents of this view say instead that the reporting of the war is
accurate, and that the numbers can be justified by ....

== End wikipedia article fragment ==

Of course one can stop short of the last paragraph, that would instead be
written by someone who doesn't share the same interpretation of the data.
Or by the same author, regardless of his opinion, if he knows what people
holding the opposite view say. Of course, pointing out any errors in the
reasoning is fair game.

See, it's quite boring :-)

Alfio


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Jul  6 17:58:42 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:58:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule
In-Reply-To: <20050706153945.21407.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507061656020.28115@zeus>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050706131225.0457a008@unreasonable.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>     ?The Navy will meet its marker of 39,700 enlisted recruits, as it
>has for every year in recent memory, except 1998. The branch might miss
>the goal for 11,000 new naval reservists, partly because active duty
>retention rates are so high the pool of available recruits is shrinking
>for certain skills.

One data point -- my sister just chose to leave the Navy. She is an 
Annapolis grad, trained on nuclear reactors, who has served on an Aegis 
cruiser and two aircraft carriers. I was surprised the Navy let her go, 
especially since she recently got her master's, paid by the Navy. (Usually 
paid degrees require an additional service commitment.) She told me that, 
to the contrary, the Navy encouraged her to leave.

I assume it's an issue of adjusting the active duty skill mix. And perhaps 
they want her skills in the reserves.

I hadn't heard about the Blue to Green program. It will be interesting to 
see how well it works out. Reminds me of Starship Troopers, Chapter 13 --

>A man can't buck for Sky Marshal unless he has commanded both a regiment 
>and a capital ship -- go through M. I. and take his lumps and then become 
>a Naval officer (I think little Birdie had that in mind), or first become 
>an astrogator-pilot and follow it with Camp Currie, etc.
>
>I'll listen respectfully to any man who has done both.

I wonder how that would work in practice. The Goldwater-Nichols requirement 
of joint operations duty is a step towards this, but doesn't ensure that 
the officer has all the skills expected of officers from other services.

We do have people talented and motivated enough for multiple bootcamps, 
e.g., M.D./J.D.'s, Navy Seals, astronaut after becoming doctor or test 
pilot, etc.


-- David Lubkin.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 18:49:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205070610248a9b1d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050706184914.23765.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Observatories doing spectral analysis of post-Deep Impact ejecta show a
very strong presence of water, ethane, methanol, hydrogen cyanide,
acetylene, hydroxy, and carbon monoxide. The impactor apparently
vaporized only after penetrating deeply, raising impact site
temperatures to several thousand degrees.

The Spitzer space telescope will be observing Tempel until August 17th
to estimate a full assay of the material continuing to escape from the
crater created by the impactor. Preliminary info seems to confirm that
they will be very useful fuelling stations for future solar system
exploration and development.

In fact, hitching a ride on Tempel might be a really good way to send a
manned mission to Jupiter, as such a mission will have plenty of time
to refine cometary material to refuel their ship with once they've
rendezvoused with Tempel, fuel that will be very necessary to return to
Earth. Tempel currently has an orbital period of 5.5 years, a perhilion
of 1.5 AU, which is quite near Mars' orbit, and an aphelion that is
pretty near jupiter orbit.

This might be a good option for a successful mission to Mars: to
establish the infrastructure for a mission to Jupiter. An important
question: what future Tempel 1  perhilions bring it close to Mars
itself rather than just Mars orbit? Which such encounters bring it
closest to Jupiter?

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Jul  6 19:47:29 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:47:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead
References: <002c01c581e3$630ea2b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <01c301c58263$8b829050$0100a8c0@kevin>

What is interesting is that they list people who died of non-cambat related
things such as disease, accidents, etc.
Has anyone done a comparison study of deaths with a control group similar to
the composition of the forces we have in the region?
Supposing we have 300,000 able bodies 18-40 yr olds over there. What are the
death rates compared to the same population here?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olga Bourlin" <fauxever at sprynet.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:30 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead


> We talk about life and death and technology
>
> here ...
>
> .. and there and everywhere the dead:.
>
>
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/photos/war_casualties/map/m10000.html
>
> Olga
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 19:40:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <20050706184914.23765.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706194036.38707.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Update: it appears that the next perhilion will bring it close to Mars
and will end up close to Jupiter the following aphelion. That is 5.5
years from now. We know we can get to Mars in 6 months (this is how
long Deep Impact took to get to Tempel). A well financed project could
send twin missions together: one to Mars, the other to Jupiter via
Tempel, if launched 5 years from now. The Jupiter mission could use its
Tempel fuel to reach Jupiter from Tempel's aphelion, and get back out
of that gravity well, then use a solar sail to brake its return to
Earth. 

Such a mission may be able to fuel up with more than they used to get
to Mars orbit, using XCORs flexible inflatable fuel tank technology.

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

> Observatories doing spectral analysis of post-Deep Impact ejecta show
> a
> very strong presence of water, ethane, methanol, hydrogen cyanide,
> acetylene, hydroxy, and carbon monoxide. The impactor apparently
> vaporized only after penetrating deeply, raising impact site
> temperatures to several thousand degrees.
> 
> The Spitzer space telescope will be observing Tempel until August
> 17th
> to estimate a full assay of the material continuing to escape from
> the
> crater created by the impactor. Preliminary info seems to confirm
> that
> they will be very useful fuelling stations for future solar system
> exploration and development.
> 
> In fact, hitching a ride on Tempel might be a really good way to send
> a
> manned mission to Jupiter, as such a mission will have plenty of time
> to refine cometary material to refuel their ship with once they've
> rendezvoused with Tempel, fuel that will be very necessary to return
> to
> Earth. Tempel currently has an orbital period of 5.5 years, a
> perhilion
> of 1.5 AU, which is quite near Mars' orbit, and an aphelion that is
> pretty near jupiter orbit.
> 
> This might be a good option for a successful mission to Mars: to
> establish the infrastructure for a mission to Jupiter. An important
> question: what future Tempel 1  perhilions bring it close to Mars
> itself rather than just Mars orbit? Which such encounters bring it
> closest to Jupiter?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
> http://auctions.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
"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!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 19:43:40 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:43:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead
In-Reply-To: <01c301c58263$8b829050$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <002c01c581e3$630ea2b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<01c301c58263$8b829050$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070612437951e492@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/05, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> What is interesting is that they list people who died of non-cambat related
> things such as disease, accidents, etc.
> Has anyone done a comparison study of deaths with a control group similar to
> the composition of the forces we have in the region?
> Supposing we have 300,000 able bodies 18-40 yr olds over there. What are the
> death rates compared to the same population here?

Here's an interesting figure from businessweek:

(can't find original article)

http://www.businessweek.com//magazine/content/02_43/art02_43/a43tab11.gif

To quote one line from the table, in the period of 1993-1995 there
were 1.6 million active troops, 36 dead from terrorist attacks, 1714
from accidents, 0 from hostile action, 236 from homicide, and 718
self-inflicted.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul  6 19:50:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:50:30 -0700
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050706141313.75223.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706141313.75223.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E2377655-F953-437C-A52D-5859861CDE01@mac.com>

More likely explanation is that the stats are biased to attempt a  
lemming effect on others to re-enlist.  Unless you have been hiding  
in a very deep foxhole indeed it doesn't look like a very   
intelligent choice.  Of course the economy looks pretty poor outside  
the military and their may be other contributing factors.   I would  
want independent verification of such statistics at the very least.

- samantha

On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.military.com/NewsContent/ 
> 0,13319,FL_reenlist_070505,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
>
> "Even though the Army appears likely to miss its goal of recruiting
> 80,000 new soldiers this year, it's ahead of the pace needed to reach
> its goal of convincing 64,162 soldiers, from privates to top  
> sergeants,
> to re-enlist by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
>
> Through the end of May, 45,333 soldiers had re-enlisted, said Lt. Col.
> Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon. That's 70 percent of
> the Army's full-year goal.
>
> Nearly 11,000 soldiers from the elite 18th Airborne Corps, which
> includes four of the Army's 10 active divisions, have "re-upped" this
> year. That's about 86 percent of the corps' full-year goal, said the
> corps commander, Maj. Gen. Virgil Packett.
>
> "The 18th Airborne Corps is carrying the Army right now in retention,"
> Packett said.
>
> And leading the corps is the 82nd Airborne, which has reached 97
> percent of its annual goal, even though it has deployed regularly to
> Iraq and Afghanistan. "
>
> First point:
> This is an interesting dichotomy: the soldiers who are actually on the
> ground and putting their lives at risk (and know what is really going
> on in Iraq and Afghanistan) are re-enlisting far above levels the Army
> was projecting, while recruitment of civilians (who only see what the
> media tells them) is not likely to meet goals.
>
> So, this seems to imply that the media is giving a biased and overly
> negative view of what is really going on at the battlefront (plus
> civilians are subject to a lot more negative propaganda they are more
> likely to give credence to than a war veteran would).
>
> Second Point:
> The large increase in re-enlistment will mean the Army will meet its
> manpower goals once again this year, i.e. no draft (sorry Samantha).
> Moreover, since the manpower will constitute more experienced  
> veterans,
> the average unit effectiveness will go up and training costs  
> (including
> accidents and rookies puting comrades at risk in combat) will go down.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 20:18:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <E2377655-F953-437C-A52D-5859861CDE01@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050706201804.83716.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This just doesn't wash, Samantha. Firstly, a unit that has 70-97%
retention has no need of a 'lemming effect'. Secondly, the guy on the
ground in Iraq should know better than a kid out of high school what
the trade offs are: he's older and more experienced in both work on the
outside as well as what is going on in Iraq. It should be easier for a
recruiter to snowjob a high school kid into enlisting than getting an
experienced trooper to re-up if things were so bad over there. The fact
that it is the reverse indicates things aren't so bad at all and kids
here are being lied to by the media.

If the civilian economy were a worse option, then high school kids
should be signing up more than previously, while experienced troopers
would be more likely to go civilian because they have more skills and
experience than a kid out of high school.

If the statistics were not accurate, I am positive that liberal
democrats (and particularly socialist rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) on
the armed services committees would make the facts known and use it to
beat a drum of Bush lying.

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> More likely explanation is that the stats are biased to attempt a  
> lemming effect on others to re-enlist.  Unless you have been hiding  
> in a very deep foxhole indeed it doesn't look like a very   
> intelligent choice.  Of course the economy looks pretty poor outside 
> the military and their may be other contributing factors.   I would  
> want independent verification of such statistics at the very least.
> 
> - samantha
> 
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > http://www.military.com/NewsContent/ 
> > 0,13319,FL_reenlist_070505,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
> >
> > "Even though the Army appears likely to miss its goal of recruiting
> > 80,000 new soldiers this year, it's ahead of the pace needed to
> reach
> > its goal of convincing 64,162 soldiers, from privates to top  
> > sergeants,
> > to re-enlist by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
> >
> > Through the end of May, 45,333 soldiers had re-enlisted, said Lt.
> Col.
> > Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon. That's 70 percent
> of
> > the Army's full-year goal.
> >
> > Nearly 11,000 soldiers from the elite 18th Airborne Corps, which
> > includes four of the Army's 10 active divisions, have "re-upped"
> this
> > year. That's about 86 percent of the corps' full-year goal, said
> the
> > corps commander, Maj. Gen. Virgil Packett.
> >
> > "The 18th Airborne Corps is carrying the Army right now in
> retention,"
> > Packett said.
> >
> > And leading the corps is the 82nd Airborne, which has reached 97
> > percent of its annual goal, even though it has deployed regularly
> to
> > Iraq and Afghanistan. "
> >
> > First point:
> > This is an interesting dichotomy: the soldiers who are actually on
> the
> > ground and putting their lives at risk (and know what is really
> going
> > on in Iraq and Afghanistan) are re-enlisting far above levels the
> Army
> > was projecting, while recruitment of civilians (who only see what
> the
> > media tells them) is not likely to meet goals.
> >
> > So, this seems to imply that the media is giving a biased and
> overly
> > negative view of what is really going on at the battlefront (plus
> > civilians are subject to a lot more negative propaganda they are
> more
> > likely to give credence to than a war veteran would).
> >
> > Second Point:
> > The large increase in re-enlistment will mean the Army will meet
> its
> > manpower goals once again this year, i.e. no draft (sorry
> Samantha).
> > Moreover, since the manpower will constitute more experienced  
> > veterans,
> > the average unit effectiveness will go up and training costs  
> > (including
> > accidents and rookies puting comrades at risk in combat) will go
> down.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 20:46:49 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] awesome photo
In-Reply-To: <20050706202729.49821.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706204650.50989.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photogal/pretty/tornado.jpg




__________________________________________________
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/20050706/2cddf937/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 21:31:14 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
Message-ID: <20050706213114.43386.qmail@web34409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Pessimists act as a reality check, counteracting the predictions of cheerleading prognosticators who want to encourage others, even by being baselessly optimistic.
You can see where luddite cyberpunks are coming from, they have been told of the brave world of Tomorrow, and merely a cursory glance at humanity reveals there are generations, or even centuries, of resistance left to progress. And here we are naturally defining progress on our terms. If we can convince enough recalcitrants, then the future is more on our extropian/transhumanist terms than on someone else's. Win enough hearts & minds and we obstensibly own the future. This is a subtext, or the subtext to Luddite critiques of progress. Ludds are not merely criticizing what we want, they are criticizing us for wanting to 'control' the future, they are criticizing us not merely for 'playing God', but even for having the temerity to say we want, let alone deserve to exist beyond our original lifespans. When ludds say, "who do you think you are?", they mean that literally, they mean to say, "what even gives you the right to exist, and especially, what gives you the prerogative to strive
 for unlimited lifespans and in the process change the future to your specifications... and even 'own' the future?". They are playing for keepsies, they sense the future is up for grabs. And they are correct.
I'm no confirmed pessimist yet living where I live has given me a 360 degree panorama view of what is going on. I'm what most consider a fool, but fools go where futurists fear to tread. It's more complicated than even those as in the know-- as you are-- are aware of. I suspect we are communicating at cross purposes with our opponents concerning everything imaginable. 
 


__________________________________________________
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/20050706/699ad7f9/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 21:45:44 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:45:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prion protein gene and long-term memory
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05070614452da769b6@mail.gmail.com>

Below are a couple of abstracts from articles recently mentioned in
this post by Carl Zimmer:

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/07/05/return_of_mad_cow_memories.php

The most interesting line (for me) was this one from the first
abstract: "Twenty-four hours after a word list learning task, carriers
of either the 129MM or the 129MV genotype recalled 17% more
information than 129VV carriers, whereas short-term memory was
unaffected."

=============
The prion gene is associated with human long-term memory
Andreas Papassotiropoulos, M. Axel Wollmer, Adriano Aguzzi, Christoph
Hock, Roger M. Nitsch, and Dominique J.-F. de Quervain

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ddi228v1

Human cognitive processes are highly variable across individuals and
are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Whereas
genetic variations affect short-term memory in humans, it is unknown
whether genetic variability has also an impact on long-term memory.
Because prion-like conformational changes may be involved in the
induction of long-lasting synaptic plasticity, we examined the impact
of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the prion protein gene
(PRNP) on long-term memory in healthy young humans. SNPs in the
genomic region of PRNP were associated with better long-term memory
performance in two independent populations with different educational
background. Among the examined PRNP SNPs the common Met129Val
polymorphism yielded the highest effect size. Twenty-four hours after
a word list learning task, carriers of either the 129MM or the 129MV
genotype recalled 17% more information than 129VV carriers, whereas
short-term memory was unaffected. These results suggest a role for the
prion protein in the formation of long-term memory in humans.


===========
PRIONS AS ADAPTIVE CONDUITS OF MEMORY AND INHERITANCE
James Shorter & Susan Lindquist

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n6/abs/nrg1616_fs.html

Changes in protein conformation drive most biological processes, but
none have seized the imagination of scientists and the public alike as
have the self-replicating conformations of prions. Prions transmit
lethal neurodegenerative diseases by means of the food chain. However,
self-replicating protein conformations can also constitute molecular
memories that transmit genetic information. Here, we showcase
definitive evidence for the prion hypothesis and discuss examples in
which prion-encoded heritable information has been harnessed during
evolution to confer selective advantages. We then describe situations
in which prion-enciphered events might have essential roles in
long-term memory formation, transcriptional memory and genome-wide
expression patterns.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 21:50:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050706213114.43386.qmail@web34409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706215046.94927.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pessimists act as a reality check, counteracting the predictions of
> cheerleading prognosticators who want to encourage others, even by
> being baselessly optimistic.
> You can see where luddite cyberpunks are coming from, they have been
> told of the brave world of Tomorrow, and merely a cursory glance at
> humanity reveals there are generations, or even centuries, of
> resistance left to progress. And here we are naturally defining
> progress on our terms. If we can convince enough recalcitrants, then
> the future is more on our extropian/transhumanist terms than on
> someone else's. Win enough hearts & minds and we obstensibly own the
> future. This is a subtext, or the subtext to Luddite critiques of
> progress. Ludds are not merely criticizing what we want, they are
> criticizing us for wanting to 'control' the future, they are
> criticizing us not merely for 'playing God', but even for having the
> temerity to say we want, let alone deserve to exist beyond our
> original lifespans. 

Then they are confused, or you are. The only people who want to control
the future are luddites who want to legislate technology out of
existence. We want the future to happen as it should.

> When ludds say, "who do you think you are?", they
> mean that literally, they mean to say, "what even gives you the right
> to exist, and especially, what gives you the prerogative to strive
>  for unlimited lifespans and in the process change the future to your
> specifications... and even 'own' the future?". They are playing for
> keepsies, they sense the future is up for grabs. And they are
> correct.

Primarily because too many of us see the future as 'inevitable'.
Nothing is inevitable. China turned away from its great age of
exploration by one act of government. It would otherwise have dominated
the planet centuries ago. The Inca banned the wheel. The luddites can
and will choose a new dark age and the deaths of billions in order to
be right.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 21:58:51 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050706215046.94927.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706215851.69302.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nothing is inevitable. China turned away from its
> great age of
> exploration by one act of government. It would
> otherwise have dominated
> the planet centuries ago. The Inca banned the wheel.
> The luddites can
> and will choose a new dark age and the deaths of
> billions in order to
> be right.

And the true irony of it all is that the luddites are
willing to use all of the latest cutting edge
technologies to do so. If you don't believe me, look
at all the luddite blogs and such. They would burn
Prometheus at the stake with the fire he brought them.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul  6 22:08:46 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:08:46 -0700
Subject: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule,
	was: Re: [extropy-chat] give a small window into the military mind
In-Reply-To: <20050706201804.83716.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706201804.83716.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8EE93F21-1A6D-40D5-82CA-10427927E560@mac.com>


On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> This just doesn't wash, Samantha. Firstly, a unit that has 70-97%
> retention has no need of a 'lemming effect'.

It doesn't wash to question the source of a statistic and wait for  
confirmation from other sources before attempting much  
interpretation?  Since when?  Does the administration have a stake in  
persuading the troops that their buds are re-upping.  Of course they  
do.   That alone should call for caution.   How is my early guess  
less valid than your straight out claim that the media has been lying  
to us?   This is the same media that you yourself point out under  
report many things embarrassing to the State.   Doesn't that seem a  
tad out of balance and unjustified to you?


> Secondly, the guy on the
> ground in Iraq should know better than a kid out of high school what
> the trade offs are: he's older and more experienced in both work on  
> the
> outside as well as what is going on in Iraq. It should be easier for a
> recruiter to snowjob a high school kid into enlisting than getting an
> experienced trooper to re-up if things were so bad over there.

The stats on death and injury much less the hideous multi-level  
expense and our questionable reasons for being there don't paint a  
very rosy picture.   Therefore it seems reasonable to me to hold this  
stat somewhat in suspicion and requiring a bit more explanation than  
your apparent leap that things aren't so bad there and the morale is  
great.


> The fact
> that it is the reverse indicates things aren't so bad at all and kids
> here are being lied to by the media.

You cannot legitimately conclude any such thing at this point from  
this one stat.

>
> If the civilian economy were a worse option, then high school kids
> should be signing up more than previously, while experienced troopers
> would be more likely to go civilian because they have more skills and
> experience than a kid out of high school.
>

If they can actually get out.  There is apparently some trouble in  
doing so.

> If the statistics were not accurate, I am positive that liberal
> democrats (and particularly socialist rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) on
> the armed services committees would make the facts known and use it to
> beat a drum of Bush lying.
>

It is early.  Wait and see.

- s


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed Jul  6 22:11:28 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:11:28 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <20050706194036.38707.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050706194036.38707.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507070006230.20984@zeus>

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>A well financed project could
>send twin missions together: one to Mars, the other to Jupiter via
>Tempel, if launched 5 years from now.

Unfortunately, given ordinary space missions design, build and test times,
launching 5 years from now requires the project to start about next week.
The only possibility would be to re-use some previous, tested design and
make some replica, with only minor tweaks.

Alfio


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 23:35:23 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050706215851.69302.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050706233523.4925.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

you've got it right. they sure do. I feel embarrassed
even talking to them at all, feel like a pushy
creature from space who demands, "tell me what is
going on-- what is it you think, what do y'all want?"


> And the true irony of it all is that the luddites
> are
> willing to use all of the latest cutting edge
> technologies to do so. If you don't believe me, look
> at all the luddite blogs and such. They would burn
> Prometheus at the stake with the fire he brought
> them.


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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 01:10:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507070006230.20984@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050707011056.18494.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >A well financed project could
> >send twin missions together: one to Mars, the other to Jupiter via
> >Tempel, if launched 5 years from now.
> 
> Unfortunately, given ordinary space missions design, build and test
> times, launching 5 years from now requires the project to start about
> next week. The only possibility would be to re-use some previous,
> tested design and make some replica, with only minor tweaks.

The Deep Impact mission was designed and built and launched in two
years, and that was a government project with all its paperwork and
bureaucracy.

But you are right, however Bigelow Aerospace has some excellent space
habitat modules http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news.html and the
design for its "Nautilus Moon Cruiser" seems just the ticket. Bigelows
first hab module will be launching on SpaceX's Falcon 5 booster in
November. Their $50 million "Americas Space Prize" deadline is 2010,
which I'm betting Rutan will have won by 2007 or 2008.

If it turns out that a 2011 rendezvous cannot occur, it appears that
Tempel orbits in a 1:2 resonance with Jupiter, which has an 11.86 year
orbit. With Mars having a nearly 2 year orbit, it appears that using
Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen about every 12
years. That amount of time should allow for plenty of private space
development. Once Bigelow's orbital hotels are in operation in 2010, a
moon base is apparently their next step a few years later, which is all
the infrastructure needed to launch missions to Mars and Jupiter in
2023.

In the mean-time, a robotic mission following the same route aboard
Tempel in 2011 would be a good proof-of-concept without requiring as
much logistical support or risk to humans.

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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 02:11:51 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050706215046.94927.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707021151.84823.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I am confused when you write, "as it should". This is the dispute in a nutshell. They think they should be able to leave a 'reasonably natural' future to their descendents. I agree their future wouldn't even be natural to begin with, however their vision of patrimony is lodged in their minds like foundation stone. That is not much of an exaggeration. They want to whelp children, educate them, the children become affluent & have children themselves, the grandparents die off and the younger generations inherit estates used to educate those at the front of the line;
 it's self-perpetuating, so when you write, "We want the future to happen as it should", they agree with you...they merely have a wholly different notion of the future happening "as it should".


Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then they are confused, or you are. The only people who want to control
>the future are luddites who want to legislate technology out of
>existence. We want the future to happen as it should.



		
---------------------------------
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/20050706/da9eeb10/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jul  7 02:21:45 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:21:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050705181757.32738.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E30C156B-DC9B-4599-8BB8-8B2E1B5BF386@bonfireproductions.com>


And since spike made mention on Methusalah's age:

On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>  while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
> for a galactic joyride.


I think you meant Enoch, and only in the Director's Cut.

=)


]3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050706/5a23d376/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Thu Jul  7 02:59:22 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dead
References: <002c01c581e3$630ea2b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<01c301c58263$8b829050$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <004201c5829f$e0fc9df0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com>

> Supposing we have 300,000 able bodies 18-40 yr olds over there. What are 
> the death rates compared to the same population here?

... when you tote this up, don't forget to add the dead Iraqis, as well.

Olga 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 03:22:34 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:22:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <20050707011056.18494.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507070324.j673OfR24052@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> 
> ... it appears that using
> Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen about every 12
> years...
> 
> Mike Lorrey

When you say "using Tempel as a bus" it sounds like you are
somehow riding it, or it is providing something other than
propellant.  If you want to land on Tempel, you have already
provided the delta V to match its orbit.  In that case, you
would end up at its aphelion with or without the comet.  

It isn't clear to me why you would need the comet at all,
unless it is to fill your propellant tanks with 
whatever material available there, probably water, maybe
the methane.  Of course you will still need to come up
with a lot of energy to heat the propellant, which I
am assuming you would do via nuclear fission.  Is that
what you had in mind?

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 03:28:44 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:28:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <E30C156B-DC9B-4599-8BB8-8B2E1B5BF386@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <200507070330.j673UfR24737@tick.javien.com>

On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich
Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments


And since spike made mention on Methusalah's age:

On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:


while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
for a galactic joyride.


I think you meant Enoch, and only in the Director's Cut...




I assumed he meant that wheels within wheels thing
in Ezekiel chapter 1 verses 16 thru 20. 

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 03:51:33 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:51:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <200507070330.j673UfR24737@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200507070353.j673raR27238@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
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:29 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
> 
> On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich
> Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
> 
> 
> And since spike made mention on Methusalah's age:
> 
> On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> 
> while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
> for a galactic joyride.
> 
> 
> I think you meant Enoch, and only in the Director's Cut...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed he meant that wheels within wheels thing
> in Ezekiel chapter 1 verses 16 thru 20.
> 
> spike


Or if he did mean Enoch, he was referring to Genesis
chapter 5 verse 24, whereunto it sayeth:  Enoch
"walked with God; then he was no more for God took him."

I suspect however that what actually happened 
is that Enoch walked, then he was no more, for 
two or three Philistine heatherns took him, and 
whacketh him with a baseball bat, wherefore to 
taketh away his myrrh.

spike







From amara at amara.com  Thu Jul  7 04:27:20 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:27:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
Message-ID: <p06210200bef25d628813@[150.146.134.133]>


Alfio
>Unfortunately, given ordinary space missions design, build and test
>times, launching 5 years from now requires the project to start about
>next week. The only possibility would be to re-use some previous, tested
>design and make some replica, with only minor tweaks.

yes, and often, _at least_ 5 yrs! Parts of the Deep Impact design
go back to CRAF (similar to Cassini's heritage) --> mid 80s-early 90s

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

http://www.beltonspace.com/
Deep Impact: A Large-Scale Active Experiment on a Cometary Nucleus M.F.
A'Hearn, M.J.S. Belton, A. Delamere, and W.H. Blume.Paper accepted for
publication in Space Science Reviews in January 2005.

"The actual heritage of Deep Impact, came in part from an early,
unpublished, concept study led by M. Neugebauer (M.J.S. Belton,
personal communication) for JPL as part of the work for the Comet
Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) mission that was subsequently
cancelled. Although, in that study, a hypersonic impact was not
envisioned. Prior to the selection of Deep Impact by NASA, other
proposals for impact experiments had been rejected on technical
feasibility grounds or have failed.  Since the selection of Deep Impact
by NASA, there have been additional proposals to NASA's Discovery
Program for other types of impact experiments on asteroids."
[...]
"Deep Impact is the eighth mission in NASA's Discovery Program.  It
was proposed and accepted as a partnership between the University of
Maryland, which provides the scientific direction and manages the
science and the outreach, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which manages
the project development and carries out the operations, and Ball
Aerospace and Technologies Corp., which provides the spacecraft and
instruments,other than some components that are provided by JPL. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Usually the work for the "feasibility" (Phase A?) takes years, and
there's no guarantee for selection.

The Deep Impact mission was selected by NASA in 1999.

The Deep Impact 'construction' began in January 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Discovery newsletter: "Discovery Dispatch" September 2000 Volume 1
Number 1

"As the second most recently selected  Discovery mission, Deep Impact
began  work in January 2000 and held System  Requirements and
Conceptual Design  Reviews in May.  The preliminary  spacecraft design
is progressing well, as  the team considers recommendations  made by
the review board and works to  close action items generated at the
review. A number of mission documents have been completed in draft
form."


www.astro.umd.edu/academics/ar00&01.pdf
University of Maryland Department of Astronomy College Park, Maryland
20742 S0002-75379322641-5 This report covers the period 1 October
1999 to 31 August 2001.

5.3.1 Deep Impact The Deep Impact project, a NASA Discovery program
mission under the direction of M. A'Hearn, continued its development.
The major step was completing the Preliminary Design Review and being
confirmed by NASA to proceed into the construction phases. This
mission will deliver a large, high-speed impactor to the nucleus of
comet 9P/ Tempel 1 and observe the results of the impact from the
flyby spacecraft and from Earth scheduled launch, July 2004,
encounter July 2005. Key scientific achievements during the current
year include determining the size of the nucleus using thermal
infrared observations from the Keck telescope effective radius 2.5
km, albedo 4%; effort led by Fernandez, UHawaii and reanalyzing
observations made with IRAS to determine the dust environment for
which shielding must be provided. The IRAS observations show that the
comet is like several other Jupiter-family comets in having a particle
size distribution with a much smaller ratio of small optical
wavelength sized dust to large 10 microns dnd larger dust than do
comets 1P/Halley and others known for their dust output effort led by
Lisse, UMD. See http:// deepimpact.umd.edu. McFadden, with support
from science team members and Gretchen Walker, addressed the number
and wavelengths of filters required to meet science objectives for the
Deep Impact mission, and offered an initial in-flight calibration plan
for the Earth flyby. McFadden hired the Education and Public Outreach
Team including: Stephanie McLaughlin, Gretchen Walker, Elizabeth
Warner, Kathleen Holmay, Gary Emerson and Maura Rountree-Brown. Work
continues on developing the EPO plan. Teacher workshops were developed
and presented at JPL. Research assistants Warner and McLaughlin spread
news about the mission and observing opportunities to amateur
astronomer gatherings including club meetings in Virginia and South
Carolina and star parties in Texas and Wyoming. Stephanie McLaughlin
started and manages the Small Telescope Science Program and continues
the analysis of data received from the program's participants. Since
March 2000, a network of about 40 amateur and professional astronomers
from around the world have been making groundbased, broad-band,
photometric CCD observations of comet 9P/Tempel 1, the target of the
Deep Impact mission. The network participants will continue to observe
the comet through January, 2001, after which they will monitor comets
for other space missions until Tempel 1 returns in 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 04:42:04 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707021151.84823.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707044204.80509.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am confused when you write, "as it should". This
> is the dispute in a nutshell. They think they should
> be able to leave a 'reasonably natural' future to
> their descendents. 

This is a fault of theirs due to their narrow vision
and unreasoning fear. That they choose to think of
technology as "unnatural" speaks volumes. As a
biologist by profession and a naturalist at heart, I
don't see the relevant difference between a motorhome
and the shell of a hermit crab. Is there truly any
meaningful difference between a machine gun and a
tiger's claws or the venom of a spitting cobra? The
very Tao of life is to reconfigure the atoms of the
universe for survival advantage. That the reformed
atoms are incorporated into venom to be secreted by a
creature's body or into the robot another creature has
built in his garage is irrelevant, most especially to
those atoms themselves.
      All the destruction done to nature that is
decried by neo-luddites is not the result of
technology that is unnatural, it is instead the result
of a worldview in which humanity is somehow special
and separate from the nature in which we are imbedded.
That they adhere to this view, yet condemn the
physical manifestations of such artifical conceptual
boundaries is ludicrous. Yes machines can pollute the
environment and kill the fish, but they could also
terraform the whole earth in a tropical paradise. All
that matters is the purpose they are designed to do
fufill.
      That they somehow think that nature is this
precious delicate thing that requires their pathetic
stewardship is very disrespectful of the power and
majesty of nature. This is not to say that there is no
value to preservation of biodiversity but such should
be recognized and acknowledged for what it is:
humanocentricism masquerading as charity. What it
should be is a manifestation of mankind's
understanding that he is mutually interdependent on
the ecosystem in which he lives. If the neo-luddite
had had the misfortune of being born a milkweed plant,
his precious endangered monarch's offspring would
relish feasting upon him without mercy.
      The luddite's every argument is merely the
rationalization of the vague fear he feels in the pit
of his stomach. The fear of change. The fear that
technology will shatter his illusions of autonomy and
security. That he will somehow have to change his
lifestyle in order to survive. I have no pity for the
man foolish enough to want to earn a living by racing
NASCAR on foot.
   
   

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 04:55:44 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <200507070353.j673raR27238@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050707045544.96261.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> Or if he did mean Enoch, he was referring to Genesis
> chapter 5 verse 24, whereunto it sayeth:  Enoch
> "walked with God; then he was no more for God took
> him."
> 
> I suspect however that what actually happened 
> is that Enoch walked, then he was no more, for 
> two or three Philistine heatherns took him, and 
> whacketh him with a baseball bat, wherefore to 
> taketh away his myrrh.
> 
Nay. For though Enoch walked in the Alley of the
Shadow of Muggers it plainly states that he walked
with God. And God was parked nearby. They probably
went to Denny's. ;)


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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 05:26:22 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707044204.80509.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707052622.47432.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Does it derive from subject-object dualism, e.g. "we
are in this world but not of this world"?



 >it is instead the result of a worldview in which
humanity is somehow >special and separate from the
nature in which we are imbedded.


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 07:59:12 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:59:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <20050707011056.18494.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507070006230.20984@zeus>
	<20050707011056.18494.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0507070059648f2d81@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But you are right, however Bigelow Aerospace has some excellent space
> habitat modules http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news.html and the
> design for its "Nautilus Moon Cruiser" seems just the ticket. Bigelows
> first hab module will be launching on SpaceX's Falcon 5 booster in
> November. 

I think it used to be scheduled for November, but after some bumping
of schedules (partially due to launch range conflicts between SpaceX's
Falcon I and the Air Force's Titan IV), the first launch of the Falcon
V (carrying Bigelow's prototype hab module) is the second quarter of
2006:

http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=falcon&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/falcon_overview.php
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=updates&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/updates.php

I'm actually a little skeptical of even this launch date, as the first
launch of the Falcon I is late September. ~6 months seems like an
awfully short time to go from a rocket with one first-stage engine to
a rocket with five such engines. I would love to be pleasantly
surprised, though.

> Their $50 million "Americas Space Prize" deadline is 2010,
> which I'm betting Rutan will have won by 2007 or 2008.

I'm not so sure about that -- Rutan seems plenty busy with other
projects at the moment. I'd pin my money on SpaceX (which has already
announced their intention to compete for the ASP), or -maybe- a team
with SpaceX building the rocket and Rutan building a reentry vehicle
as payload.

> If it turns out that a 2011 rendezvous cannot occur, it appears that
> Tempel orbits in a 1:2 resonance with Jupiter, which has an 11.86 year
> orbit. With Mars having a nearly 2 year orbit, it appears that using
> Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen about every 12
> years. That amount of time should allow for plenty of private space
> development. Once Bigelow's orbital hotels are in operation in 2010, a
> moon base is apparently their next step a few years later, which is all
> the infrastructure needed to launch missions to Mars and Jupiter in
> 2023.

Exciting times. In case anyone hasn't seen the recent PopSci articles
on Bigelow's projects, here are some links:

"The Five-Billion-Star Hotel"
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027551,00.html

"Low-Earth Orbit, and Beyond: Preview Bigelow's moon cruiser and
corporate space yacht"
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027555,00.html


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 08:27:28 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707052622.47432.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707082728.65921.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Does it derive from subject-object dualism, e.g. "we
> are in this world but not of this world"?
> 
> 
Yes, precisely. It stems from basic instincts of
survival and primitive notions of self and is
reinforced in large part by a western religion that
teaches two very damaging notions. One being that this
world and life are a necessarily temporary. The other
being that we are above, better than, and separate
from everything that flies, swims, or crawls this
world with us. A biologist can see the primordial worm
in our genes and there are saints and villians amongst
the dolphins too. If we differ in any fundamental way
from the other creatures it is in that we have minds.
And then, only to the extent of quantity as opposed to
some difference of qualia. Thus a simple bacterium, by
possesing a system of restriction enzymes that can
recognize foreign gene sequences from invading DNA
such as viruses and transposons and destroy them, can
be said to hold a rudimentary biochemical notion of
"self". And by swimming away from a drop of vinegar
can be said to exhibit an "instinct" for survival or a
"fear" of death. Truly Dawkins needed no disclaimer by
way of excuse for ascribing anthropomorphic motives to
genes . Genes do not just seem to be selfish, they
really ARE selfish. Just like a cockroach does not
just seem to fear death, a cockroach DOES fear death. 

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 giogavir at yahoo.it  Thu Jul  7 10:38:28 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:38:28 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0507070059648f2d81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050707103828.8776.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

unfortunately Bigelow's design has a major flaw
by laying the floors parallel to the cylinder it will
not allow artificial gravity and is not optimizing the
interior space
to do that the best solution is to lay the floors
perpendiculat to the cylinder, connect the modules
with a ring structure that will allow future expansion
and additional modules and rotate around a central
hub, connected with spikes to the circular ring
For future utilization anext generation space station
or space hotel must bre provided with some sort of
artificial gravity to avoid most negative effects of
zero G situation
--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> ha
scritto: 

> On 7/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But you are right, however Bigelow Aerospace has
> some excellent space
> > habitat modules
> http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news.html and the
> > design for its "Nautilus Moon Cruiser" seems just
> the ticket. Bigelows
> > first hab module will be launching on SpaceX's
> Falcon 5 booster in
> > November. 
> 
> I think it used to be scheduled for November, but
> after some bumping
> of schedules (partially due to launch range
> conflicts between SpaceX's
> Falcon I and the Air Force's Titan IV), the first
> launch of the Falcon
> V (carrying Bigelow's prototype hab module) is the
> second quarter of
> 2006:
> 
>
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=falcon&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/falcon_overview.php
>
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=updates&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/updates.php
> 
> I'm actually a little skeptical of even this launch
> date, as the first
> launch of the Falcon I is late September. ~6 months
> seems like an
> awfully short time to go from a rocket with one
> first-stage engine to
> a rocket with five such engines. I would love to be
> pleasantly
> surprised, though.
> 
> > Their $50 million "Americas Space Prize" deadline
> is 2010,
> > which I'm betting Rutan will have won by 2007 or
> 2008.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that -- Rutan seems plenty
> busy with other
> projects at the moment. I'd pin my money on SpaceX
> (which has already
> announced their intention to compete for the ASP),
> or -maybe- a team
> with SpaceX building the rocket and Rutan building a
> reentry vehicle
> as payload.
> 
> > If it turns out that a 2011 rendezvous cannot
> occur, it appears that
> > Tempel orbits in a 1:2 resonance with Jupiter,
> which has an 11.86 year
> > orbit. With Mars having a nearly 2 year orbit, it
> appears that using
> > Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen
> about every 12
> > years. That amount of time should allow for plenty
> of private space
> > development. Once Bigelow's orbital hotels are in
> operation in 2010, a
> > moon base is apparently their next step a few
> years later, which is all
> > the infrastructure needed to launch missions to
> Mars and Jupiter in
> > 2023.
> 
> Exciting times. In case anyone hasn't seen the
> recent PopSci articles
> on Bigelow's projects, here are some links:
> 
> "The Five-Billion-Star Hotel"
>
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027551,00.html
> 
> "Low-Earth Orbit, and Beyond: Preview Bigelow's moon
> cruiser and
> corporate space yacht"
>
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027555,00.html
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul  7 14:17:58 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:17:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with neo-Darwinism
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have realized it's 
not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn that divinely directed 
evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus genetics is just plain wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

July 7, 2005


Finding Design in Nature

By CHRISTOPH SCH?NBORN [Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was 
the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.]

Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did 
not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian 
dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence 
- of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow 
compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many 
details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of 
reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and 
design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in 
the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random 
variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies 
or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is 
ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague 
and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, 
we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that 
represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar 
conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to 
determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal 
finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a 
direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to 
suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, 
some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To 
speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization 
in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent 
to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to 
us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. 
It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to 
think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term 
synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another 
general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the 
truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of 
materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an 
evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: 
"Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the 
question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with 
certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We 
believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the 
product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists 
recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied 
evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 
document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that 
Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the 
Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by 
mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the 
Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the 
widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission 
cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all 
theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which 
explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the 
development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process 
- one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot 
exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict 
proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. 
Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of 
us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by 
Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd 
position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th 
century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the 
"death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know 
the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the 
philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like 
neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid 
the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, 
the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the 
immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to 
explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and 
necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an 
abdication of human intelligence.




From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jul  7 15:36:56 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu,  7 Jul 2005 11:36:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-F3DA525EEEFC11D9948A000393A47D36@[70.7.217.174]>

 (7/7/05 9:17) Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

>Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have realized it's 
>not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn that divinely directed 
>evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus genetics is just plain wrong:


I recall that we had an argument about whether the Catholic church truly accepted evolutionary science about 18 months ago or so.  I hope that the apologists for the Catholic Church here note this. 

In more amusing news, this puts the fundamentalists here in a fun position, since they widely consider the Catholic Church to be 'unChristian.'  Maybe this will temper their support for 'intelligent design?'  We could only be so lucky....


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 18:21:56 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:21:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605070711215b05eefe@mail.gmail.com>

The priest wrote:

....the Catholic Church will again defend human reason.... 
 ### Do you notice that he is trying to fit into an intellectual framework 
defined in opposition to the Church a long time ago? He is bending over 
backwards to accomodate the rhetoric of science, rather than arrogantly 
dismiss it, as the likes of him would have done not a long time ago.
 This is nice: he is not playing on his turf, and his turf is no longer as 
big as it used to be. One day there may be none left.
 Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050707/8e04e689/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul  7 18:46:12 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:46:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible
	with	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605070711215b05eefe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<7641ddc605070711215b05eefe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707134300.01ce8858@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:21 PM 7/7/2005 -0500, Rafal wrote:

>The [Cardinal] wrote:
>
>....the Catholic Church will again defend human reason....
>
>### Do you notice that he is trying to fit into an intellectual framework 
>defined in opposition to the Church a long time ago? He is bending over 
>backwards to accomodate the rhetoric of science

I don't think so. His language is pure Thomist Aristoteleanism (final 
causes, etc). Science of a 2350-year-old sort, but not as we know it, Jim.

Damien Broderick



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul  7 18:51:26 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:51:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <64F76938-508F-45A9-BA62-58E56CC7AF69@mac.com>

As disgusting as this is, where exactly does it dismiss genetics or  
evolution plus genetics?   Genetics is the ultimate proof of common  
ancestry and relationshiip among species.  It is also the means by  
which change comes about.   But I don't see where the screed denies  
genetics per se.

- samantha

On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have  
> realized it's not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn  
> that divinely directed evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus  
> genetics is just plain wrong:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html? 
> th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
>
> July 7, 2005
>
>
> Finding Design in Nature
>
> By CHRISTOPH SCH?NBORN [Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of  
> Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the  
> Catholic Church.]
>
> Vienna
>
> EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term  
> he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of  
> neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or  
> at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they  
> defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
>
> But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science  
> many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by  
> the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly  
> discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the  
> world of living things.
>
> Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but  
> evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned  
> process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any  
> system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the  
> overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
>
> Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his  
> rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always  
> and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from  
> a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
>
> "All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a  
> similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which  
> science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism,  
> presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This  
> finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not  
> responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is  
> its inventor, its creator."
>
> He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the  
> Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper  
> mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which  
> presents such a complex organization in its elements and such  
> marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the  
> search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In  
> fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a  
> cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus  
> refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
>
> Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical  
> term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at  
> another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is  
> clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed  
> to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos  
> as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance  
> and necessity."
>
> Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church  
> agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a  
> response to the question of origins. The existence of God the  
> Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light  
> of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world  
> according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity  
> whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
>
> In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists  
> recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a  
> satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common  
> ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological  
> Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the  
> commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem  
> with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists -  
> that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
>
> The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial  
> teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in  
> nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996  
> letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter  
> cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of  
> evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which  
> explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the  
> development of life in the universe."
>
> Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary  
> process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence -  
> simply cannot exist."
>
> Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago,  
> Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless  
> product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.  
> Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
>
> Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith  
> given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church  
> is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as  
> well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world  
> newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason  
> alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause,  
> the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
>
> Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific  
> claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in  
> cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose  
> and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again  
> defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident  
> in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the  
> appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are  
> not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of  
> human intelligence.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul  7 19:02:17 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:02:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible
	with	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <64F76938-508F-45A9-BA62-58E56CC7AF69@mac.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<64F76938-508F-45A9-BA62-58E56CC7AF69@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707135802.01c73aa0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:51 AM 7/7/2005 -0700, samantha wrote:

>As disgusting as this is, where exactly does it dismiss genetics or
>evolution plus genetics?

I wrote

>Darwin plus genetics

Would it have helped if I'd written [Darwin(contest of phenotypes)+genetics 
(heritable punctate genotypes)] as my explication of `neo-Darwinism'?

The Cardinal catechist wrote:

>defenders of
>>neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or
>>at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they
>>defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
>>
>>But this is not true.



From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jul  7 19:22:35 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:22:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42CD80FB.4030107@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have realized 
> it's not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn that divinely 
> directed evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus genetics is just plain 
> wrong:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print 
> 
> EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he 
> did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of 
> neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at 
> least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their 
> theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
> 
> But this is not true.

As indeed it is not.  The Judeo-Christian origin myth is no more compatible 
with Darwinism than it is with the Standard Model of the Big Bang.

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 19:47:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707021151.84823.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707194721.29506.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"As it should" means without government bans on technology. The
development and progress of the human race along its natural track
includes technology, for we are technological creatures through and
through. Nature is about change. What luddites want is unnatural stasis
at a specific level of development.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am confused when you write, "as it should". This is the dispute in
> a nutshell. They think they should be able to leave a 'reasonably
> natural' future to their descendents. I agree their future wouldn't
> even be natural to begin with, however their vision of patrimony is
> lodged in their minds like foundation stone. That is not much of an
> exaggeration. They want to whelp children, educate them, the children
> become affluent & have children themselves, the grandparents die off
> and the younger generations inherit estates used to educate those at
> the front of the line;
>  it's self-perpetuating, so when you write, "We want the future to
> happen as it should", they agree with you...they merely have a wholly
> different notion of the future happening "as it should".
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Then they are confused, or you are. The only people who want to
> control
> >the future are luddites who want to legislate technology out of
> >existence. We want the future to happen as it should.
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.>
_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul  7 19:53:13 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <E30C156B-DC9B-4599-8BB8-8B2E1B5BF386@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050707195313.38555.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> And since spike made mention on Methusalah's age:
> 
> On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >  while the angels allegedly took Ezekiel
> > for a galactic joyride.
> 
> 
> I think you meant Enoch, and only in the Director's Cut.

No, although Enoch was also taken up by God, although his grandson,
Noah, was also originally named Enoch. There is, however, a celebrated
section of Ezekiel in which he is visited by beings in vehicles that
had "wheels within wheels" that arrived in clouds of fire and thunder,
which allegedly brought him up to a heavenly visit. UFO nutters like
Von Daniken and Berlitz assert it as evidence of ancient Close
Encounters with aliens.

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 20:07:15 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <64F76938-508F-45A9-BA62-58E56CC7AF69@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050707200715.97730.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> As disgusting as this is, where exactly does it
> dismiss genetics or  
> evolution plus genetics?   Genetics is the ultimate
> proof of common  
> ancestry and relationshiip among species.  It is
> also the means by  
> which change comes about.   But I don't see where
> the screed denies  
> genetics per se.
> 

Maybe its implied by him not resembling his father?


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 Jul  7 20:18:14 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <42CD80FB.4030107@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050707201814.72335.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> As indeed it is not.  The Judeo-Christian origin
> myth is no more compatible 
> with Darwinism than it is with the Standard Model of
> the Big Bang.

If you actually believe that the myth is literally
true then you are right they are not compatible. But
if you look it as a myth, then they are compatible.
Just like Batman and Darwin are compitable in the
sense that neither Darwin nor Batman contradict one
another.


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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 20:23:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dirk . . . are you alright?
Message-ID: <20050707202301.1506.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey Dirk,

I heard about the terrorist bombing this morning in
London. I hope you and yours as well as any other
Extro-Brits are safe.

Peace,


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  Thu Jul  7 20:36:57 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:36:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dirk . . . are you alright?
In-Reply-To: <20050707202301.1506.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050707202301.1506.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CD9269.4010503@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>Hey Dirk,
>
>I heard about the terrorist bombing this morning in
>London. I hope you and yours as well as any other
>Extro-Brits are safe.
>
>  
>
I'm OK thanks.
I'm far more likely to be killed on London's roads than I am in any 
bombings.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 06/07/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 21:12:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <200507070324.j673OfR24052@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050707211257.7391.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> > 
> > ... it appears that using
> > Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen about every 12
> > years...
> > 
> > Mike Lorrey
> 
> When you say "using Tempel as a bus" it sounds like you are
> somehow riding it, or it is providing something other than
> propellant.  If you want to land on Tempel, you have already
> provided the delta V to match its orbit.  In that case, you
> would end up at its aphelion with or without the comet.  
> 
> It isn't clear to me why you would need the comet at all,
> unless it is to fill your propellant tanks with 
> whatever material available there, probably water, maybe
> the methane.  Of course you will still need to come up
> with a lot of energy to heat the propellant, which I
> am assuming you would do via nuclear fission.  Is that
> what you had in mind?

The evidence from the impactor is that exposure of the subsurface to
sunlight is sufficient to evaporate significant quantities of material.
The surface layer of dust is somewhere between 1-10 meters thick.
Sinking well bores into the ice and heating them with solar energy
should be sufficient to develop a significant flow of fluid at low
pressure (<100 milibars). 

The water could be electrolyized over a 2 year period by an SP-100
class reactor on the journey outward into its constituents, and useful
organics can be distilled out of solution prior to electrolysis to
provide other fuels. (ethane, methanol, and acetylene are all useful)
The mission might choose to leave significant stores of purified fuels,
along with the purification equipment, on the comet for future missions
lacking in refining equipment.

Tempel reaches perhilion about 20 million miles from Jupiter orbit, so
the extra delta v gained by refuelling for that jump won't need to be
boosted from Earth or refined from  lunar materials. The scienfic gains
of spending time examining the comet in depth on the surface will also
pay significant dividends (plus providing the ability to lay claim to
its resources for the venture that lands on it first).

Getting to Jupiter is only a small part of the necessary delta-v for
the whole mission, maybe 30-40% at most. You need to brake into Jupiter
orbit, then escape again from Jupiter orbit, then brake all the way
down on return to Earth orbit, otherwise you'll be showing up near
earth with at least 30,000 mph of velocity, plus the 25,000 you'll be
picking up as you fall into earth's gravity well..

Here is the delta-v budget for the mission:

Leaving Lunar orbit: ~3.4 km/s - escape from Earth/Moon system
Trip to Tempel perhilion:  8 km/s   - climbing up the Sun's gravity
well to rendesvous point
Landing on Tempel: ~10.5 km/s - Must match Tempel velocity, about 23k
mph faster. 

Everthing below this point comes from refueling on Tempel and possibly
other locations:
Transferring from Tempel orbit to Jupiter-Sun orbit: 5.1 km/s
Entering orbit around Jupiter: up to 49 km/s (aerobraking and gravity
assist should contribute to this)
Orbital maneuvering around Jovian system: undetermined, this may
involve landing on one or more small ice moons to refuel again.
Escaping Jupiter orbit: up to 49 km/s (gravity assist should contribute
to this)
Return to Earth/moon system: 27 km/s

Refueling at Tempel will make such a mission possible. Using Mars as a
gravity assist to help reach Tempel is also a possibility, as is using
it to assist in braking the return to Luna orbit. Return trip after
escaping Jupiter would be primarily by braking with solar sail.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 21:19:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments
In-Reply-To: <20050707045544.96261.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707211954.61095.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Or if he did mean Enoch, he was referring to Genesis
> > chapter 5 verse 24, whereunto it sayeth:  Enoch
> > "walked with God; then he was no more for God took
> > him."
> > 
> > I suspect however that what actually happened 
> > is that Enoch walked, then he was no more, for 
> > two or three Philistine heatherns took him, and 
> > whacketh him with a baseball bat, wherefore to 
> > taketh away his myrrh.
> > 
> Nay. For though Enoch walked in the Alley of the
> Shadow of Muggers it plainly states that he walked
> with God. And God was parked nearby. They probably
> went to Denny's. ;)

This was also prior to the Flood, so Philistines were not yet even a
twinkle in the eye or a stain on Phil's toga.

Enoch, though, sounds to me like he used to walk around talking to his
invisible friend, i.e. he was likely suffering from a mild form of
Tourettes or was schizophrenic, then fell into a fugue state and a
coma. At least his grand-kid was productive and built a big gopherwood
box when his invisible friend told him to...

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 21:21:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707052622.47432.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707212103.61525.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

It might, but curiously, such dualism contradicts the "we are the
world" claims of their new agey environmentalist worldview.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Does it derive from subject-object dualism, e.g. "we
> are in this world but not of this world"?
> 
> 
> 
>  >it is instead the result of a worldview in which
> humanity is somehow >special and separate from the
> nature in which we are imbedded.
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
> http://auctions.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
"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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 21:30:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Deep Impact shows strong spectral lines...
In-Reply-To: <20050707103828.8776.qmail@web26204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707213005.14196.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Making a spinning hub with four hab modules rotating around it
shouldn't be difficult. The floor plan in the pics is just an artists
rendition, it is apparently quite flexible. A spin hub would be
necessary for a Mars or Jupiter mission, but isn't for Bigelow's plans
in and around the Earth/Moon system.

However, spinning may not be strictly necessary, so long as a track is
available around the interior circumference, they can run around it and
create their own personal gravity, just like the Skylab astronauts did.

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:

> unfortunately Bigelow's design has a major flaw
> by laying the floors parallel to the cylinder it will
> not allow artificial gravity and is not optimizing the
> interior space
> to do that the best solution is to lay the floors
> perpendiculat to the cylinder, connect the modules
> with a ring structure that will allow future expansion
> and additional modules and rotate around a central
> hub, connected with spikes to the circular ring
> For future utilization anext generation space station
> or space hotel must bre provided with some sort of
> artificial gravity to avoid most negative effects of
> zero G situation
> --- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> ha
> scritto: 
> 
> > On 7/6/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > But you are right, however Bigelow Aerospace has
> > some excellent space
> > > habitat modules
> > http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news.html and the
> > > design for its "Nautilus Moon Cruiser" seems just
> > the ticket. Bigelows
> > > first hab module will be launching on SpaceX's
> > Falcon 5 booster in
> > > November. 
> > 
> > I think it used to be scheduled for November, but
> > after some bumping
> > of schedules (partially due to launch range
> > conflicts between SpaceX's
> > Falcon I and the Air Force's Titan IV), the first
> > launch of the Falcon
> > V (carrying Bigelow's prototype hab module) is the
> > second quarter of
> > 2006:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=falcon&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/falcon_overview.php
> >
>
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=updates&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/updates.php
> > 
> > I'm actually a little skeptical of even this launch
> > date, as the first
> > launch of the Falcon I is late September. ~6 months
> > seems like an
> > awfully short time to go from a rocket with one
> > first-stage engine to
> > a rocket with five such engines. I would love to be
> > pleasantly
> > surprised, though.
> > 
> > > Their $50 million "Americas Space Prize" deadline
> > is 2010,
> > > which I'm betting Rutan will have won by 2007 or
> > 2008.
> > 
> > I'm not so sure about that -- Rutan seems plenty
> > busy with other
> > projects at the moment. I'd pin my money on SpaceX
> > (which has already
> > announced their intention to compete for the ASP),
> > or -maybe- a team
> > with SpaceX building the rocket and Rutan building a
> > reentry vehicle
> > as payload.
> > 
> > > If it turns out that a 2011 rendezvous cannot
> > occur, it appears that
> > > Tempel orbits in a 1:2 resonance with Jupiter,
> > which has an 11.86 year
> > > orbit. With Mars having a nearly 2 year orbit, it
> > appears that using
> > > Tempel as a bus for an orbital transfer can happen
> > about every 12
> > > years. That amount of time should allow for plenty
> > of private space
> > > development. Once Bigelow's orbital hotels are in
> > operation in 2010, a
> > > moon base is apparently their next step a few
> > years later, which is all
> > > the infrastructure needed to launch missions to
> > Mars and Jupiter in
> > > 2023.
> > 
> > Exciting times. In case anyone hasn't seen the
> > recent PopSci articles
> > on Bigelow's projects, here are some links:
> > 
> > "The Five-Billion-Star Hotel"
> >
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027551,00.html
> > 
> > "Low-Earth Orbit, and Beyond: Preview Bigelow's moon
> > cruiser and
> > corporate space yacht"
> >
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1027555,00.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> 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 xander25 at adelphia.net  Thu Jul  7 15:33:29 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:33:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707082728.65921.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050707082728.65921.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CD4B49.80507@adelphia.net>

The duality exists in science as well, or more precisely the application
of it.  Science consists of learning about the universe, and the laws
inherent in it.  It's application consists mainly of using those laws to
benefit mankind.  Flight goes against gravity, so do rocket boosters. 
You can't control the world unless you are, to some extent, apart from
it (which our minds separate us from it).  The duality exists where you
recognize that the human mind is itself natural.  It exists within the
natural world, where human beings do.  I, for one, fail to see how this
is a damaging concept.  It on one hand teaches us responsibility, and on
the other allows progress to take place.  There's a contradiction here
that if you analyze more closely points to one conclusion.  Human beings
exist, humans have brains, brains help the human understand how the
universe works, this allows the human to control the universe, this also
comes with responsibility that if we accept we also becomes the
caretakers of this universe.  Transhumanism can't exist in a world which
insists that we are no more than the sum of our parts, with no potential
to advance passed that.  I am, therefore I think.

--jb

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Does it derive from subject-object dualism, e.g. "we
>>are in this world but not of this world"?
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>Yes, precisely. It stems from basic instincts of
>survival and primitive notions of self and is
>reinforced in large part by a western religion that
>teaches two very damaging notions. One being that this
>world and life are a necessarily temporary. The other
>being that we are above, better than, and separate
>from everything that flies, swims, or crawls this
>world with us. A biologist can see the primordial worm
>in our genes and there are saints and villians amongst
>the dolphins too. If we differ in any fundamental way
>from the other creatures it is in that we have minds.
>And then, only to the extent of quantity as opposed to
>some difference of qualia. Thus a simple bacterium, by
>possesing a system of restriction enzymes that can
>recognize foreign gene sequences from invading DNA
>such as viruses and transposons and destroy them, can
>be said to hold a rudimentary biochemical notion of
>"self". And by swimming away from a drop of vinegar
>can be said to exhibit an "instinct" for survival or a
>"fear" of death. Truly Dawkins needed no disclaimer by
>way of excuse for ascribing anthropomorphic motives to
>genes . Genes do not just seem to be selfish, they
>really ARE selfish. Just like a cockroach does not
>just seem to fear death, a cockroach DOES fear death. 
>
>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 
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 21:35:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-F3DA525EEEFC11D9948A000393A47D36@[70.7.217.174]>
Message-ID: <20050707213538.24299.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/7/05 9:17) Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have
> realized it's 
> >not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn that divinely
> directed 
> >evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus genetics is just plain
> wrong:
> 
> 
> I recall that we had an argument about whether the Catholic church
> truly accepted evolutionary science about 18 months ago or so.  I
> hope that the apologists for the Catholic Church here note this. 
> 
> In more amusing news, this puts the fundamentalists here in a fun
> position, since they widely consider the Catholic Church to be
> 'unChristian.'  Maybe this will temper their support for 'intelligent
> design?'  We could only be so lucky....

It wouldn't. Fundamentalists accuse the Church of being the house of
the Whore of Babylon, i.e. the representative of Satan on earth. Satan
and his reps may be unchristian, but they would still believe in the
validity of God and his design, of which they are a part...

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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 22:01:32 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707212103.61525.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707220132.7943.qmail@web34401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I was referring to the Christian doctrine of being in this world not of it... Xians think God gave us stewardship of His creation on earth. Xians are 'we are the world' new age environmentalists? Since when? Is this a new twist?

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:It might, but curiously, such dualism contradicts the "we are the
world" claims of their new agey environmentalist worldview.



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050707/f864d5fc/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 22:05:27 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707194721.29506.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707220527.87051.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Agreed. But this is our interpretation, not theirs. There is no common ground.


 
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
"As it should" means without government bans on technology. The
development and progress of the human race along its natural track
includes technology, for we are technological creatures through and
through. Nature is about change.
		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050707/ab2f1020/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 23:00:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707220132.7943.qmail@web34401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707230008.85159.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Oh, there are plenty of christian environmentalists, but the
contradiction was the point: the luddites are generally monists when it
comes to their environmental theology, but dualists when it comes to
applying it politically.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I was referring to the Christian doctrine of being in this world not
> of it... Xians think God gave us stewardship of His creation on
> earth. Xians are 'we are the world' new age environmentalists? Since
> when? Is this a new twist?
> 
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:It might, but curiously, such
> dualism contradicts the "we are the
> world" claims of their new agey environmentalist worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.>
_______________________________________________
> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 23:31:20 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707212103.61525.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050707233120.15907.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> It might, but curiously, such dualism contradicts
> the "we are the
> world" claims of their new agey environmentalist
> worldview.
> 

     But if they truly believed their own claims, then
they would realize that we and our technology are as
natural as any other species that has evolved to the
point of out-competing other species. If they truly
believed that "we are the world" and they truly
understood the world, and thereby themselves, then
they would embrace change knowing that the world
always has and will continue to change, transform, and
evolve.

      Their contention, that the best relationship we
can have with nature is to completely "let it be" and
refrain from making any change or impact to our
ecosystem, is moronic. It essentially asserts that the
best way to mind the baby is to take off to Vegas and
leave the baby it to its own devices. In this, the
average green-luddite seems to think that the most
responsible method of stewardship of the planet is to
essentially mimic inanimate objects that are sort of
"just there" and try not to actually have any kind of
effect on our environment. Whereas even the lowly
tse-tse fly or anthrax bacterium unabashedly make huge
impacts on ecosystems in a thoroughly selfish manner.
One of the funniest jokes nature pulled on those guys
is all the damage that elephants in Kenya are doing to
trees crucial for the "preservation" of the
surrounding ecosystem. They were the ones that pushed
so hard to prevent the hunting of elephants and now
their beloved endangered species is deforesting the
state parks and killing a thousand other species. They
are mortified and confused as their philosophy of
non-interference is resulting in an ecological
"disaster" and nature is laughing at them.  For all
their talk of being "new-age" their philosophy of
luddism is no more legitimate, enlightened, or
well-reasoned than the luddites that think God will
punish us for using technology.  
  
    It bugs me when they make such a fuss
distinguishing between "organic" produce and GM
produce. As if somehow genetically engineered tomatoes
are not truly alive. In my paradigm if something is
not inorganic (i.e. composed of minerals and compounds
not containing carbon) it is by definition organic. If
they want so bad to distinguish their farming methods
from those afforded by technology, they should just
call them "primitive" or something a bit more accurate
instead of bastardizing a technically precise
scientific term.

     It also irks me to no end when I see some trendy
Hollywood starlet who goes on TV on behalf of PETA or
some such to condemn me for using mice in my
biomedical research. What truly drives me to
distraction is that, short of being prevented from
roaming where they will, those mice live exceedingly
well for mice. Are the starlets' houses teeming with
vermin due to their passionate beliefs and activism on
the part of furry rodents? Or do they set mouse traps
and call exterminators to kill them? Hell the
neighboring lab actually supplies their mice with
several hundreds of dollars worth of cocaine on a
weekly basis. 

     If you were a mouse how would you choose to live?
In the lap of luxury where surplus food and water (and
sometimes cocaine) were provided and you were
guaranteed numerous opportunities to mate and your
offspring were likewise well cared for, at the expense
of having experiments performed on you? Or in the cold
sterility of the starlett's house where there are
traps, poisons, and predators like the starlett's cat
and your chances of surviving long enough to find an
attractive mouse of the opposite sex were extremely
slim? If the starlet was not a hypocrite, she should
set up her home as a mouse sanctuary. Until then, she
should contemplate the fate of her own mice and not
mine.

      Worry not my fellow extropes, if the luddites
seem to have an advantage now, it is only temporary.
For as you may have noticed, the dinosaurs had their
day in the sun but then those that refused to become
birds are no more. Such is nature's decree and their
dodoism will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their
worry of being "replaced" by machines fuels their fear
of change. Their fear of change manifests itself as a
refusal to adapt. Their refusal to adapt virtually
guarantees that in a rapidly changing environment,
they will be replaced, if not by machines, then by us
and our offspring. Like a deer caught in someone's
headlights, they are paralyzed by their fear of the
oncoming future and will suffer similar consequences. 
 

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 sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul  8 01:07:58 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:07:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism
In-Reply-To: <20050707213538.24299.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050707213538.24299.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CDD1EE.6020609@pobox.com>

I think RK Milholland says it best.  I feel much the same way - about the 
"really impressed" part, that is.

http://www.newgolddreams.com/ngd8.shtml

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


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jul  8 01:36:46 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:06:46 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
Message-ID: <710b78fc0507071836742e6906@mail.gmail.com>

"Why Australians will never be prosperous"

Media Release (1 page):
http://www.tai.org.au/MediaReleases_Files/MediaReleases/PR%20Prosperity.pdf

Full Paper (longer):
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Prosperity%20webpaper%204.pdf

This is from the Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/), no idea
about their credibility, but check out their website, there's plenty
of detail.

Except of interest from the media release:
"The results show that the proportion of Australians who
indicate they are totally satisfied with life overall declines as
income increases; 21 per cent
of those in the lowest income group say they are totally satisfied
while only 13 per cent of
those in the highest income group feel the same way. Overall life
satisfaction is little
affected by differences in wealth."

-- 
Emlyn

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


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 02:24:30 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050707230008.85159.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050708022431.36817.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

okay, now I get it.

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

> Oh, there are plenty of christian environmentalists,
> but the
> contradiction was the point: the luddites are
> generally monists when it
> comes to their environmental theology, but dualists
> when it comes to
> applying it politically.



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Jul  8 02:38:31 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:38:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
References: <710b78fc0507071836742e6906@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003101c58366$21e229e0$3e893cd1@pavilion>

I thought I heard or read of similar claims with Americans?  I don't
think a declining satisfaction will stop most people from chasing after
wealth.

Regards,

Dan



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jul  8 09:23:52 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:23:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0507071836742e6906@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0507071836742e6906@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05070802234390fcfe@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/8/05, Emlyn wrote:
> "The results show that the proportion of Australians who
> indicate they are totally satisfied with life overall declines as
> income increases; 21 per cent
> of those in the lowest income group say they are totally satisfied
> while only 13 per cent of
> those in the highest income group feel the same way. Overall life
> satisfaction is little
> affected by differences in wealth."
> 

One of the best known quality of life surveys is the annual Economist review.
<http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005>

pdf file for more detail:
<http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf>

They say that there are many more factors than money in giving people
life satisfaction. In general, within a country more money will make
people happier, but not that much. Double your income doesn't come
near twice as happy!

For example, the UK ranks 29th in the world - well below its rank on
income per person and bottom among the EU countries. Social and family
breakdown is high, offsetting the impact of high incomes and low
unemployment.

Australia ranks 6th in the world and all the countries above have
colder climates. So the beach and barbie lifestyle sounds best to me.
;)

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jul  8 15:40:35 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:40:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708104024.01d225a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Britain 2002:

Child pedestrians:
Killed  79
Killed or seriously injured  2,828

Adult pedestrians:
Killed 696
Killed or seriously injured  5,803

Motorcyclists and passengers:
Killed 609
Killed or seriously injured 7,500

Car drivers and passengers:
Killed 1,747
Killed or seriously injured 18,728 



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jul  8 16:24:27 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:24:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708104024.01d225a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708104024.01d225a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05070809241285d8e0@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/8/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Britain 2002:
> 
> Child pedestrians:
> Killed  79
> Killed or seriously injured  2,828
> 
> Adult pedestrians:
> Killed 696
> Killed or seriously injured  5,803
> 
> Motorcyclists and passengers:
> Killed 609
> Killed or seriously injured 7,500
> 
> Car drivers and passengers:
> Killed 1,747
> Killed or seriously injured 18,728
> 

People overreact emotionally to disasters and are very poor at risk
analysis. And you won't get any thanks for pointing this out. You
cruel, heartless, calculating monster!  ;)

Look at the panic about shark attacks in Florida in the news.
(About ten people annually are killed by sharks worldwide).

Try telling them that 9/11 deaths are similar to monthly U.S. traffic
fatalities.
Compare the road safety budgets with homeland security budgets. 

9/11 fatalities were several to ten times fewer than annual deaths
from falls (in the home or workplace), or from suicide, or from
homicide.

Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the worst or most unfair
societal predicaments, homeland security budgets soar.

In the UK we will probably have huge spending on nonsensical security
measures now, just like in the US..

BillK


From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Jul  8 16:53:33 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 18:53:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wiring the Brain at the Nanoscale
Message-ID: <470a3c520507080953320bfbc3@mail.gmail.com>

This NSF press release<http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104288&org=NSF&from=news>describes
nanowires in blood vessels which may help monitor and stimulate
neurons in the brain. Some day, nanowires routed to the brain through the 
circulatory system may help patients.
Working with platinum nanowires 100 times thinner than a human hair--and 
using blood vessels as conduits to guide the wires--a team of U.S. and 
Japanese researchers has demonstrated a technique that may one day allow 
doctors to monitor individual brain cells and perhaps provide new treatments 
for neurological diseases such as Parkinson's.
Writing in the July 5, 2005, online issue of The Journal of Nanoparticle 
Research, the researchers explain it is becoming feasible to create 
nanowires far thinner than even the tiniest capillary vessels. That means 
nanowires could, in principle, be threaded through the circulatory system to 
any point in the body without blocking the normal flow of blood or 
interfering with the exchange of gasses and nutrients through the 
blood-vessel walls.
The team describes a proof-of-principle experiment in which they first 
guided platinum nanowires into the vascular system of tissue samples, and 
then successfully used the wires to detect the activity of individual 
neurons lying adjacent to the blood vessels.
"Nanotechnology is becoming one of the brightest stars in the medical and 
cognitive sciences," said Mike Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at 
the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funded the research.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050708/4e62e0ac/attachment.html>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Jul  8 17:16:48 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:16:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
Message-ID: <1120843008.27185@whirlwind.he.net>

Dan wrote:
> I thought I heard or read of similar claims with Americans?
> I don't think a declining satisfaction will stop most people
> from chasing after wealth.


In countries where wealth is primarily self-made, which would include
the USA and probably Australia (but not most countries in western
Europe), I would *expect* declining satisfaction in the wealthiest
individuals -- it is a self-selecting population.

One of the key characteristics of really successful entrepreneurs is
that they are "hungry" by nature i.e. they are never satisfied.  In
Silicon Valley, being "hungry" is often considered a non-negotiable
characteristic of core team members when building new companies.  There
is a strong correlation between this property and business success,
which puts a lot of the wealth in their hands as a group.  This is also
why successful entrepreneurs rarely retire, going on to more ventures. 
They are driven toward stressful environments with hard problems to tackle.


This may not explain all of it, but I'll bet it explains some of it. 
Most successful entrepreneurs I know are as dissatisfied after they have
millions in the bank as when they were first starting out.  The money is
somewhat immaterial toward that end.  They may not be unhappy per se,
but they are hardly ever satisfied.


cheers,

j. andrew rogers



From peter at optimal.org  Fri Jul  8 17:40:33 2005
From: peter at optimal.org (Peter Voss)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:40:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] a2i2 is Hiring for its Artificial General
	Intelligence (AGI) Project
Message-ID: <PEEMKNGIGPHOFALFFNGHMECKFAAA.peter@optimal.org>

All Systems Go for Project Aigo - We're Hiring!

Please spread the word. Help us find additional talent.

http://adaptiveai.com/news/index.htm

Towards Increased Intelligence!

Peter Voss

a2i2 - Adaptive A.I. Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050708/9f200d28/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 20:18:11 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070809241285d8e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050708201812.21129.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the
> worst or most unfair
> societal predicaments, homeland security budgets
> soar.
> 
> In the UK we will probably have huge spending on
> nonsensical security
> measures now, just like in the US..
> 

But you already have some of the best security
measures that I know of. From what I understand,
London has more security cameras per square mile of
any city in the world. Which of course begs the
question of how the bombers did what they did. You are
right about the screwy risk assessment involved but
also keep in mind that terrorists count on and could
not function without the medias love of
sensationalizing dangers way above their relative
risk. So long as both politicians and terrorists are
beholden to the media, you will see politicians enact
wasteful and overblown but very visible security
measures against low-risk yet high-profile terrorism.


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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jul  8 20:33:38 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:33:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070809241285d8e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708104024.01d225a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e05070809241285d8e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42CEE322.4030606@neopax.com>

BillK wrote:

>On 7/8/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
>  
>
>>Britain 2002:
>>
>>Child pedestrians:
>>Killed  79
>>Killed or seriously injured  2,828
>>
>>Adult pedestrians:
>>Killed 696
>>Killed or seriously injured  5,803
>>
>>Motorcyclists and passengers:
>>Killed 609
>>Killed or seriously injured 7,500
>>
>>Car drivers and passengers:
>>Killed 1,747
>>Killed or seriously injured 18,728
>>
>>    
>>
>
>People overreact emotionally to disasters and are very poor at risk
>analysis. And you won't get any thanks for pointing this out. You
>cruel, heartless, calculating monster!  ;)
>
>Look at the panic about shark attacks in Florida in the news.
>(About ten people annually are killed by sharks worldwide).
>
>Try telling them that 9/11 deaths are similar to monthly U.S. traffic
>fatalities.
>Compare the road safety budgets with homeland security budgets. 
>
>9/11 fatalities were several to ten times fewer than annual deaths
>from falls (in the home or workplace), or from suicide, or from
>homicide.
>
>Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the worst or most unfair
>societal predicaments, homeland security budgets soar.
>
>In the UK we will probably have huge spending on nonsensical security
>measures now, just like in the US..
>
>
>  
>
Maybe Nanny will cut our paracetamol allowance when shopping from 32 to 16.
[Think of the lives it will save]

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 06/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jul  8 20:34:34 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:34:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <20050708201812.21129.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050708201812.21129.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CEE35A.5090305@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the
>>worst or most unfair
>>societal predicaments, homeland security budgets
>>soar.
>>
>>In the UK we will probably have huge spending on
>>nonsensical security
>>measures now, just like in the US..
>>
>>    
>>
>
>But you already have some of the best security
>measures that I know of. From what I understand,
>London has more security cameras per square mile of
>any city in the world. Which of course begs the
>question of how the bombers did what they did. You are
>  
>
Quite easily.
It's the getting away afterwards that's difficult.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 06/07/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul  8 20:52:10 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:52:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <1120843008.27185@whirlwind.he.net>
References: <1120843008.27185@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <287B6C00-5EFA-4765-8225-C7757A63E69E@mac.com>


On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:16 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>> I thought I heard or read of similar claims with Americans?
>> I don't think a declining satisfaction will stop most people
>> from chasing after wealth.
>>
>
>
> In countries where wealth is primarily self-made, which would include
> the USA and probably Australia (but not most countries in western
> Europe), I would *expect* declining satisfaction in the wealthiest
> individuals -- it is a self-selecting population.
>
> One of the key characteristics of really successful entrepreneurs is
> that they are "hungry" by nature i.e. they are never satisfied.  In
> Silicon Valley, being "hungry" is often considered a non-negotiable
> characteristic of core team members when building new companies.

Really?  Where did you derive this conclusion?  What type of  
"hunger"?  I have been part of this particular scene for a couple of  
decades now.  I certainly look for a level of "hunger"if you will.   
But it is a deep drive or cause to make something that the players  
are passionate about.  It isn't necessarily a drive for money.  The  
best uber-geeks I have met are driven by something more than or  
besides just  money.   I know another set of extremely bright and  
often successful  people who are simply "playful".  They go for what  
appears to be fun to them even though it entails a level of effort  
that most people would never take on.

I don't see that either group is necessarily given by lack of  
satisfaction though.   For many of them although they found companies  
the business end is simply means to make the dream real.

> There
> is a strong correlation between this property and business success,
> which puts a lot of the wealth in their hands as a group.  This is  
> also
> why successful entrepreneurs rarely retire, going on to more ventures.
> They are driven toward stressful environments with hard problems to  
> tackle.
>
>
> This may not explain all of it, but I'll bet it explains some of it.
> Most successful entrepreneurs I know are as dissatisfied after they  
> have
> millions in the bank as when they were first starting out.  The  
> money is
> somewhat immaterial toward that end.  They may not be unhappy per se,
> but they are hardly ever satisfied.

If they are the driven to create types then the money is largely  
freedom to do what they wish and resource.

It is possible to be satisfied in the sense needed by happiness  
moment by moment while still striving toward goals.  Satisfaction can  
be had in the movement and effort toward goals.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050708/b0f7e6dc/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 23:22:34 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708104024.01d225a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050708232234.98037.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ah, but they weren't all killed by the same insane driver...

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

> Britain 2002:
> 
> Child pedestrians:
> Killed  79
> Killed or seriously injured  2,828
> 
> Adult pedestrians:
> Killed 696
> Killed or seriously injured  5,803
> 
> Motorcyclists and passengers:
> Killed 609
> Killed or seriously injured 7,500
> 
> Car drivers and passengers:
> Killed 1,747
> Killed or seriously injured 18,728 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 23:28:51 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <42CEE322.4030606@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050708232851.306.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Al Qaeda has very little interest now in hijacking American airliners or terrorizing airports. Of course they hate America and would do anything they could, including a return to hijacking jets, but they have other options, they got away with 9-11 and they are satisfied with that operation; they aren't determined to go after American aviation at this time.
The government had to do what it did after 9-11 on airplanes, at airports; but the government knows the barn door has been closed after the cows are gone. Soon London and the UK will put into effect all the measures needed to win a battle that was lost on July 7th.


 

__________________________________________________
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/20050708/736cd732/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 23:30:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070809241285d8e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050708233004.56471.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/8/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Britain 2002:
> > 
> > Child pedestrians:
> > Killed  79
> > Killed or seriously injured  2,828
> > 
> > Adult pedestrians:
> > Killed 696
> > Killed or seriously injured  5,803
> > 
> > Motorcyclists and passengers:
> > Killed 609
> > Killed or seriously injured 7,500
> > 
> > Car drivers and passengers:
> > Killed 1,747
> > Killed or seriously injured 18,728
> > 
> 
> People overreact emotionally to disasters and are very poor at risk
> analysis. And you won't get any thanks for pointing this out. You
> cruel, heartless, calculating monster!  ;)
> 
> Look at the panic about shark attacks in Florida in the news.
> (About ten people annually are killed by sharks worldwide).

And two people drowned in a rip-tide after 6 pm on New Hampshire's
shores, so now the state is spending several hundred grand on rip tide
warning signs and extended life-guard hours. The thing you aren't
considering is the opportunity costs of not doing anything. NH's beach
is a tourist mecca (as is London). Nothing keeps the tourists and their
dollars away more than the impression that nothing is being done about
a perceived risk.

> 
> Try telling them that 9/11 deaths are similar to monthly U.S. traffic
> fatalities.
> Compare the road safety budgets with homeland security budgets. 

Not a valid comparison. You'd need to include the cost of bumpers,
crush-zone engineering, airbags, door I-beams, and seatbelts that every
car owner pays for in the price of their vehicle. Multiply that by
every vehicle on the road.

> 
> 9/11 fatalities were several to ten times fewer than annual deaths
> from falls (in the home or workplace), or from suicide, or from
> homicide.

Just as more toddlers die in 5 gallon buckets than by firearms, but you
don't see any 5 gallon bucket control laws. More people die on toilets
than anywhere else, but there are no laws regulating their use.

> 
> Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the worst or most unfair
> societal predicaments, homeland security budgets soar.
> 
> In the UK we will probably have huge spending on nonsensical security
> measures now, just like in the US..

You mean all those cameras and gun bans weren't?

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  Fri Jul  8 23:34:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0507071836742e6906@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050708233440.10744.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Why Australians will never be prosperous"
> 
> Media Release (1 page):
>
http://www.tai.org.au/MediaReleases_Files/MediaReleases/PR%20Prosperity.pdf
> 
> Full Paper (longer):
>
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Prosperity%20webpaper%204.pdf
> 
> This is from the Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/), no
> idea
> about their credibility, but check out their website, there's plenty
> of detail.
> 
> Except of interest from the media release:
> "The results show that the proportion of Australians who
> indicate they are totally satisfied with life overall declines as
> income increases; 21 per cent
> of those in the lowest income group say they are totally satisfied
> while only 13 per cent of
> those in the highest income group feel the same way. Overall life
> satisfaction is little
> affected by differences in wealth."

Not a valid comparison. You want a then vs now comparison of the same
people. When bloke A was in the lowest income group vs when he is later
in the highest income group, how likely is he to be satisfied now vs
then? I'll bet those in the highest income level who are upwardly
mobile were even less satisfied when they were poorer. The 87% of the
richest who are unsatisfied are unsatisfied because they are driven
individuals who want even more. Maybe that is unhealthy or not, but how
some other people who are poorer feel now has little relevance to them.

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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  8 23:44:56 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050708233004.56471.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050708234456.93355.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

England has to do what it must, but they wont necessarily be safer, they will just feel better. My uneducated guess is the war wont be won until neutron bombs are used in such locations as Tora Bora and other hangouts for the al qaeda unemployed.

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

--- BillK 
wrote:

> On 7/8/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Britain 2002:
> > 
> > Child pedestrians:
> > Killed 79
> > Killed or seriously injured 2,828
> > 
> > Adult pedestrians:
> > Killed 696
> > Killed or seriously injured 5,803
> > 
> > Motorcyclists and passengers:
> > Killed 609
> > Killed or seriously injured 7,500
> > 
> > Car drivers and passengers:
> > Killed 1,747
> > Killed or seriously injured 18,728
> > 
> 
> People overreact emotionally to disasters and are very poor at risk
> analysis. And you won't get any thanks for pointing this out. You
> cruel, heartless, calculating monster! ;)
> 
> Look at the panic about shark attacks in Florida in the news.
> (About ten people annually are killed by sharks worldwide).

And two people drowned in a rip-tide after 6 pm on New Hampshire's
shores, so now the state is spending several hundred grand on rip tide
warning signs and extended life-guard hours. The thing you aren't
considering is the opportunity costs of not doing anything. NH's beach
is a tourist mecca (as is London). Nothing keeps the tourists and their
dollars away more than the impression that nothing is being done about
a perceived risk.

> 
> Try telling them that 9/11 deaths are similar to monthly U.S. traffic
> fatalities.
> Compare the road safety budgets with homeland security budgets. 

Not a valid comparison. You'd need to include the cost of bumpers,
crush-zone engineering, airbags, door I-beams, and seatbelts that every
car owner pays for in the price of their vehicle. Multiply that by
every vehicle on the road.

> 
> 9/11 fatalities were several to ten times fewer than annual deaths
> from falls (in the home or workplace), or from suicide, or from
> homicide.

Just as more toddlers die in 5 gallon buckets than by firearms, but you
don't see any 5 gallon bucket control laws. More people die on toilets
than anywhere else, but there are no laws regulating their use.

> 
> Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the worst or most unfair
> societal predicaments, homeland security budgets soar.
> 
> In the UK we will probably have huge spending on nonsensical security
> measures now, just like in the US..

You mean all those cameras and gun bans weren't?

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


		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050708/f4d62fc2/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 01:59:58 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 18:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] clash of un-civilizations
In-Reply-To: <20050708234456.93355.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709015958.1553.qmail@web34409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

(Mike, those people happen to die parked on top of
toilets, not because of anything the toilets are doing
to them).
We are in World War 4, it is a clash of civilizations,
not just an ideological war as WWs1-3 were. When Rummy
says we'll be in Iraq for 12 years you multiply that
by two and you get a more plausible time frame: about
a quarter century. 
What weapons have been used or will be used; bunker
busters with small nukes? What else?


> More people die on toilets
> than anywhere else, but there are no laws regulating
> their use.


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


From dgc at cox.net  Sat Jul  9 03:40:57 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:40:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <20050708232851.306.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050708232851.306.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42CF4749.3000008@cox.net>

c c wrote:

> Al Qaeda has very little interest now in hijacking American airliners 
> or terrorizing airports. Of course they hate America and would do 
> anything they could, including a return to hijacking jets, but they 
> have other options, they got away with 9-11 and they are satisfied 
> with that operation; they aren't determined to go after American 
> aviation at this time.
> The government had to do what it did after 9-11 on airplanes, at 
> airports; but the government knows the barn door has been closed after 
> the cows are gone. Soon London and the UK will put into effect all the 
> measures needed to win a battle that was lost on July 7th.
>
More generally, Al-Qaeda (or whoever) is winning,  Al Queda spent 
approximately 30 man-years on the 9-11 attack.  The US government has 
spent at least 10,000 man years on a specific and unnecessary response 
to that attack, in the form of airport screeners. This response is 
unnecessary because airline passengers and crew will no longer tolerate 
a 9-11 type attack. Al Qaeda will not attempt another 9-11 type attack 
because they know it cannot succeed. This has nothing to do with TSA, 
and everything to do with the heightened awareness of the flying public.

Similarly, there is little to gain by increasing security measures after 
the horrific London attacks. The UK authorities should ask public 
transportation users to be on the lookout for unattended packages, but 
even if the authorities make no official request, an unattended parcel 
will not be tolerated on a public transportation system, starting now. 
On 9-11, the passengers of the fourth airplane learned the lesson of 
personal vigilance from the reports from the first three aircraft, even 
though they had only minimal information. The rest of the traveling 
public now has had a lot more time to assimilate the information, so 
9-11 is not reproducible.

Similarly 7-7 will be a lot harder to reproduce. any poor college 
student in any major metropolitan area who inadvertently leaves a 
backpack on a bus or subway car will be in serious trouble, because the 
other passengers will take action: the student will be thrown to the 
floor and the pack back will be thrown off the vehicle. During the next 
year we will see at least a hundred such incidents.

Suicide bombings are still a threat, From a purely rational perspective, 
this threat cannot be countered if each suicide agent can kill more than 
one victim. Fortunately, suicide is strongly counter indicated by 
evolution, so the cost of each suicide to the opposition is more than 
just a single life.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul  9 03:58:29 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:58:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <42CF4749.3000008@cox.net>
References: <20050708232851.306.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42CF4749.3000008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050708225344.01c9b8c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:40 PM 7/8/2005 -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>any poor college student in any major metropolitan area who inadvertently 
>leaves a backpack on a bus or subway car will be in serious trouble, 
>because the other passengers will take action: the student will be thrown 
>to the floor and the pack back will be thrown off the vehicle.

It's more complicated than that. When I was in London for the first time 
last year, I was interested to see that at least some trains (maybe those 
serving the airport?) allocated space for passenger luggage; you put your 
bag there, then went and found a seat. I thought this was awfully trusting. 
Presumably this facility will now be abolished, and bombs will be 
hand-delivered by suicide cretins.

Damien Broderick



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 04:27:47 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <42CF4749.3000008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050709042747.27319.qmail@web34409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, when someone says 'al qaeda' they are alluding to
al qaeda- allied or al qaeda-inspired orgs involved in
financing, planning, and directly operating
asymmetrical combat ops.
My question is: what weaponry has been used by America
so far? What is in the works? I've read reports of
nuke tipped bunker busters having been used already,
but disregard military rumors until guys in (or
retired from) Defense can fill us in on that which is
obviously not classified. 


> More generally, Al-Qaeda (or whoever) is winning, 
> Al Queda spent 
> approximately 30 man-years on the 9-11 attack.  The
> US government has 
> spent at least 10,000 man years on a specific and
> unnecessary response 
> to that attack


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 04:36:57 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <42CF4749.3000008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050709043657.95698.qmail@web34406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

nothing whatsoever to do with The Security Apparatus?



> This has
> nothing to do with TSA, 
> and everything to do with the heightened awareness
> of the flying public.


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


From claribel at intermessage.com  Sat Jul  9 05:57:20 2005
From: claribel at intermessage.com (Claribel)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 01:57:20 -0400
Subject: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
Message-ID: <002501c5844b$12993010$7c863040@WIGGLES>


From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>


    But if they truly believed their own claims, then
they would realize that we and our technology are as
natural as any other species that has evolved to the
point of out-competing other species. If they truly
believed that "we are the world" and they truly
understood the world, and thereby themselves, then
they would embrace change knowing that the world
always has and will continue to change, transform, and
evolve.

Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New Age and 
ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who embrace both metaphysics and 
advanced science. I do not regard them as incompatible, if each is kept in 
its proper sphere. I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the Integral 
approach of Ken Wilber? (http://wilber.shambhala.com/) This philosophy 
applies an evolutionary approach to all domains ranging from physical and 
biological to social, mental and spiritual. In some ways, I think it's a 
little too pat in drawing such equivalences, but I have found meaningful 
insights in it.

We are the world. The world is growing and changing... beautiful.

The Avantguardian:

Their contention, that the best relationship we
can have with nature is to completely "let it be" and
refrain from making any change or impact to our
ecosystem, is moronic. It essentially asserts that the
best way to mind the baby is to take off to Vegas and
leave the baby it to its own devices. In this, the
average green-luddite seems to think that the most
responsible method of stewardship of the planet is to
essentially mimic inanimate objects that are sort of
"just there" and try not to actually have any kind of
effect on our environment. Whereas even the lowly
tse-tse fly or anthrax bacterium unabashedly make huge
impacts on ecosystems in a thoroughly selfish manner

Claribel: Another excellent point. The predominant New Age version of nature 
is very sanitized. I've always considered it ironic that we should "walk 
lightly on the earth" when it doesn't walk lightly on us (or on itself, 
considering earthquakes and tsunamis.)

The Avantguardian:

 It also irks me to no end when I see some trendy
Hollywood starlet who goes on TV on behalf of PETA or
some such to condemn me for using mice in my
biomedical research. What truly drives me to
distraction is that, short of being prevented from
roaming where they will, those mice live exceedingly
well for mice....Hell the neighboring lab actually supplies their mice with
several hundreds of dollars worth of cocaine on a
weekly basis.

Claribel: Is this for drug experiments, or for pain-killers? I've often 
wondered why experimenters don't just lobotomize the pain centers of their 
animals' brains. Could you explain the usual procedures for controlling pain 
and trauma in laboratory specimens?

I will admit that, since I eat meat and perform ruthless genocide with 
flypaper and ant traps (almost literal genocide, since I've destroyed 
several breeding populations in my house), it would be hypocritical for me 
to condemn the whole idea of sacrificing animals' lives in research.

Claribel 




From claribel at intermessage.com  Sat Jul  9 06:09:18 2005
From: claribel at intermessage.com (Claribel)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 02:09:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 15
References: <200507081800.j68I09R13377@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c5844d$9dc9e650$7c863040@WIGGLES>


From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>

> In countries where wealth is primarily self-made, which would include
> the USA and probably Australia (but not most countries in western
> Europe), I would *expect* declining satisfaction in the wealthiest
> individuals -- it is a self-selecting population.
>
> One of the key characteristics of really successful entrepreneurs is
> that they are "hungry" by nature i.e. they are never satisfied.  In
> Silicon Valley, being "hungry" is often considered a non-negotiable
> characteristic of core team members when building new companies.  There
> is a strong correlation between this property and business success,
> which puts a lot of the wealth in their hands as a group.  This is also
> why successful entrepreneurs rarely retire, going on to more ventures.
> They are driven toward stressful environments with hard problems to 
> tackle.
>
> This may not explain all of it, but I'll bet it explains some of it.
> Most successful entrepreneurs I know are as dissatisfied after they have
> millions in the bank as when they were first starting out.  The money is
> somewhat immaterial toward that end.  They may not be unhappy per se,
> but they are hardly ever satisfied.

I've always thought that "satisfaction" is a vastly overrated virtue, and 
using it to measure "happiness" or "subjective well being", as some 
experimenters have, will produce skewed results. Divine dissatisfaction is 
the root of human greatness.

Am I happy? Moderately to extremely so, depending on my mood (occasional, 
biologically-driven depressive episodes excepted). Am I satisfied with my 
life and level of being as it currently is? Hell, NO. Am I satisfied with 
the progress I've been making? Yes. Perhaps it's the last variable that 
explains it.

Claribel 




From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  9 06:28:49 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:28:49 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
Message-ID: <p06210201bef51ea687e1@[23.237.66.13]>

>When I was in London for the first time last year, I was interested to
>see that at least some trains (maybe those serving the airport?)
>allocated space for passenger luggage;

This practice is common on most European trains that service airports,
it is hard for me to imagine this particular train design disappearing.

Amara


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Sat Jul  9 07:09:25 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 09:09:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a comparison with London bombings
In-Reply-To: <20050708232851.306.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709070925.92842.qmail@web26206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>


--- c c <bebI don'y know about Al Qaeda interests but
they have plenty of options to create and spread
terror.
Since they are utilizing suicide bombers they could
easily send trucks full of explosives in New York
bridges or tunnels, destroying them, killing thousands
and paralyzing an entire city for months if not years.
Do the same in London or whichever city they may
select, destroy cruise ships by ramming them with
small boats full of explosives and so on.
If you consider the options they have endless
alternatives and possibilities that we can't forese
nor prevent.
Our only alternative is to fight them by 
1 identify them wherever they are
2-capturing or killing them asap
3-get rid of their leaders by reaching each one of
them_cc at yahoo.com> ha scritto: 

> Al Qaeda has very little interest now in hijacking
> American airliners or terrorizing airports. Of
> course they hate America and would do anything they
> could, including a return to hijacking jets, but
> they have other options, they got away with 9-11 and
> they are satisfied with that operation; they aren't
> determined to go after American aviation at this
> time.
> The government had to do what it did after 9-11 on
> airplanes, at airports; but the government knows the
> barn door has been closed after the cows are gone.
> Soon London and the UK will put into effect all the
> measures needed to win a battle that was lost on
> July 7th.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Sat Jul  9 07:35:51 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 19:35:51 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] a2i2 is Hiring for its Artificial General Intelligence
	(AGI) Project 
Message-ID: <20050709073551.11132.qmail@web31503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The glaring oxymoron on your news page would tend to
put me off.  The oxymoron....

"...completion of 'Project Aigo': fully functional,
commercializable AGI technology."

My own general theory of AGI has been complete for 1-2
months now.  If only I had my theory combined with
your business skills combined with Eliezer's IQ ...
there'd have been a Singularity by now.

As it is, the world will probably have to wait another
15-30 for real AGI, whilst I struggle with border-line
poverty and an IQ well below the super-genius level to
fully formalize my theory *sigh*

---

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

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  9 11:13:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 04:13:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050708234456.93355.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050708234456.93355.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DF2BCB69-EDB6-40CA-9857-6929231F06FD@mac.com>


On Jul 8, 2005, at 4:44 PM, c c wrote:

> England has to do what it must, but they wont necessarily be safer,  
> they will just feel better. My uneducated guess is the war wont be  
> won until neutron bombs are used in such locations as Tora Bora and  
> other hangouts for the al qaeda unemployed.

If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish  
that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such  
a thing was done.  But since I understand what you apparently miss I  
would not wish that on you.  What you are missing is that all "those.  
people" are all potential immortals.  Exactly why do they deserve to  
miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their   
(relatively) *very* early childhood?  We who have not learned yet to  
truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites  
are willing to kill all too easily.

- samantha
>



From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  9 11:45:43 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:45:43 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
Message-ID: <p06210202bef550fe5465@[23.237.66.13]>

I found the 'Reason Online' site today, and input my following text
into the commentary that follows Baily's Greenhouse Hypocrisy Exposed:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/06/greenhouse_hypo.shtml


It is certainly worth to continue learning and studying the Sun-Earth
system, in general, and the global warming in particular, in order to
be able to separate man-made causes from natural reasons, and to
estimate the costs. The climate change question is perhaps the most
crucial question today that science should answer for the
policy-makers.

As a person not working in the climate field, but as a scientist
(astronomer), nevertheless, I have listened to many scientific
arguments (pro and con). When I read detailed climate change reports,
all pointing to real man-made warming trends, within a short ~1/2-year
in the well-researched and close-to-mainstream press: _The Economist_,
_New Scientist_, and _Physics Today_, then I notice, because surely
these cannot all be the results of the scientists riding the gravy
train, as the skeptics claim.

I suggest for the readers to pick up:

1) The Economist: ''A Canary in the Coal Mine'', November 13, 2004.

2) Fred Pearce, ''Climate Change: Menace or Myth?'', New Scientist,
12 February 2005.

3) Judith Lean ''Living with a Variable Sun,'' June 2005 Physics
Today.

 From 1), you will read that the (very sensitive) Arctic _is_ warming,
and such a warming could have alarming consequences on global climate.
Are we sure that there is a man-made warming trend, though? Yes, if
you read in detail the next two references.

Reference 2) states the primary physics of what gases (for example,
CO2) in the atmosphere trap infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's
surface, which leads to a greenhouse effect, and the article shows the
increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 60
years. Increased atmospheric heat is the simple physical and chemical
result. The warming is real, but how does that compare to 'natural'
warming in Earth's history, due to variabilities in the Sun's output?

The third 3) reference describes the Sun-Earth energy flow in detail,
and what should be particularly interesting to readers of this subject
are the terrestrial responses to solar activity. The author Lean
writes (pg.37):

	''Contemporary habitat pressure is primarily from human
	activity rather than solar. The atmospheric concentration of
	CO2 has increased 31% since 1750. A doubling of
	greenhouse-gas concentrations is projected to warm Earth's
	surface by 4.2K. Solar-driven surface temperature changes
	are substantially less, unlikely to exceed 0.5K and maybe as
	small as 0.1K (points to Fig 3). Nevertheless, they must be
	reliably specified so that policy decisions on global change
	have a firm scientific basis. Furthermore, climate
	encompasses more than surface temperatures, and future
	surprises, perhaps involving the Sun's influence on drought
	and rainfall, are possible.''

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The real malady is fear of life, not of death."   -- Naguib Mahfouz


From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  9 11:52:32 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:52:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Science under seige (ACLU)
Message-ID: <p06210205bef56a4d42f2@[23.237.66.13]>

Science under seige report(s)
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=18445&c=39

ACLU REPORT
''Academic freedom and scientific inquiry have come under
sustained assault since September 11, 2001. Spurred by
misguided and often disingenuous security concerns, the Bush
Administration has sought to impose growing restrictions on
the free flow of scientific information, unreasonable
barriers to the use of scientific materials, and increased
monitoring of and restrictions on foreign university
students.''


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul  9 12:31:18 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat,  9 Jul 2005 08:31:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
In-Reply-To: <p06210202bef550fe5465@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-59CDF6E0F07511D9948A000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/9/05 13:45) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

>I found the 'Reason Online' site today, and input my following text
>into the commentary that follows Baily's Greenhouse Hypocrisy Exposed:


Amara,

Thanks for posting this to the list - I'll be interested in checking those articles. I had only seen the Physics Today article previously (by virtue of it coming to my doorstep, sadly.).

I fear, however, that you are wasting your time and breath in trying to convince the so-called 'climate skeptics' to consider rational evidence.  My experience has been that their rejection of any evidence pointing towards human-driven global warming borders on the religious.  No matter how much evidence I've seen to the contrary, I still hear it claimed, frequently, that there are 'no reputable scientists' that believe in global warming.  Even more disturbing is the persistent rejection that climate scientists are interested in how the solar cycle has affected warming trends, despite ample evidence to the contrary.  My only explanation is that they are indulging in classic psychological projection, attributing to their opponents the symptoms of their own pathos.


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jul  9 14:39:52 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:39:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism.
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001901c58494$374210f0$b4ef4d0c@MyComputer>

I must respectfully disagree with His Eminence Cardinal Schonborn; I don't
think there is any conflict between Evolution and Catholic theology. I agree
there is a huge contradiction between Evolution and the idea of a benevolent
God because each tiny advance Evolution produces must be paid for in a world
of pain and unhappiness and death; however as neither the Christian nor the
Islamic God is benevolent there is no contradiction with Evolution.
Therefore I humbly suggest church officials stop worrying about Evolution
and concentrate on things they have real world experience with, like chasing
little boys.

   John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul  9 14:56:03 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:56:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709095305.01ce0088@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

A regular columnist in the Australian newspaper `explains' why life 
extension would be a terrible prospect:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15863203,00.html

----------
Christopher Pearson: No future in eternity

09jul05

I SUPPOSE most people have sometime or other toyed with the fantasy of 
eternal youth and health. Damien Broderick, a science contributor with The 
Australian, has turned it into a magnificent obsession.

In his futurological books The Spike: Accelerating into the Unimaginable 
Future and The Last Mortal Generation: How Science Will Alter Our Lives in 
the 21st Century, he has seriously canvassed the chances that immortality 
is at hand. In last week's The Weekend Australian Review he was at it 
again, reviewing a new work by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman entitled 
Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever.

Surveying the latest evidence, Broderick is up-beat. "It seems likely that 
powerful research programs will let us first slow, then halt, the leading 
causes of death - heart disease, cancer, stroke, infections - then, 
perhaps, reverse ageing, that slow terrible corrosion of our youthful flesh 
and lively minds."

How can this be? "Knowledge is doubling and deepening at a prodigious rate, 
and even that rate is accelerating ... some of those alive now may thrive 
indefinitely, kept youthful by the same recuperative processes that build 
brand-new babies from ageing sperm and ova."

Fine and dandy for the fortunate young, you may be thinking, but what about 
the rest of us? Are we the last to feed the worms or crematorial fires? 
"Perhaps not, if a kind of maintenance engineering can be applied to our 
ailing bodies. The remedy may be complicated: genomic profiling, pills, 
supplements, stringent diet, more exercise than we care for ... In the 
slightly longer term, our bodies may be infused with swarms of machines not 
much larger than viruses, nanobots designed to scavenge wastes and repair 
tissue damage at the scale of cells."

Broderick envisages a future in which "every human will have the choice of 
staying healthily young indefinitely or of stepping aside, if they choose, 
to make room for a new life, assuming, of course that we linger on this 
planet and that we remain strictly human".

 From a futurologist's perspective, inter-planetary emigration is probably 
neither here nor there. However, an attenuated relationship with the 
strictly human does raise philosophical problems. Broderick is a 
techno-triumphalist; tomorrow belongs to him. "No doubt the arguments will 
continue for generations until all those opposed to endless life have died."

If his confidence is warranted, it's surprising that there hasn't been more 
of a fuss made about such startling developments. Admittedly you can go to 
the Immortality Institute's website or log on to the World Transhumanist 
Association, but so far not a peep out of the federal Government. Are they 
just trying, yet again, "to underpromise and deliver in spades" as John 
Howard is wont to say? Usually voluble sources were tight-lipped, so I 
decided to try thinking like a futurologist.

Supposing immortality were technically feasible, how would people avail 
themselves of the opportunity? First World economics suggests that they'd 
have to pay for it and that, like any scarce resource, it would be rationed 
by price. Initially the capital cost would be astronomical and keep eternal 
youth as the preserve of the very rich and, no doubt, their pets.

If electoral pressure -- and occasional riots -- obliged the G8 governments 
to pour endless public funding into nanobot research, cryogenics and 
cloning, the unit cost would fall. But even if immortality became a 
national health service item, there would still be tricky distributional 
issues. For example, someone would have to make decisions about who was 
least likely to benefit from treatment and explain why they'd, as it were, 
missed the bus.

Then again, think of the recriminations from the Third World, unless the 
elixir of life were made freely available and as UN cant puts it: "Within a 
socially acceptable time frame."

Or forget about the recriminations and think instead about a rogue state or 
a terrorist organisation getting a nuclear weapon. How easy to hold the 
life-enhanced (but by no means indestructible) populations of the developed 
world to ransom: the slogan would be immortality for all or for none.

Even if enlightened self-interest triumphed, in an orderly transition to a 
post-mortal world, there would still be pesky economic issues to sort out. 
What, for example, happens to countries where huge amounts of capital are 
diverted from other kinds of productive investment into a bottomless pit of 
human resource development? In a society where those entering into 
immortality spend most of their time at the gym or taking (on Broderick's 
reckoning) 250 pills a day, who does the work and prepares the food?

After time and tide have borne away the last mortal cohort, there'd be an 
end to the transfers of inherited capital that previously helped keep the 
wheels of industry and speculative enterprise turning. For fear of running 
short, business and investors would become highly risk-averse. While some 
optimists might reckon that there's always time to make more money, most of 
us would be playing it safe and hoarding or saving up for planetary 
migration and to fund the next generation of life-enhancers.

Talking of the next generation, reproduction as we have known it would lose 
any sense of urgency. The notion of immortality through progeny and the 
survival of one's genes would fade away. Indeed, given the amount of time 
that would have to be devoted to personal regeneration, it would be 
surprising if people had any left over to devote to parenting. Besides, the 
zero population growth lobby and the greens would doubtless be arguing that 
there's no more room, at least on this over-crowded continent.

Presumably, in the transition period, adopting Third World babies would be 
permitted. It might also be possible - borrowing the model of carbon 
emissions trading - to buy the reproductive entitlements of adults who'd 
been talked into renouncing their access to immortality. Forward-thinking 
regimes such as China's might well set up a market in the reproductive 
rights of long-term prisoners and those condemned to death, to cover 
administrative costs and so forth and to complement the existing trade in 
body parts.

Futurologists seldom take much notice of scarcity economics and they're apt 
to assume technological progress means abundance for all. It hasn't so far, 
of course, and -- if scarce resources meant rationing the right to 
reproduce -- we would all be in terrible trouble. For it is the experience 
of parenthood that most effectively teaches us, men especially, the lessons 
of selflessness. That hard-wired capacity for unconditional love of 
helpless offspring turns self-preoccupied adolescents into adults almost 
overnight. Without parenthood, the race would become spoiled and go to rack 
and ruin.

It is, I suppose, just conceivable that Broderick may be right about the 
theoretical possibility of indefinitely prolonged life. However, human 
nature is less malleable than human physiology and ill-adapted to 
immortality's challenges. I also have my doubts about whether, if offered 
the everlasting option, all that many of us would take it.

After all, well-adjusted people tend to develop a serene acceptance of 
finitude. Then again, the sense of an ending is all that makes some lives, 
especially very long ones, bearable in the meantime. Robert Louis 
Stevenson's popular Requiem captures the sense of a welcome end:

Under the wide and starry sky

Dig the grave and let me lie.

Glad did I live and gladly die,

And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me:

Here he lies where he longed to be,

Home is the sailor, home from sea,

And the hunter home from the hill.

? The Australian



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 16:12:33 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:12:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709095305.01ce0088@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709095305.01ce0088@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05070909126c03ed3c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/9/05, Damien Broderick wrote:
> A regular columnist in the Australian newspaper `explains' why life
> extension would be a terrible prospect:
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15863203,00.html
> 
> ----------
> Christopher Pearson: No future in eternity
> 

Actually, I find a lot to agree with in this article.
(Excluding his obviously misguided criticism of Mr Broderick :) )

He is surprised that governments are keeping quiet about life
extension. Well, the slogan 'No pensions for immortals' is hardly a
vote-winner. Governments already have a huge pensions problem with the
relatively minor life-extension already happening. The population is
no longer dying off around 70 and the survivors are now realizing that
the government has spent all their pension contributions instead of
investing them.

He is certainly correct that the people will insist their governments
provide immortality treatments for everyone as soon as practicable. If
the people see the rich and leading politicians becoming immortal, the
demand will be unstoppable. The immortals will be unable to leave
their homes for fear of assassination by the jealous mortals. And wars
with the mortal nations are also very likely if they are not given the
treatments quickly enough.

I think he is also correct that immortals will become very risk averse
in lifestyle and in investments. There would be a slowdown in the
economy as older minds don't indulge in the spending fads and toys
that fascinate young minds. The 'We've seen it all before' attitude
would apply to everyone.

I also agree that reproduction would virtually disappear. It already
has in most developed societies. His mention of rationing reproductive
rights is a mistake though. Most immortals won't want children and the
few that do can have them without causing any overpopulation problems
as some immortals will continue to die due to accidents or suicide or
homicide.

His contention that immortals could become a race of self-preoccupied,
spoilt prima donnas strikes me at first as surprisingly plausible.
Immortals will have an exaggerated sense of caring for themselves. But
then if we are living in a society of prima donnas, nobody will put up
with anyone else's tantrums. :)

BillK


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Jul  9 18:04:10 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:04:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
Message-ID: <20050709180410.GB23924@ofb.net>

I guess there's no way to jump in and preserve threading...

BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote:

> He is certainly correct that the people will insist their governments
> provide immortality treatments for everyone as soon as practicable. If
> the people see the rich and leading politicians becoming immortal,
> 
> I think he is also correct that immortals will become very risk averse
> in lifestyle and in investments. There would be a slowdown in the
> economy as older minds don't indulge in the spending fads and toys
> that fascinate young minds.
> 
> Most immortals won't want children

All this strikes me as partaking of the same type of thinking as the article
Damien B. posted, a type I think suffers from the flaw of essentialism,
viewing immortals and mortals as distinct types, with some clean transition
point.

The article says:

> Then again, think of the recriminations from the Third World, unless the 
> elixir of life were made freely available and as UN cant puts it: "Within a 
> socially acceptable time frame."

But there are African countries where the life expectancy is under 40.  A
nearly 20 year difference between India and the top countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop

I would say, more likely than a discrete elixir of life, let alone any way of
telling "immortals" from "mortals", or even a sense of "immortality", is
simply better and better medical care, better prevention or genetic cleaning,
more and better replacement of parts.  A whole suite of ways of enhancing the
body's ability to maintain itself in the face of entropy.  And rather than
"woot, we're immortal!" there'll just be longer and longer achieved lifespans.  

There could be the point some call "actuarial escape velocity", when someone's
life expectancy starts advancing more than a year per year, but at that point
-- a statistical one -- lots of people will still be dying, diluting the
psychological impact.

There won't be an elixir to demand, but lots of trained doctors, drugs,
medical scanners and robots.  What we have today, but more so.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From kurt at metatechnica.com  Sat Jul  9 18:19:43 2005
From: kurt at metatechnica.com (Kurt Schoedel)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:19:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
Message-ID: <E1DrJvT-0002Ke-QA@svr58.ehostpros.com>

I disagree with the notion that post-mortals will be more risk 
adverse, especially in business.

Young people take risks and start companies because they are young and 
have lots of time and freedom to take such risks. If the business 
fails, they can either try something else or just get a job.

Older people are risk adverse because the have families (a.k.a. 
expenses) and must save for retirement (a.k.a. save up so that they 
are not destitute when they become aged). There is also the age 
discrimination issue. Many people over 40 are no longer allowed the 
opportunities to explore and try new things, careerwise. If you do, 
you get hammered and cannot get back to where you were before. The 
system rejects you because you are considered "over the hill" and 
considered a depreciating asset.

This sorts of things make people risk adverse. With postmortality and 
the end of aging, these fears go away and one is free to try whatever 
you want.
Kurt Schoedel
MetaTechnica


From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  9 19:17:18 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:17:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with neo-Darwinism.
Message-ID: <p06210200bef5d11f5c18@[23.237.66.13]>

It is not difficult to find more incompatibilities in current news
events.

On 5/24/05, I wrote a piece here (subject: Bioethics Essay- Revised)
giving a view of Thomas Aquinas (14th century) regarding the role of
the woman's womb in relation to the sperm, and how he defined
'rational' soul as the union of the male and female, and that without
this union it was merely a 'sensitive' soul, and incomplete. (1)

To continue with describing Thomas' philosophy (treatise:_On Being and
Essence_), he said that the rational soul is produced by special
creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to
receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital
principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes
into being, formed from the evolving potencies of the organism --
*later yet*, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul (2). In
other words in this medieval man's (the 'Angelic Doctor') view, the
soul did not start at conception but started some considerable time
afterwards.

Thomas' view was an enormous step forward for the Catholic Church, and
the accepted truth for a long time afterwards. So then if one wishes
to be a 'good' Catholic, how to reconcile the view of the 'modern'
Church that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the
first moment of its existence?

This irony was not lost on some Italian media journalists in the May
and June discussions of the (now failed) Referendum last month, since
one of the four points on which the Italians were voting was
_at conception_ 'Rights given to a human embryo under the law' (3).
Unfortunately, even though most Italians are not 'good' Catholics,
the public's technophobias and the Vatican's large-scale mass public
relations and undemocratic voting strategies (urging the Italians
to *not vote*), resulted in the shockingly low (esp. for Italians)
25% voter turnout, hence torpedoing the Referendum.

References
(1) http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-May/016333.html
and
_Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature_
Nonfiction. By William R. Newman. University of Chicago Press, pg.
188.

(2) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

(3) 
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=27656&dr_cat=2

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Sometimes it takes a few more days due to customs clearance"
-- computer vendor to Amara


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Jul  9 19:29:18 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:29:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709095305.01ce0088@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000501c584bc$80b23d50$d9be1b97@administxl09yj>

> After all, well-adjusted people 
> tend to develop a serene acceptance 
> of finitude.

It seems that Seneca gave
a different, maybe deeper,
definition of death, a definition
which could explain the (supposed)
serene acceptance.

[Letters to Lucilius, 1)
'For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; 
the major portion of death has already passed. 
Whatever years be behind us are in death's hands.'

 
 





From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Jul  9 19:30:49 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:30:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism.
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bef5d11f5c18@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200bef5d11f5c18@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050709193049.GA3130@ofb.net>

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 09:17:18PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:

> Thomas' view was an enormous step forward for the Catholic Church, and
> the accepted truth for a long time afterwards. So then if one wishes

I had the impression this goes back to St. Augustine and his own looking to
Aristotle, with the soul coming in at 40 or 90 days after conception, and
later penitentials giving lesser penalties to early abortion than later.  (The
Church never approved of abortion, but early abortion was considered birth
control, not as bad as murder.)

-xx- Damien X-) 


From max at maxmore.com  Sat Jul  9 19:42:42 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:42:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/309d062b/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 19:55:04 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <DF2BCB69-EDB6-40CA-9857-6929231F06FD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050709195504.94897.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Samantha, I dont know how to communicate with you as we both speak the same language but I cannot express my difference of opinion with you at all. It is as if I came from another planet. You write as if I have taken a definite position on the war. Such is not the case, I don't know what is going on, and every time I ask a dissident or conspiracy theorist for info on the secret aspects of the allied war the inevitable reply is forthcoming, "do your own research". It is so predictable, thereafter the personal attacks start. But though I have severe doubts concerning the allies, I have no respect for al qaeda or bin Laden whatsoever. I see no intrinsic difference between the 'Werewolves' terrorists of 1945-6 Germany and al qaeda, bin Laden is just a religious thug. BTW if you don't like the designation 'terrorist' then substitute 'freedom fighter', the name Islamo-militants call themselves or are called means nothing. For starters you would have to fill me in on grave allied secrets,
 which you can't do. We could start with a morals discussion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 60 years ago, but we would go nowhere, being intellectuals. Morality aside, soldiers do; intellectuals perseverate.
 
>If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish 
>that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such 
>a thing was done. But since I understand what you apparently miss I 
>would not wish that on you. What you are missing is that all "those. 
>people" are all potential immortals. Exactly why do they deserve to 
>miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their 
>(relatively) *very* early childhood? We who have not learned yet to 
>truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites 
>are willing to kill all too easily.

- samantha
>

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


		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/73a55b07/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul  9 20:14:36 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:14:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with neo-Darwinism.
Message-ID: <p06210201bef5dff2d5ba@[23.237.66.13]>

Damien Sullivan:
>I had the impression this goes back to St. Augustine and his own
>looking to Aristotle, with the soul coming in at 40 or 90 days after
>conception, and later penitentials giving lesser penalties to early
>abortion than later.  (The Church never approved of abortion, but
>early abortion was considered birth control, not as bad as murder.)

Damien, can you suggest a reference for Augustine's input? (I am
writing an article on this topic.) I know that Aquinas adopted alot of
Augustine (but I dont know what), and I know that Aquinas was an
Aristotle scholar, purging the Aristotle texts of the Arab commentary
by Ibn Sina (1037), ("Avicenna"), to make it more 'pure'. As far as I
know  Aristotle didn't talk about the soul, his main input into the
historical (present: cloning) debate would be his 'spontaneous
generation' ideas. (is this right?)

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 never hurts to be conservative where the galactic plane is involved."
   -- Chris Fassnacht


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Jul  9 20:26:31 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:26:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism.
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bef5dff2d5ba@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210201bef5dff2d5ba@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050709202631.GA8875@ofb.net>

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:14:36PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:
> Damien Sullivan:
> >I had the impression this goes back to St. Augustine and his own
> >looking to Aristotle, with the soul coming in at 40 or 90 days after

> Damien, can you suggest a reference for Augustine's input? (I am

Not a direct scholarly one; my opinion was formed by googling [augustine
abortion]; I think I'd looked at most of the top links.  (The topmost one
claims

   |The Jewish faith was generally opposed to both infanticide and  |
   |abortion. An exception occurred if the continuation of a        |
   |pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or to  |
   |her other children. In such cases, the pregnant woman is        |
   |actually obligated to abort the fetus; the fetus is then        |
   |considered "radef" -- pursuer.

which amused me.  The 20th century Catholic church allegedly opposes abortion
even if the mother will die otherwise, and made it grounds for automatic
excommunication.  Worse than murder!

-xx- Damien X-) 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  9 20:32:10 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:32:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050709195504.94897.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050709195504.94897.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C2805C9B-0CAB-4A77-A575-56DC34C8CAB5@mac.com>


On Jul 9, 2005, at 12:55 PM, c c wrote:

> Samantha, I dont know how to communicate with you as we both speak  
> the same language but I cannot express my difference of opinion  
> with you at all. It is as if I came from another planet. You write  
> as if I have taken a definite position on the war.

I wrote in response to the suggestion that a neutron bomb was some  
kind of solution to terrorism.   You are not the only one that has  
made such a suggestion.  I believe I must speak up at such times.


> Such is not the case, I don't know what is going on, and every time  
> I ask a dissident or conspiracy theorist for info on the secret  
> aspects of the allied war the inevitable reply is forthcoming, "do  
> your own research". It is so predictable, thereafter the personal  
> attacks start. But though I have severe doubts concerning the  
> allies, I have no respect for al qaeda or bin Laden whatsoever. I  
> see no intrinsic difference between the 'Werewolves' terrorists of  
> 1945-6 Germany and al qaeda, bin Laden is just a religious thug.  
> BTW if you don't like the designation 'terrorist' then substitute  
> 'freedom fighter', the name Islamo-militants call themselves or are  
> called means nothing. For starters you would have t! o fill me in  
> on grave allied secrets, which you can't do. We could start with a  
> morals discussion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 60  
> years ago, but we would go nowhere, being intellectuals. Morality  
> aside, soldiers do; intellectuals perseverate.

Please reread what I wrote.  It goes far deeper than this so-called  
war and a personal interchange.   What I wrote is not about persons  
or personalities.  The above does not touch the fundamental thing I  
was attempting to bring out.

>
> >If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish
> >that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such
> >a thing was done. But since I understand what you apparently miss I
> >would not wish that on you. What you are missing is that all "those.
> >people" are all potential immortals. Exactly why do they deserve to
> >miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their
> >(relatively) *very* early childhood? We who have not learned yet to
> >truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites
> >are willing to kill all too easily.
>
> - samantha
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050709/e6d84deb/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  9 21:06:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:06:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with
	neo-Darwinism.
In-Reply-To: <001901c58494$374210f0$b4ef4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050707091241.01d63e00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<001901c58494$374210f0$b4ef4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <04AD3BCD-A668-4271-B3CE-FE1F6155E854@mac.com>


On Jul 9, 2005, at 7:39 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> I must respectfully disagree with His Eminence Cardinal Schonborn;  
> I don't
> think there is any conflict between Evolution and Catholic  
> theology. I agree
> there is a huge contradiction between Evolution and the idea of a  
> benevolent
> God because each tiny advance Evolution produces must be paid for  
> in a world
> of pain and unhappiness and death; however as neither the Christian  
> nor the
> Islamic God is benevolent there is no contradiction with Evolution.
> Therefore I humbly suggest church officials stop worrying about  
> Evolution
> and concentrate on things they have real world experience with,  
> like chasing
> little boys.
>
>   John K Clark
>

It is no great surprise to rational people that many aspects of  
Christianity (and of course other religions) are incompatible with  
reality.  It is good to see the Church admitting such.   Now if we  
can just point out to be people what the real take home lesson is.    
Reality beats myth, superstition and dogma.  Honest exploration of  
reality cannot help but show them up where they are false and/or  
unsupported.  Yet somehow people have been sold such a tight package  
deal that they believe much of what they hold to be of value in life  
becomes valueless if they begin to question various bits of  
ungrounded flotsam they have allowed nto enter their minds through  
the gates of religion.

Yes, Catholic dogma is incompatible with evolution.  So much the  
worse for Catholic dogma.

- samantha



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 21:26:49 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha,
	i read your message very carefully-- it is poignant, very important
In-Reply-To: <C2805C9B-0CAB-4A77-A575-56DC34C8CAB5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

...However it concerns something too deep, it would take a treatise to reply to it, for brevity's sake we are limited to amateur-chat on the war, we're not current or ex military personnel, we dont know what is going on at the highest or middle levels, and as you've mentioned before you don't know what is transpiring on the ground in Iraq. I'm reading your message over & over, but we can't go any farther with your message below than we can with any other message. All our messages are discrete academic chirpings from those who don't know all that much about such complex and complicated ethical issues. Or even the historical background; there's too much to go into.
 Let's get a first-rate ethicist with an extensive background in defense to sign up for extropy-chat and then we might go somewhere, wherever than 'somewhere' may be. But, somehow,  I really and truly doubt it. 
 

Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish 
>that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such 
>a thing was done. But since I understand what you apparently miss I 
>would not wish that on you. What you are missing is that all "those. 
>people" are all potential immortals. Exactly why do they deserve to 
>miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their 
>(relatively) *very* early childhood? We who have not learned yet to 
>truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites 
>are willing to kill all too easily.

- samantha

		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/69c54905/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 22:26:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] clash of un-civilizations
In-Reply-To: <20050709015958.1553.qmail@web34409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709222605.86371.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> (Mike, those people happen to die parked on top of
> toilets, not because of anything the toilets are doing
> to them).

This isn't quite true. People slip on wet bathroom floors and hit their
heads on the commode, they strain themselves while doing their business
and suffer from strokes, heart attacks, aneurisms, thrombosis, among
other ailments. The point is that when you sit on a toilet, there is a
greater chance of not getting up than if you'd not sat on it at that
particular moment, a chance which is more significant than most risks
that most people consider are things to worry about. It's just that
toilets are such a part of everyone's life and their utility is so
obvious (like cars) that the idea of not using them and going back to
squatting on a field or sitting in an outhouse is unthinkable.

If only a small portion of the population used toilets today, it would
be far easier to get them banned based on a handful of fatalities while
sitting on them than not.

> We are in World War 4, it is a clash of civilizations,
> not just an ideological war as WWs1-3 were. When Rummy
> says we'll be in Iraq for 12 years you multiply that
> by two and you get a more plausible time frame: about
> a quarter century. 

It certainly wouldn't be the longest period of war in history. There
was the Thirty Years War between the european powers around the
beginning of the 18th century, and the Sixty Years War of Dutch
Independence. Of course, the Vietnamese generally regard their war of
independence stretching from 1945 to 1975 as well, and given the level
of intensity to this conflict, it is more on a par with the North
American Indian conflict with the US through the 19th century, most of
which US historians don't regard as wars other than for a few periods.

A clash of civilizations is very much an ideological war over how
civilizations are to be run. In this case, you have groups of
arab-supremacists high on Andalusian fantasies and pulp islamo-fascist
theology who want the middle east, and much of the rest of the world,
for islam and nothing else, while some of the world is intent on
tolerance and individual liberty and the rest is trying to ignore
things as much as possible hoping it will go away.

> What weapons have been used or will be used; bunker
> busters with small nukes? What else?

We won't use nukes until and unless some state finally acknowledges
backing the jihad, and unless they use them first.


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


		
__________________________________ 
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  Sat Jul  9 22:32:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <DF2BCB69-EDB6-40CA-9857-6929231F06FD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

>  
> If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish
> that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such
> a thing was done.  But since I understand what you apparently miss I 
> would not wish that on you.  What you are missing is that all "those.
> people" are all potential immortals.  Exactly why do they deserve to 
> miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their   
> (relatively) *very* early childhood?  

It appears here, Samantha, that you now contradict your reaction to
Robert Bradbury a while back when he expressed similar sentiments about
the deaths of millions due to ignorance and superstition.

Of course they could miss eternity because of their own mistakes. Maybe
they should, that is the point of evolution: to weed out the unfit. How
does the transhumanist movement expect the Singularity to be an
evolutionary step upward if we bootstrap every idiot and moron? I have
no problem with an entrance exam to posthumanity.

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Jul  9 22:41:26 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:41:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <DF2BCB69-EDB6-40CA-9857-6929231F06FD@mac.com>
	<20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709224126.GA26075@ofb.net>

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:32:51PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Of course they could miss eternity because of their own mistakes. Maybe
> they should, that is the point of evolution: to weed out the unfit. How
> does the transhumanist movement expect the Singularity to be an
> evolutionary step upward if we bootstrap every idiot and moron? I have
> no problem with an entrance exam to posthumanity.

Even if it excluded you, for being deemed too anti-social to be kept around
forever?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 22:50:58 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and not merely a great ethicist with lengthy
	hands-on Defense background
Message-ID: <20050709225058.25809.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

...but also one who knows history inside out as well as current events. Then we might begin to go somewhere. Even so would be as in a large drawing room with a full size puzzle on the floor, each holding one or two tiny pieces of the puzzle, scratching our heads. We're like meteorologists with pencils trying to draw a map of a hurricane.
Sure, study the issues, try to get a grasp, but you'll be studying all your life.
 
Here's a basic mathematical certainty: when Rumsfeld says we'll be in Iraq about twelve years, you multiply it by two and you have the number 24. We will be in Iraq a quarter century? Not unlikely, we were involved the Cold War from about 1944- 1989.

		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/6f8ba935/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 22:56:12 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] clash of un-civilizations
In-Reply-To: <20050709222605.86371.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709225612.45744.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Here we are in agreement, not to mention the Hundred Years War, the War Of The Roses.


 
It certainly wouldn't be the longest period of war in history. There
was the Thirty Years War between the european powers around the
beginning of the 18th century, and the Sixty Years War of Dutch
Independence. Of course, the Vietnamese generally regard their war of
independence stretching from 1945 to 1975 as well, and given the level
of intensity to this conflict, it is more on a par with the North
American Indian conflict with the US through the 19th century, most of
which US historians don't regard as wars other than for a few periods.


__________________________________________________
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/20050709/17f2a647/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 22:58:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-59CDF6E0F07511D9948A000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050709225838.27217.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/9/05 13:45) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> >I found the 'Reason Online' site today, and input my following text
> >into the commentary that follows Baily's Greenhouse Hypocrisy
> Exposed:
> 
> 
> Amara,
> 
> Thanks for posting this to the list - I'll be interested in checking
> those articles. I had only seen the Physics Today article previously
> (by virtue of it coming to my doorstep, sadly.).
> 
> I fear, however, that you are wasting your time and breath in trying
> to convince the so-called 'climate skeptics' to consider rational
> evidence.  My experience has been that their rejection of any
> evidence pointing towards human-driven global warming borders on the
> religious.  No matter how much evidence I've seen to the contrary, I
> still hear it claimed, frequently, that there are 'no reputable
> scientists' that believe in global warming. 

This is not true, at least if you are talking about me. I have never
said such a thing. What I have said is that, contrary to the claims of
the chicken-littles, the climatology, geology, astrophysics, and other
relevant scientific communities are NOT in any sort of consensus
regarding anthropogentic global warming (which means there are many for
and against the hypothesis, which varies from year to year, depending
on the science available). Quite a number of "scientists" from
irrelevant and unrelated disciplines (like sociology, political
science, anthropology, medicine, psychiatry, etc) have signed
statements as if their opinion means anything conclusive.

That there is an immense amount of misrepresentation (as Mr. Neal's
statement above) including, for instance, island nations blaming all
local sea level rise on global warming (in the case of Somoa it is
claiming 0.5 meters per year sea level rise) rather than geological
subsidence that is a natural process of the life cycle of seamount type
islands. When the global average sea level rise is 2 mm per year, and
most of that is solely due to the rise of the Caspian Sea basin, which
has nothing to do with the melting of any ice sheets or ice caps at
either pole, then misrepresentations are being made for political
reasons.

Every change of the weather now is attributed to the global warming
boogeyman when it is generally nothing of the sort. The North Atlantic
Occilation, for instance, is totally ignored by the chicken littles.
They also ignore natural phenomena or their lack. For instance, Mt.
Pinatubo's eruption put so much dust in the atmosphere that it cooled
the earth for several years, but the chicken littles dismiss the idea
that warming may be occuring because we are not having as many major
volcanic eruptions as have happened in past centuries. Tambora,
Krakatoa, among other super eruptions, as well as a significant impact
event about 1,000 years ago, have in the past spewed massive amounts of
ash in the atmosphere at enough frequency to suppress global
temperatures for long periods of time. The idea that we are emerging
from a minor ice age and returning to the type of climate the human
race enjoyed from about 7,000 BC to the late Roman era is unthinkable.

Global warming chicken littles also engage in political and academic
repression, INCLUDING a person or persons subscribed to this list who
have communicated with others in their movement and attempted to use my
opinions to damage the academic career of a relative of mine.

> Even more disturbing is
> the persistent rejection that climate scientists are interested in
> how the solar cycle has affected warming trends, despite ample
> evidence to the contrary.  My only explanation is that they are
> indulging in classic psychological projection, attributing to their
> opponents the symptoms of their own pathos.

Solar cycles are not the only atronomical factor involved. The
interaction of the galactic radiation out put with the heliopause has
an impact upon both the Sun's activity, the Earths electromagnetic
field and radiation belts, and the movement of dust in the solar
system.



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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 23:10:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
In-Reply-To: <p06210202bef550fe5465@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050709231030.18286.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:> 
> 3) Judith Lean ''Living with a Variable Sun,'' June 2005 Physics
> Today.
> 
>  From 1), you will read that the (very sensitive) Arctic _is_
> warming, and such a warming could have alarming consequences on
global
> climate.
> Are we sure that there is a man-made warming trend, though? Yes, if
> you read in detail the next two references.

Few doubt that the arctic is warming. Only an idiot can look at the
open seas of the northwest passage, compare it to photos from last
century, and think otherwise, but regional climate change is not global
climate change, nor are environmental changes of less than 30-100 years
any sort of significant change of any permanence. Ask the Anasazi about
climate change.

> 
> Reference 2) states the primary physics of what gases (for example,
> CO2) in the atmosphere trap infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's
> surface, which leads to a greenhouse effect, and the article shows
> the
> increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 60
> years. Increased atmospheric heat is the simple physical and chemical
> result. The warming is real, but how does that compare to 'natural'
> warming in Earth's history, due to variabilities in the Sun's output?

Among other things, such as changes in the populations of ruminant,
ungulate, and other methane producing animals. Methane is six times
more effective as a green house gase than CO2. 20-30% of the methane in
the atmosphere is produced by the cattle of India. By any measurement
of the many liters of methane such animals release each day indicates
that the average third world family cow contributes more to global
warming than the average American family car. What is the history of
methane production worldwide? Did the white buffalo hunters of the
American west cause the severe cold temperatures of the late 19th
century by shooting all the buffalo (temperatures against which the
global warming chicken littles use as a baseline)?

> 
> The third 3) reference describes the Sun-Earth energy flow in detail,
> and what should be particularly interesting to readers of this
> subject
> are the terrestrial responses to solar activity. The author Lean
> writes (pg.37):
> 
> 	''Contemporary habitat pressure is primarily from human
> 	activity rather than solar. The atmospheric concentration of
> 	CO2 has increased 31% since 1750. A doubling of
> 	greenhouse-gas concentrations is projected to warm Earth's
> 	surface by 4.2K. Solar-driven surface temperature changes
> 	are substantially less, unlikely to exceed 0.5K and maybe as
> 	small as 0.1K (points to Fig 3). Nevertheless, they must be
> 	reliably specified so that policy decisions on global change
> 	have a firm scientific basis. Furthermore, climate
> 	encompasses more than surface temperatures, and future
> 	surprises, perhaps involving the Sun's influence on drought
> 	and rainfall, are possible.''

The 4.2K claim is the maximum claimed by the UN climate change panel
report and is generally considered unsupported by the science. Maximum
real temperature change over the 21st century (total) is considered to
be 0.5-2.0 K (including astronomical) when CO2 levels are expected to
double.

Of course, these are the same brilliant mathematicians who claimed in
1975 that we had 30 years of oil left. I think I'll take my chances.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 23:16:52 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] clash of un-civilizations
In-Reply-To: <20050709222605.86371.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709231652.29650.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Meant to in passing remark there have been reports & rumors of planned use of small amounts of nuclear material on bunkerbusters, or perhaps that small amounts of nuclear material have already been placed on bunkerbusters and perhaps already used in the field. However i don't care much, don't stay up at night sobbing for al qaeda or SS, kamikaze pilots, khmer rouge or whomever.
Only reason i have any interest is my father was in the Army Air Force from '43- '45, and he sketched a general picture of how intellectuals fight wars in their smoking rooms, High Command makes the decisions, and armed forces obey the orders flowing from those decisions. Military personnel rarely like war because more than obviously it is their posteriors being directed in range of meat mincers


We won't use nukes until and unless some state finally acknowledges
backing the jihad, and unless they use them first.


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
		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/b55eecb1/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 23:18:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050709224126.GA26075@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050709231824.30603.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:32:51PM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Of course they could miss eternity because of their own mistakes.
> Maybe
> > they should, that is the point of evolution: to weed out the unfit.
> How
> > does the transhumanist movement expect the Singularity to be an
> > evolutionary step upward if we bootstrap every idiot and moron? I
> have
> > no problem with an entrance exam to posthumanity.
> 
> Even if it excluded you, for being deemed too anti-social to be kept
> around
> forever?

Me, anti-social? Hardly. Being anti-socialist does not make one
anti-social. Nor does coddling fools.

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  Sat Jul  9 23:24:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and not merely a great ethicist with lengthy
	hands-on Defense background
In-Reply-To: <20050709225058.25809.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050709232402.5246.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> ...but also one who knows history inside out as well as current
> events. Then we might begin to go somewhere. Even so would be as in a
> large drawing room with a full size puzzle on the floor, each holding
> one or two tiny pieces of the puzzle, scratching our heads. We're
> like meteorologists with pencils trying to draw a map of a hurricane.
> Sure, study the issues, try to get a grasp, but you'll be studying
> all your life.
>  
> Here's a basic mathematical certainty: when Rumsfeld says we'll be in
> Iraq about twelve years, you multiply it by two and you have the
> number 24. We will be in Iraq a quarter century? Not unlikely, we
> were involved the Cold War from about 1944- 1989.

The distinction between the cold war and the present is that trade with
the states sponsoring or otherwise supporting terrorism is too
lucrative for a cold war strategy of economic embargo, as we employed
against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. Seing how the coalition
against Iraq unravelled through the 90's as the UN, nations and
individuals were bribed to corrupt the system, doing the same to Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Syria, and others would not last long, not unless the
terrorists really get agressive and attack France, Germany, and Russia
as well.

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  9 23:39:55 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:39:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha,
	i read your message very carefully-- it is poignant, very important
In-Reply-To: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>

There is only us.  There are no others to consider the complex and  
ethical issues.  There are no ordained ones of church or academia  
that we may turn over the responsibility to.  History is largely in  
front of us.  We have so much potential freedom to write what we will  
there.   We cannot duck deciding what to write.    The world is being  
made new.  We can make it a faster less forgiving copy of the old  
natural world if we wish or are too afraid or haven't the energy to  
consider what we wish to create.   The real possibility of  
indefinitely long life adds more to the equation than any expert in  
pre-emortality ethics and military history can address.  We can't  
solve such things here but we can begin to talk about them and  
attempt to include them in our thoughts about what is and is not a  
good course of action in keeping with our deepest goals.

- samantha


On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:26 PM, c c wrote:

> ...However it concerns something too deep, it would take a treatise  
> to reply to it, for brevity's sake we are limited to amateur-chat  
> on the war, we're not current or ex military personnel, we dont  
> know what is going on at the highest or middle levels, and as  
> you've mentioned before you don't know what is transpiring on the  
> ground in Iraq. I'm reading your message over & over, but we can't  
> go any farther with your message below than we can with any other  
> message. All our messages are discrete academic chirpings from  
> those who don't know all that much about such complex and  
> complicated ethical issues. Or even the historical background;  
> there's too much to go into.
>  Let's get a first-rate ethicist with an extensive background in  
> defense to sign up for extropy-chat and then we might go somewhere,  
> wherever than 'somewhere' may be. But, somehow,  I really and truly  
> doubt it.
>
>
> Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish
> >that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such
> >a thing was done. But since I understand what you apparently miss I
> >would not wish that on you. What you are missing is that all "those.
> >people" are all potential immortals. Exactly why do they deserve to
> >miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their
> >(relatively) *very* early childhood? We who have not learned yet to
> >truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites
> >are willing to kill all too easily.
>
> - samantha
>
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050709/7ffd8b99/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jul  9 23:49:49 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:49:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha,	i read your message very carefully--
	it is poignant, very important
In-Reply-To: <F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
References: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42D0629D.8070509@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> There is only us.  There are no others to consider the complex and 
> ethical issues.  There are no ordained ones of church or academia that 
> we may turn over the responsibility to.  History is largely in front 
> of us.  We have so much potential freedom to write what we will 
> there.   We cannot duck deciding what to write.    The world is being 
> made new.  We can make it a faster less forgiving copy of the old 
> natural world if we wish or are too afraid or haven't the energy to 
> consider what we wish to create.   The real possibility of 
> indefinitely long life adds more to the equation than any expert in 
> pre-emortality ethics and military history can address.  We can't 
> solve such things here but we can begin to talk about them and attempt 
> to include them in our thoughts about what is and is not a good course 
> of action in keeping with our deepest goals.
>
The future gets made by people who make it.
No other qualifications required.
Hitler and Ghandi can debate who had the most influence, with historians 
as judges.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 08/07/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul  9 23:48:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:48:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A934B0F3-F9BF-4EAB-8B95-9C5DA25CCACC@mac.com>


On Jul 9, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish
>> that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such
>> a thing was done.  But since I understand what you apparently miss I
>> would not wish that on you.  What you are missing is that all "those.
>> people" are all potential immortals.  Exactly why do they deserve to
>> miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their
>> (relatively) *very* early childhood?
>>
>
> It appears here, Samantha, that you now contradict your reaction to
> Robert Bradbury a while back when he expressed similar sentiments  
> about
> the deaths of millions due to ignorance and superstition.

No.  His "solution" denied what he was attempting to further.

>
> Of course they could miss eternity because of their own mistakes.  
> Maybe
> they should, that is the point of evolution: to weed out the unfit.

We are not talking of evolution but of what we propose to do.

> How
> does the transhumanist movement expect the Singularity to be an
> evolutionary step upward if we bootstrap every idiot and moron?

Idiots and morons have the potential to grow beyond their idiocy.  I  
trust you have noticed some growth in yourself over time.

We are every one an "idiot and moron" compared to what we seek to  
become.  I don't see where some of the idiots and morons are capable  
of summarily saying that some other idiots and morons deserve no  
chance.  I am not a total pacifist but I believe death should only be  
dealt when there is no other way and that we should be very conscious  
of what we are doing in light of our own dreams and goals.

> I have
> no problem with an entrance exam to posthumanity.

Administered by the likes of you or I?  I have a huge problem with that.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050709/951db1d3/attachment.html>

From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sun Jul 10 00:31:32 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:31:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <A934B0F3-F9BF-4EAB-8B95-9C5DA25CCACC@mac.com>
References: <20050709223251.11434.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<A934B0F3-F9BF-4EAB-8B95-9C5DA25CCACC@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42D06C64.4090508@humanenhancement.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> We are every one an "idiot and moron" compared to what we seek to 
> become. 


I must say, this is one of the most concise ways of describing my own 
attitude towards our current relationship to our hopefully-impending 
transition to Posthumanity that I have ever read. I've tried to say the 
same thing many times, in many ways, but this is just perfect.

Hope you don't mind if I borrow it now and again.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jul 10 00:43:16 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:43:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha's ? weird ?? format ?
In-Reply-To: <F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
References: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709194102.01c64f78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Is it just Eudora? Everything I get from Samantha is cluttered with ? or 
??, between sentences, inside sentences, at the end, which I take to be 
characters Eudora can't read.

Damien Broderick



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 01:16:32 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha,
	i read your message very carefully-- it is poignant, very important
In-Reply-To: <42D0629D.8070509@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710011632.63880.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Responsibility in the context of this war? What
responsibility do we armchair mind-warriors have?
Intellectuals are thinkers, those risking their hides
in the armed services are doers. And if you were to go
to prison, just say- hypothetically- for refusing to
register for conscription, you would be a doer as
well. Or if you went to Iraq and protested the war
there, that would be surely be taking responsibility.
But what are we here risking? How are we responsible?
What are any of us doing to resist this war? Aside
from gestures and statements?


> There are no ordained ones of
> church or academia that 
> > we may turn over the responsibility to.  
>Samantha


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 01:39:36 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:39:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha, i read your message very carefully--
	it is poignant, very important
In-Reply-To: <20050710011632.63880.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710011632.63880.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D07C58.3070109@neopax.com>

c c wrote:

>Responsibility in the context of this war? What
>responsibility do we armchair mind-warriors have?
>Intellectuals are thinkers, those risking their hides
>in the armed services are doers. And if you were to go
>to prison, just say- hypothetically- for refusing to
>register for conscription, you would be a doer as
>well. Or if you went to Iraq and protested the war
>there, that would be surely be taking responsibility.
>But what are we here risking? How are we responsible?
>What are any of us doing to resist this war? Aside
>from gestures and statements?
>
>  
>
Why did the US lose the Vietnam 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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 08/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 01:57:57 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nam
In-Reply-To: <42D07C58.3070109@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710015757.8564.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For one thing, the country was very long and had, as
is well known, much jungle to use as cover by the
communists and their allies. I wager you that if Iraq
had jungle cover we never would have invaded Iraq. The
Soviets were determined to supply the communists.
Vietnamese leftists felt they were cheated out of a
fair election. Americans protested the war from 1962
to 1973. LBJ was an asshole, Richard Nixon was an even
bigger asshole. Other reasons, too. We could write a
book....



> Why did the US lose the Vietnam War? 
> Dirk


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


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 02:12:08 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:12:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710015757.8564.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710015757.8564.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D083F8.901@neopax.com>

c c wrote:

>For one thing, the country was very long and had, as
>is well known, much jungle to use as cover by the
>communists and their allies. I wager you that if Iraq
>had jungle cover we never would have invaded Iraq. The
>Soviets were determined to supply the communists.
>Vietnamese leftists felt they were cheated out of a
>fair election. Americans protested the war from 1962
>to 1973. LBJ was an asshole, Richard Nixon was an even
>bigger asshole. Other reasons, too. We could write a
>book....
>
>
>  
>
>>Why did the US lose the Vietnam War? 
>>Dirk
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
Allow me to quote you:
"Or if you went to Iraq and protested the war there, that would be 
surely be taking responsibility.But what are we here risking? How are we 
responsible?What are any of us doing to resist this war? Aside from 
gestures and statements?"

Well, let me make the point more forcefully.
The US lost not because of any military defeat but because of those 
"gestures and statements", made not by the Vietnamese, or even US 
tourists in Vietnam but by people in the US and around the world.

The Iraqi resistance knows that the US  does not have the will to fight 
for twelve years, most especially because popular support for the war is 
collapsing. And I make a point of criticising the war, and the bogus 
reasons for it, at every oportunity thereby helping that process along.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 08/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 02:50:44 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 19:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <42D083F8.901@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710025045.18220.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm no military historian, Dirk, yet Hanoi was never
captured; Baghdad was captured in a matter of weeks.
All the protesting Americans- and as you reminded me-
others around the world engaged in during the Vietnam
War, was during an unending jungle war, the enemy
backed by USSR & China. America was not overthrowing
North Vietnam, the US was trying to replicate the
stalemate of Korea 1950-'53 (America was fighting the
last war). You can't compare the opposition to the
Vietnam War to the opposition to the Iraq War today.
The opposition to the Iraq War is tepid, the
opposition to the Vietnam War was not. Two years after
1965, resisters were doing all sorts of creative
things. Here it is two years after the Iraq invasion
and what is happening here? You tell me.  Just as you
want nothing to do with the Iraq War I want nothing
with protesting it.
The Consensus Party is serious and worthy, And so are
you. But with memories of manipulating marxist
masochoid mindprisoners, that is it for me. People can
fight their own mind-wars.

> Well, let me make the point more forcefully.
> The US lost not because of any military defeat but
> because of those 
> "gestures and statements", made not by the
> Vietnamese, or even US 
> tourists in Vietnam but by people in the US and
> around the world.
> 
> The Iraqi resistance knows that the US  does not
> have the will to fight 
> for twelve years, most especially because popular
> support for the war is 
> collapsing. And I make a point of criticising the
> war, and the bogus 
> reasons for it, at every oportunity thereby helping
> that process along.
> 
> -- 
> 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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 -
> Release Date: 08/07/2005
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jul 10 03:15:31 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:15:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha,
	i read your message very carefully--	it is poignant, very important
Message-ID: <1120965331.6131@whirlwind.he.net>

Dirk wrote:
> Why did the US lose the Vietnam War?


The US didn't lose the war in any military sense -- it was all but over
when the US withdrew.  The US walked away when all that was left was to
mop up, for complicated political reasons.  Even the communist
government of North Viet Nam agrees on that point in their official
history of the war.  Two more years and it would have very likely been
officially "over".  Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and all that.

For various reasons, the South Vietnamese could not hold it together on
their own, despite the fact that we left them in a clearly dominant
position.


j. andrew rogers




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 04:07:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710015757.8564.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050710040750.41618.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is entirely wrong. The US lost no battles whatsoever, despite
being hamstrung by stupid rules of engagement that caused the deaths of
thousands of American soldiers. How the US lost the Vietnam War was at
home in the US, where the Chinese and Vietnamese financed nationwide
anti-war protests that were organized by various socialist and
communist groups from the ACP to SDS, as documented in General Giap's
autobiography. In addition, our media was a propaganda front for the
North Vietnamese government, proven by the documented fact that the
Saigon bureau chief for Time magazine was a colonel in the NVA
intelligence service, as documented in his own biography and Vietnamese
government awards... We lost the war on the home front, and no place
else.

In this, there is a similarity to today in that the international left,
particularly stalinist groups like WWP, which have engaged in an
entryist campaign since the 1980's to compromise other organizations,
is now the western propaganda front for the Baathists and al qaeda,
which of course the major media is paying absolutely no attention to,
when it should be THE story to cover.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> For one thing, the country was very long and had, as
> is well known, much jungle to use as cover by the
> communists and their allies. I wager you that if Iraq
> had jungle cover we never would have invaded Iraq. The
> Soviets were determined to supply the communists.
> Vietnamese leftists felt they were cheated out of a
> fair election. Americans protested the war from 1962
> to 1973. LBJ was an asshole, Richard Nixon was an even
> bigger asshole. Other reasons, too. We could write a
> book....
> 
> 
> 
> > Why did the US lose the Vietnam War? 
> > Dirk
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
"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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jul 10 04:11:13 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:11:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: [Exi-la] Webcast of the
 First Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 10:41 PM 7/9/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> > Geoethical nanotechnology is the development and implementation under a
> > global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling molecules
>
>Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid I'll be rather
>suspicious that the word "Geoethical" and the phrase "global
>regulatory framework" are not biocompatible with my lunch, so tuning
>in to this "webcast" might cause me to lose it.
>
>It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian
>approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global
>regulatory framework".

I'm not sure if she (Martine Rothblatt) ever wrote about libertarian 
approaches to the world.  Where do you find this inconsistence Perry?

And, why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political theory 
when no one political theory is substantially adequate to intelligently 
address the rate of change and the effects of change and how the world can 
function in order to protect individuality and freedom.

If you are referring to Max, and perhaps this is a long shot on my part, 
but if you are, then you would find that his eloquence has evolved, not 
declined.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist, Designer
Studies of the Future, University of Houston

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/20050709/31dc07f1/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Sun Jul 10 04:44:10 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:44:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
Message-ID: <p06210200bef65730c828@[23.237.66.13]>

>Really?  Where did you derive this conclusion?  What type of 
>"hunger"?  I have been part of this particular scene for a couple of 
>decades now.  I certainly look for a level of "hunger"if you will.  

Samantha,

Whether it is true or not, perhaps it is a fashionable concept
presently..
Didn't Steve Jobs say this at Stanford recently? I keep seeing
references in the news to this 'hunger' aspect of entrepreneurs.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/grad-061505.html
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505

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/
********************************************************************
"My, this game does teach new words!" --Hobbes


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 04:56:09 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <20050710040750.41618.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050710045609.47929.qmail@web34406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Apologia if the post on Vietnam was entirely wrong.
 I was associated with WWP from '74-5, and they are
indeed Stalinoids. One of their Grand Klockards told
me "the other groups think we are like Mansonoids".
Back then their youth outreach org was called Youth
Against War and Fascism (YAWF). Larry Holmes, who is
today near the top of the WWP organization, said
during a discussion of how things are not always the
way they seem, "well, we are in favor of war". I
visited their old HQ (on 12th St) in NYC in 1977, and
asked one of them if WWP supported Pol Pot. He looked
embarrassed and replied, "We support Kampuchea".
Leslie Feinberg is a longtime hardcore WWP member, a
transgender warrior, she is interested in some aspects
of transhumanism, with friends like her we wouldn't
need enemies.
Mike, would you send me a private email about how they
are doing their campaign to compromise other orgs? I
don't like mind wars, but there are exceptions to
every rule, are there not? At war with WWP? Count me
in! Not ashamed to hold a grudge in this case.


>groups like WWP, which have
> engaged in an
> entryist campaign since the 1980's to compromise
> other organizations,
> is now the western propaganda front for the
> Baathists and al qaeda,
> which of course the major media is paying absolutely
> no attention to,
> when it should be THE story to cover.
r reasons, too.

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


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jul 10 05:03:23 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:03:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
Message-ID: <1120971803.26837@whirlwind.he.net>

Amara wrote:
> Whether it is true or not, perhaps it is a fashionable concept
> presently..
> Didn't Steve Jobs say this at Stanford recently? I keep seeing
> references in the news to this 'hunger' aspect of entrepreneurs.


The descriptive of "hungry" has been in use since I first moved to
Silicon Valley, some 15 years ago.  It is not a new adjective in the
entrepreneurial world, and certainly not in Silicon Valley.

Many (most?) people think they meet this description, but few actually
do in practice.  I would say maybe 10% of all startup inclined
individuals actually qualify based on my personal experience, which is
not exactly limited.  The very best crucibles are startups that
bootstrap to profitability over several years rather than being funded
early.  They will often have a 3-4x staffing turnover along the way due
to people who couldn't cut it, but there is always a small number that
can handle the whole ride from inception, no matter where it takes you.
 Those people are "hungry".  If you are starting a new company, the
ideal personality type is someone who has survived that kind of fire in
the past as one can generally be fairly certain they will survive the
diamond anvil that is the startup business.

In a nutshell, it is some combination of high competence and a
constitution of steel in the face of extreme adversity.  Most people
cannot take that kind of beating for very long.  The ones who can
survive that environment for years on end are worth their weight in gold
in a startup environment.  Those people are "hungry".


cheers,

j. andrew rogers





From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 10 05:25:57 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:25:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha's ? weird ?? format ?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050709194102.01c64f78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050709194102.01c64f78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C0B20C97-0B70-4DBE-BAE1-F77C02930FDF@mac.com>

I am using Mail on a Mac with no special settings.    So I'm not sure  
what could be causing such.

On Jul 9, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Is it just Eudora? Everything I get from Samantha is cluttered  
> with ? or ??, between sentences, inside sentences, at the end,  
> which I take to be characters Eudora can't read.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jul 10 05:34:29 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:34:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
Message-ID: <p06210201bef6618c35b2@[23.237.66.13]>

Brent Neal:
>Thanks for posting this to the list - I'll be interested in checking
>those articles. I had only seen the Physics Today article previously
>(by virtue of it coming to my doorstep, sadly.).

You're welcome.

>I fear, however, that you are wasting your time and breath in trying
>to convince the so-called 'climate skeptics' to consider rational
>evidence.

No I wrote that immediately after I finished reading Lean's article

(Judith Lean ''Living with a Variable Sun,'' June 2005, Physics
Today.)

so then expressing my impression. She did a great job. While I think
the articles in Physics Today are generally of high quality, this one
blew me away. A comprehensive and readable synthesis of so much good
information!

>My experience has been that their rejection of any evidence
>pointing towards human-driven global warming borders on the religious.
>  No matter how much evidence I've seen to the contrary, I still hear
>it claimed, frequently, that there are 'no reputable scientists' that
>believe in global warming.  Even more disturbing is the persistent
>rejection that climate scientists are interested in how the solar
>cycle has affected warming trends, despite ample evidence to the
>contrary.  My only explanation is that they are indulging in classic
>psychological projection, attributing to their opponents the symptoms
>of their own pathos.

To be honest I've not carefully followed all of the arguments, but
this story is an old one; perhaps 20 years of arguments/discussions.
I have atmospheric scientist friends who were convinced 10 years ago,
at the same time (10 yrs ago) the solar physicists in the group I was
working were not as convinced as them. Lean's article shows to me that
an agreement about many aspects of global warming exists now among the
relevant scientists. I don't know when this general agreement began,
but it seems to exist now.

Me, I am just a bystander, not very interested in convincing anyone.
I am highly selective in my magazine subscriptions (weekly journals and
some overseas shipping costs are a killer on my poverty budget), so I
cannot ignore when, in a short period of time, I am reading articles
in my magazines on the same topic, and they are concluding more or
less the same thing. There is a lot of supporting evidence now.

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/
********************************************************************
      "Trust in the Universe, but tie up your camels first."
                (adaptation of a Sufi proverb)



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Jul 10 05:45:11 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:45:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] mitochondrial quantum leap
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bef6618c35b2@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06210201bef6618c35b2@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605070922454c414ebf@mail.gmail.com>

Today our team confirmed our previous preliminary data showing that we
can achieve robust mitochondrial transfection and protein expression
in mitochondria of live rats, after an injection of genetically
engineered mitochondrial DNA complexed with our protofection
transfection agent. A significant fraction of cells in the brain is
transfected with this single injection even though we so far did not
optimize the dose.

This achievement has important implications for medicine: protofection
technology works in vivo, and should be capable of replacing damaged
mitochondrial genomes.

Stay tuned.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 10 06:19:08 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:19:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bef65730c828@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200bef65730c828@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <A2CFF18A-E441-487D-A9ED-0937193D1926@mac.com>

Thanks for these two links.  I really enjoyed the transcript.  If  
first met Steve and Steve when they were a couple of semi-hippie  
tecnology freaks like many of the people I was hanging with at the  
itme.  They were toting this homebrew computer in a wood box.  At the  
time I was having a lot of trouble telling the real visionaries from  
the just plained obsessed but not going anywhere folks.  So I went to  
back to school instead of attempting to join the fledgling company.   
I don't remember if they were even talking about a company then.  But  
they were really passionate.

I see stuff about love - loving what you are doing and passion which  
I guess is a type of hunger sort of.  That I know is very real and  
critical.  In hiring situations I always pass on people that have no  
passion.  The passion doesn't have to even be in what they are being  
interviewed for.   But without that spark that sometimes bursts into  
huge creativity  something great  is much less likely to come from  
the  team.   Those wonderful periods of passionate creative fire are  
one of the yummiest and most desirable things in life.  But yeah, he  
does end with the catchy "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish".

I could kick myself for the times I have "settled" in my career.  I  
won't do that any more.

He gets more than a little deathist in many places.  Yes, death and  
its [until now] relatively quick inevitability can be used in  
advantages ways; most anything can be with a bit of skill.  But this  
hardly makes death something wonderful or "the best invention of  
Life".   We can do much better.   We can renew ourselves without it.   
I am sick of hearing excuses and apologetics for death.



- samantha

On Jul 9, 2005, at 9:44 PM, Amara Graps wrote:

>> Really?  Where did you derive this conclusion?  What type of  
>> "hunger"?  I have been part of this particular scene for a couple  
>> of decades now.  I certainly look for a level of "hunger"if you will.
>>
>
> Samantha,
>
> Whether it is true or not, perhaps it is a fashionable concept
> presently..
> Didn't Steve Jobs say this at Stanford recently? I keep seeing
> references in the news to this 'hunger' aspect of entrepreneurs.
>
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/grad-061505.html
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505
>
> 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/
> ********************************************************************
> "My, this game does teach new words!" --Hobbes
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 10 06:34:52 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:34:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <1120971803.26837@whirlwind.he.net>
References: <1120971803.26837@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <0C02796B-6EB6-4211-9784-D8441A5D492D@mac.com>


On Jul 9, 2005, at 10:03 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> Amara wrote:
>
>> Whether it is true or not, perhaps it is a fashionable concept
>> presently..
>> Didn't Steve Jobs say this at Stanford recently? I keep seeing
>> references in the news to this 'hunger' aspect of entrepreneurs.
>>
>
>
> The descriptive of "hungry" has been in use since I first moved to
> Silicon Valley, some 15 years ago.  It is not a new adjective in the
> entrepreneurial world, and certainly not in Silicon Valley.
>
> Many (most?) people think they meet this description, but few actually
> do in practice.  I would say maybe 10% of all startup inclined
> individuals actually qualify based on my personal experience, which is
> not exactly limited.  The very best crucibles are startups that
> bootstrap to profitability over several years rather than being funded
> early.  They will often have a 3-4x staffing turnover along the way  
> due
> to people who couldn't cut it, but there is always a small number that
> can handle the whole ride from inception, no matter where it takes  
> you.
>  Those people are "hungry".  If you are starting a new company, the
> ideal personality type is someone who has survived that kind of  
> fire in
> the past as one can generally be fairly certain they will survive the
> diamond anvil that is the startup business.

Yep.  Many years ago I was employee #9 at a startup.  All of us were  
engineers except for one person doing about 6 jobs at the level of  
secretary, payroll, HR, reception, accounting.  I was used to working  
hard but the early days were killer.  I immersed so deeply and for  
such long hours I thought my brain would explode.  I was there for a  
bit under 3 years.

Now I am starting my own company.  For now it is bootstrap all the  
way.  But I will happily accept money if it doesn't cost too much  
control.

>
> In a nutshell, it is some combination of high competence and a
> constitution of steel in the face of extreme adversity.  Most people
> cannot take that kind of beating for very long.  The ones who can
> survive that environment for years on end are worth their weight in  
> gold
> in a startup environment.  Those people are "hungry".
>

I am re-honing my hunger.  I sated my hunger on whatever paid well  
for too many years.  And though I hate to admit it, it is much harder  
to build and sustain that kind of intense focused energy at 51.

- samantha


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 07:25:37 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070909126c03ed3c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050710072537.42452.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think he is also correct that immortals will
> become very risk averse
> in lifestyle and in investments. There would be a
> slowdown in the
> economy as older minds don't indulge in the spending
> fads and toys
> that fascinate young minds. The 'We've seen it all
> before' attitude
> would apply to everyone.

I disagree. Anybody who is willing to radically alter
their biochemistry/physiology/bodies in order to live
longer will be very prone to pragmatism and willing to
take risk. Indeed the first few will likely be
daredevils since nobody will really know what to
expect (i.e. a treatment that immortalizes mice could
entirely possibly kill a human). They will also likely
be very mature and adult and feel fairly fufilled by
life, thus their personality will likely be fairly
stable. While once the technique becomes perfected, we
can expect more risk averse immortals to join the
pool, the first and therefore oldest will most likely
be risk-takers and people of action. Individuals
unlikely to be afraid of speculation and not the kind
to sit on their hordes. Of course they may very well
be greedy as they most certainly would be rich but
they would be smart gamblers and not investment
bankers.


> 
> His contention that immortals could become a race of
> self-preoccupied,
> spoilt prima donnas strikes me at first as
> surprisingly plausible.
> Immortals will have an exaggerated sense of caring
> for themselves. But
> then if we are living in a society of prima donnas,
> nobody will put up
> with anyone else's tantrums. :)

I doubt they would be any more prima donnas than the
very people on this list, myself included. ;)


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 Jul 10 07:55:51 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] more great reasons to be dead
In-Reply-To: <000501c584bc$80b23d50$d9be1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20050710075551.55566.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> > After all, well-adjusted people 
> > tend to develop a serene acceptance 
> > of finitude.
> 
> It seems that Seneca gave
> a different, maybe deeper,
> definition of death, a definition
> which could explain the (supposed)
> serene acceptance.
> 
> [Letters to Lucilius, 1)
> 'For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; 
> the major portion of death has already passed. 
> Whatever years be behind us are in death's hands.'

Yes, I do think Seneca was deeper if less lyrical. I,
however think serene acceptance of death comes from
the realization that the oblivion to which one goes
can be no worse than the oblivion from which one came.
Remember back to before memory and that is death. 

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 08:34:10 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] on The Climate Change Question
In-Reply-To: <20050709225838.27217.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050710083410.62426.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> Global warming chicken littles also engage in
> political and academic
> repression, INCLUDING a person or persons subscribed
> to this list who
> have communicated with others in their movement and
> attempted to use my
> opinions to damage the academic career of a relative
> of mine.

Mike, I agree with you that there is not yet
conclusive proof of an anthropogenic cause of global
warming. Moreover your point about methane generation
of ruminants is accurate. I for one would like to see
cattle kept under large tents that trap the methane
and utilize it for the powering of devices. (inspired
by Mad Max:Beyond Thunderdome of course) In answer to
your question about the history of the naturally
occuring levels of methane in earths atmosphere, in
recent time scales I don't know. But on geologic time
scales, it is widely held that methane was once one of
the predominant constituents of the atmosphere in very
early times. Since then, presumably, it has been
declining. I do imagine that large herbivorous
dinosaurs probably farted huge volumes of methane. 
      But I object to fossil fuels more on the grounds
of their toxic effects, both by oil spillage during
transport and by polluting the air with free-radicals,
nanoparticles, sulfides, and other substances noxious
to life. I resent the fact that the oil companies are
using the controversy over global warming as a straw
man to defend the rest of their irresponible, toxic,
and sometimes violent practices. As far as I know,
global warming (whether it is actually happening
because of us or not) has not killed anyone yet. The
other negative effects of fossil fuel usage have
killed far too many. Aside from the growing percentage
of children diagnosed with asthma and allergies every
year, there are the wars and the terrorists and other
indirect factors as well. Acid rain and the Asian
Brown Cloud can both be demonstrated to be caused by
burning fossil fuels. Even gulf war syndrome is now
thought to be caused by very large doses of the same
things that we all are breathing this very minute. The
sooner we switch to an alcohol economy, the longer we
will live.
      Heat dissapation will always be a technical
hurdle imposed on our engineering by thermodynamics,
thus global warming will be an issue for some time to
come. But we need to deal with the toxins first and
foremost.


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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Jul 10 08:36:53 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:36:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Immortals (was: more great reasons to be dead)
In-Reply-To: <200507092350.j69NoCR18616@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507092350.j69NoCR18616@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42D0DE25.7090803@lineone.net>

Damien Sullivan wrote:

"I would say, more likely than a discrete elixir of life, let alone any 
way of
telling "immortals" from "mortals", or even a sense of "immortality", is
simply better and better medical care, better prevention or genetic 
cleaning,
more and better replacement of parts.  A whole suite of ways of 
enhancing the
body's ability to maintain itself in the face of entropy.  And rather than
"woot, we're immortal!" there'll just be longer and longer achieved 
lifespans.  "

There's an easy way of telling an immortal apart from everybody else. 
They need two birthday cakes to hold all the candles.

You raise a good point, but i wonder what the general reaction will be 
to the first person who passes their 120th birthday in demonstrably good 
health. Nobody has ever done that before, so it will be a unique and 
special event. They will be a special person, and the media will 
probably lap it up. Might this not start a general perception that there 
are such things as 'immortals'?

Or will this point be reached so gradually that it's not so special, and 
is completely expected? I can't believe that somebody won't make a big 
deal of it. If nothing else, it will mark a record that's been broken, 
and that's always 'newsworthy'. And the candlemakers will be celebrating.

ben


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 09:44:16 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <42D083F8.901@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710094416.46048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Well, let me make the point more forcefully.
> The US lost not because of any military defeat but
> because of those 
> "gestures and statements", made not by the
> Vietnamese, or even US 
> tourists in Vietnam but by people in the US and
> around the world.
> 
> The Iraqi resistance knows that the US  does not
> have the will to fight 
> for twelve years, most especially because popular
> support for the war is 
> collapsing. And I make a point of criticising the
> war, and the bogus 
> reasons for it, at every oportunity thereby helping
> that process along.

      Interestingly enough, I agree with you Dirk in
that public sentiment/opinion (most importantly
American public opinion) is the kryptonite of the
American soldier. When they are inspired by a cause
that we believe in, they are capable of homeric deeds.
But when they no longer believe they are fighting for
the people and things they love, they can be routed by
barefoot guys with bows and arrows. 
     That being said, I still think U.S. withdrawal
without replacement by U.N. peacekeepers, would be a
huge tragic mistake. All economic self-interest of the
U.S. aside (and we would lose big) we would be
knowingly allowing a four way civil war that will at
best result in a return of the Baathists to their
murderous splendour and at worst the creation of three
more fractious states that will further destabilize
the Middle East. And you will have more countries for
terrorists to hide in while they plan their next
London bombing. Sooner or later they may get a nuke.
     If your "gestures and statements" campaign
succeeds, one of two possible outcomes will result
depending entirely on your motive. If your motive was
to deal a punitive economic blow to the U.S. for
invading a country that was formerly on EVERYBODY's
shit list then you will have succeeded. If your motive
was to save lives, whether they were those of the
Iraqis, Americans, or even your own fellow Brits, you
will have failed. I would not presume to guess your
motives.


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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 10:04:28 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] mitochondrial quantum leap
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605070922454c414ebf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050710100428.49127.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Today our team confirmed our previous preliminary
> data showing that we
> can achieve robust mitochondrial transfection and
> protein expression
> in mitochondria of live rats, after an injection of
> genetically
> engineered mitochondrial DNA complexed with our
> protofection
> transfection agent. A significant fraction of cells
> in the brain is
> transfected with this single injection even though
> we so far did not
> optimize the dose.
> 
> This achievement has important implications for
> medicine: protofection
> technology works in vivo, and should be capable of
> replacing damaged
> mitochondrial genomes.

Wow. Not to mention customizing entirely new ones. Can
I get some mitochodria with a few extra copies of the
SOD gene? :)

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 11:01:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <002501c5844b$12993010$7c863040@WIGGLES>
Message-ID: <20050710110146.43208.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:

> 
> Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New
> Age and 
> ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who
> embrace both metaphysics and 
> advanced science. I do not regard them as
> incompatible, if each is kept in 
> its proper sphere. I wonder if anyone here is
> familiar with the Integral 
> approach of Ken Wilber?
> (http://wilber.shambhala.com/)
In my opinion the relationship of metaphysics to
science is that metaphysics encompasses science and as
science grows, metaphysics shrinks. Perhaps someday
science will understand all and there will be no more
metaphysics left, but then again - maybe not.



 This philosophy 
> applies an evolutionary approach to all domains
> ranging from physical and 
> biological to social, mental and spiritual. In some
> ways, I think it's a 
> little too pat in drawing such equivalences, but I
> have found meaningful 
> insights in it.

I prefer to philosophize rather than to read about
someone else doing it, but I will check it out.

> Claribel: Another excellent point. The predominant
> New Age version of nature 
> is very sanitized. I've always considered it ironic
> that we should "walk 
> lightly on the earth" when it doesn't walk lightly
> on us (or on itself, 
> considering earthquakes and tsunamis.)

You are awakening to your own power. Stomp as deeply
into the earth as you want, and you will not stomp
deeper than 70 ton ultrasaurus did a few hundred
million years ago. Now you can no longer even see his
footprint, just a single shoulder-blade that got
lucky. You cannot hurt the earth any more than a
newborn can suckle too hard on its mother's teat.

> Claribel: Is this for drug experiments, or for
> pain-killers? I've often 
> wondered why experimenters don't just lobotomize the
> pain centers of their 
> animals' brains. Could you explain the usual
> procedures for controlling pain 
> and trauma in laboratory specimens?

The cocaine experiments are done in a different lab so
I do not know the details of what they are studying,
but I believe it has something to do with the effects
of chronic cocaine use on immunity and the ability to
resist infection with viruses. (like HIV, Herpes,
etc.)
In answer to your second question, if we do surgery of
any kind on the animals, we anesthetise them first. If
instead it is time to "harvest", we euthanise them
humanely by either breaking their necks very quickly,
which renders them unconscious immediately and
painlessly or by gassing them with CO2 likewise
painless and quick.

> 
> I will admit that, since I eat meat and perform
> ruthless genocide with 
> flypaper and ant traps (almost literal genocide,
> since I've destroyed 
> several breeding populations in my house), it would
> be hypocritical for me 
> to condemn the whole idea of sacrificing animals'
> lives in research.
> 

Eating meat is no longer genocide since the
agricultural revolution. Now it is the perptuation of
the species that such meat comes from. The chickens
are far better off than the condors. As far as my
sacrifice of mice or your war waged against the ants-
be at peace. For nothing is wasted in nature. The
worms, fungi, and other humble scavengers of the earth
would thank you for the bounty if they could.

Are you perchance a Wiccan?  

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 10 12:05:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 05:05:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710094416.46048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710094416.46048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <904ADFDA-7A93-41EE-B3BC-4C2534C92E86@mac.com>


On Jul 10, 2005, at 2:44 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>       Interestingly enough, I agree with you Dirk in
> that public sentiment/opinion (most importantly
> American public opinion) is the kryptonite of the
> American soldier. When they are inspired by a cause
> that we believe in, they are capable of homeric deeds.
> But when they no longer believe they are fighting for
> the people and things they love, they can be routed by
> barefoot guys with bows and arrows.

The kryptonite of the soldier is the idiocy of politicians wasting  
the lives of soldiers on meaningless conflicts.  It is the job of the  
American people to speak up when such idiocy becomes obvious.

>      That being said, I still think U.S. withdrawal
> without replacement by U.N. peacekeepers, would be a
> huge tragic mistake. All economic self-interest of the
> U.S. aside (and we would lose big) we would be
> knowingly allowing a four way civil war that will at
> best result in a return of the Baathists to their
> murderous splendour and at worst the creation of three
> more fractious states that will further destabilize
> the Middle East. And you will have more countries for
> terrorists to hide in while they plan their next
> London bombing. Sooner or later they may get a nuke.

Sooner or later my grandma may get a nuke.  Please don't throw in  
gratuitous maybes of this kind.

>      If your "gestures and statements" campaign
> succeeds, one of two possible outcomes will result
> depending entirely on your motive. If your motive was
> to deal a punitive economic blow to the U.S. for
> invading a country that was formerly on EVERYBODY's
> shit list then you will have succeeded. If your motive
> was to save lives, whether they were those of the
> Iraqis, Americans, or even your own fellow Brits, you
> will have failed. I would not presume to guess your
> motives.
>

Are you going to blame the people for telling the truth about this  
outrageous stupidity to the best of their abilities to know it?   My  
motive is to get the US out of their and bring in the UN for the  
purpose of returning the country to the Iraqis.   The economic blow  
will be far worse imho if we stay.   I also disagree that our being  
there saves more lives than if we left.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 10 12:21:13 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 05:21:13 -0700
Subject: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <002501c5844b$12993010$7c863040@WIGGLES>
References: <002501c5844b$12993010$7c863040@WIGGLES>
Message-ID: <684E4711-AAA7-44C8-9175-ADEC1195ECE7@mac.com>


On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Claribel wrote:

>
> From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
>
>
>    But if they truly believed their own claims, then
> they would realize that we and our technology are as
> natural as any other species that has evolved to the
> point of out-competing other species. If they truly
> believed that "we are the world" and they truly
> understood the world, and thereby themselves, then
> they would embrace change knowing that the world
> always has and will continue to change, transform, and
> evolve.
>
> Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New Age and  
> ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who embrace both  
> metaphysics and advanced science. I do not regard them as  
> incompatible, if each is kept in its proper sphere. I wonder if  
> anyone here is familiar with the Integral approach of Ken Wilber?  
> (http://wilber.shambhala.com/) This philosophy applies an  
> evolutionary approach to all domains ranging from physical and  
> biological to social, mental and spiritual. In some ways, I think  
> it's a little too pat in drawing such equivalences, but I have  
> found meaningful insights in it.
>

Please define "metaphysics" or simply say what it means to you.  I do  
not believe in such separate spheres.   Why is truth to be  
partitioned so?

>
> The Avantguardian:
>
> It also irks me to no end when I see some trendy
> Hollywood starlet who goes on TV on behalf of PETA or
> some such to condemn me for using mice in my
> biomedical research. What truly drives me to
> distraction is that, short of being prevented from
> roaming where they will, those mice live exceedingly
> well for mice....Hell the neighboring lab actually supplies their  
> mice with
> several hundreds of dollars worth of cocaine on a
> weekly basis.
>
> Claribel: Is this for drug experiments, or for pain-killers? I've  
> often wondered why experimenters don't just lobotomize the pain  
> centers of their animals' brains. Could you explain the usual  
> procedures for controlling pain and trauma in laboratory specimens?
>
> I will admit that, since I eat meat and perform ruthless genocide  
> with flypaper and ant traps (almost literal genocide, since I've  
> destroyed several breeding populations in my house), it would be  
> hypocritical for me to condemn the whole idea of sacrificing  
> animals' lives in research.
>

You are aware that ants and termites and such are by far the largest  
part of the biomass of earth?   The little bit of ant death in your  
home is utterly undetectable considering the size of the overall  
population.  Unless you believe it is rational to live as a Jain your  
statements of some kind of guilt in this manner are meaningless.

- samantha


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Jul 10 13:04:49 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:04:49 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Samantha's ? weird ?? format ?
In-Reply-To: <C0B20C97-0B70-4DBE-BAE1-F77C02930FDF@mac.com>
References: <20050709212649.30882.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<F5917375-A501-420C-8F68-A96389458BE8@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050709194102.01c64f78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<C0B20C97-0B70-4DBE-BAE1-F77C02930FDF@mac.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507100759450.-238491@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


I'm using Pine on Windows 98 SE and have no troubles with Samantha's
posts. ISO-8859-1 character set.

Regards,
MB


On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I am using Mail on a Mac with no special settings.    So I'm not sure
> what could be causing such.
>
> On Jul 9, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> > Is it just Eudora? Everything I get from Samantha is cluttered
> > with ? or ??, between sentences, inside sentences, at the end,
> > which I take to be characters Eudora can't read.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 15:35:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <20050710045609.47929.qmail@web34406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050710153516.59067.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

It's well documented that they run ANSWER, the main anti-war group
today, and have organised most anti-war protests in the US through this
front. They also comprise the whole of the staff of International
Action Center, a group founded and still somewhat run by former US
Attorney General Ramsey Clark. They have their hooks into IWW and TAO
as well. They have sent a number of their people through the
protester/saboteur bootcamps run by the Ruckus Society. There seems to
be at least a few WWP people involved in Jeremy Rifkin's group.

WWP and several of these other groups accepted, prior to the Iraq war,
significant sums from Saddam Hussein, according to records captured in
Bagdad. Whether they continue to receive funds from the Baathist Party
in Syria, as is suspected, has not yet been confirmed.

They are therefore to be considered the mouthpiece of the
stalinist/baathist movement in the US and anything they do or say
should therefore be discounted as agitprop disinformation of the enemy.

--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Apologia if the post on Vietnam was entirely wrong.
>  I was associated with WWP from '74-5, and they are
> indeed Stalinoids. One of their Grand Klockards told
> me "the other groups think we are like Mansonoids".
> Back then their youth outreach org was called Youth
> Against War and Fascism (YAWF). Larry Holmes, who is
> today near the top of the WWP organization, said
> during a discussion of how things are not always the
> way they seem, "well, we are in favor of war". I
> visited their old HQ (on 12th St) in NYC in 1977, and
> asked one of them if WWP supported Pol Pot. He looked
> embarrassed and replied, "We support Kampuchea".
> Leslie Feinberg is a longtime hardcore WWP member, a
> transgender warrior, she is interested in some aspects
> of transhumanism, with friends like her we wouldn't
> need enemies.
> Mike, would you send me a private email about how they
> are doing their campaign to compromise other orgs? I
> don't like mind wars, but there are exceptions to
> every rule, are there not? At war with WWP? Count me
> in! Not ashamed to hold a grudge in this case.
> 
> 
> >groups like WWP, which have
> > engaged in an
> > entryist campaign since the 1980's to compromise
> > other organizations,
> > is now the western propaganda front for the
> > Baathists and al qaeda,
> > which of course the major media is paying absolutely
> > no attention to,
> > when it should be THE story to cover.
> r reasons, too.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
"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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Jul 10 16:22:27 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:22:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] mitochondrial quantum leap
In-Reply-To: <20050710100428.49127.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <7641ddc605070922454c414ebf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050710100428.49127.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60507100922ac8f482@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/10/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Wow. Not to mention customizing entirely new ones. Can
> I get some mitochodria with a few extra copies of the
> SOD gene? :)
> 
### Yes, you could - but you wouldn't need to! If you can replace your
mitos every twenty years, you don't need to protect them as if your
life depended on them, or be careful about using them up. No more
veggies and antioxidants. The wildest lifestyle of smoky bacon,
tobacco, and booze could be sustained indefinitely, or at least as
long as your nuclear DNA doesn't give up.

But on the other hand, yes, you could splice new genes into your
mitos, maybe something to improve control of cancerogenesis, which
could otherwise still remain your Achilles' heel. Even with fresh
mitos the nuclear mutations may be sufficient to cause cancer,
although at a lower rate than with sick mitos.

And of course you could have super-charged mitos, for extreme
endurance and high IQ. One of the limitations of intelligence is the
energetic capacity of neurons, as shown in mice with mitochondrial
replacement achieved by a breeding program.

Rafal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 16:34:17 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <904ADFDA-7A93-41EE-B3BC-4C2534C92E86@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050710163417.85920.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you going to blame the people for telling the truth about this  
> outrageous stupidity to the best of their abilities to know it?   My 
> motive is to get the US out of their and bring in the UN for the  
> purpose of returning the country to the Iraqis.   The economic blow  
> will be far worse imho if we stay.   I also disagree that our being  
> there saves more lives than if we left.

Samantha, who do you think historically makes up the bulk of UN
peacekeeping forces? The UN has about 57,000 peacekeeping troops
deployed around the world, most of whom are 'observers' without any
capacity even to defend themselves, never mind protect others. There is
absolutely no way the UN could take control of things in Iraq without
the US being the bulk of its force. You are also being ignoring
history, as well as being unrealistic: the UN already came into Iraq,
got bombed, turned tail, and ran screeching like a little girl.

You can disagree all you want about numbers of lives saved, but the
numbers contradict your beliefs.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 16:39:48 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:39:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <20050710153516.59067.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710153516.59067.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D14F54.2090706@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>WWP and several of these other groups accepted, prior to the Iraq war,
>significant sums from Saddam Hussein, according to records captured in
>Bagdad. Whether they continue to receive funds from the Baathist Party
>in Syria, as is suspected, has not yet been confirmed.
>
>  
>
Well, better just ask the CIA who can be relied upon to provide truthful 
answers to all such question. NOT.
Would these be the same records that smeared George Galloway?
Your naivete is touching.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 16:41:09 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:41:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710163417.85920.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710163417.85920.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D14FA5.2010704@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Are you going to blame the people for telling the truth about this  
>>outrageous stupidity to the best of their abilities to know it?   My 
>>motive is to get the US out of their and bring in the UN for the  
>>purpose of returning the country to the Iraqis.   The economic blow  
>>will be far worse imho if we stay.   I also disagree that our being  
>>there saves more lives than if we left.
>>    
>>
>
>Samantha, who do you think historically makes up the bulk of UN
>peacekeeping forces? The UN has about 57,000 peacekeeping troops
>deployed around the world, most of whom are 'observers' without any
>capacity even to defend themselves, never mind protect others. There is
>absolutely no way the UN could take control of things in Iraq without
>the US being the bulk of its force. You are also being ignoring
>history, as well as being unrealistic: the UN already came into Iraq,
>got bombed, turned tail, and ran screeching like a little girl.
>
>  
>
That's because the US likes it that way.
You think Bush would be cheering if the Chinese offered half a million 
troops to provide the UN with real teeth?

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 16:42:24 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:42:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710094416.46048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710094416.46048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D14FF0.2080107@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Well, let me make the point more forcefully.
>>The US lost not because of any military defeat but
>>because of those 
>>"gestures and statements", made not by the
>>Vietnamese, or even US 
>>tourists in Vietnam but by people in the US and
>>around the world.
>>
>>The Iraqi resistance knows that the US  does not
>>have the will to fight 
>>for twelve years, most especially because popular
>>support for the war is 
>>collapsing. And I make a point of criticising the
>>war, and the bogus 
>>reasons for it, at every oportunity thereby helping
>>that process along.
>>    
>>
>
>      Interestingly enough, I agree with you Dirk in
>that public sentiment/opinion (most importantly
>American public opinion) is the kryptonite of the
>American soldier. When they are inspired by a cause
>that we believe in, they are capable of homeric deeds.
>But when they no longer believe they are fighting for
>the people and things they love, they can be routed by
>barefoot guys with bows and arrows. 
>     That being said, I still think U.S. withdrawal
>without replacement by U.N. peacekeepers, would be a
>huge tragic mistake. All economic self-interest of the
>U.S. aside (and we would lose big) we would be
>knowingly allowing a four way civil war that will at
>best result in a return of the Baathists to their
>murderous splendour and at worst the creation of three
>more fractious states that will further destabilize
>the Middle East. And you will have more countries for
>terrorists to hide in while they plan their next
>London bombing. Sooner or later they may get a nuke.
>     If your "gestures and statements" campaign
>succeeds, one of two possible outcomes will result
>depending entirely on your motive. If your motive was
>to deal a punitive economic blow to the U.S. for
>invading a country that was formerly on EVERYBODY's
>shit list then you will have succeeded. If your motive
>was to save lives, whether they were those of the
>Iraqis, Americans, or even your own fellow Brits, you
>will have failed. I would not presume to guess your
>motives.
>  
>
You don't have to guess.
They have been explained here, on Usenet and on the Consensus site.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jul 10 17:01:01 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:01:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
Message-ID: <1121014861.20123@whirlwind.he.net>

Dirk wrote:
> You think Bush would be cheering if the Chinese offered half a million 
> troops to provide the UN with real teeth?


If you'd thought about this for more than half a second, you would
realize that the US is the only one that can do it because the US is the
only country left that can project significant military and logistical
force beyond its own borders.  Even the UK is a shadow of what it could
do a couple decades ago in the force projection arena, and they are the
runner-up.

The Chinese have zero ability to project military force beyond
immediately adjacent territories on their land borders.  It is absurd
that you would even suggest that the Chinese could provide "teeth" to
the UN, unless the UN needs troops on the Chinese border.  Wishing
otherwise does not make it reality.

The canard about a mighty Chinese military will stay a canard for at
least another decade or two, so get used to the idea.


j. andrew rogers



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jul 10 17:37:03 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:37:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANDERS!
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710122428.0291a450@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Please join me in making a toast to Anders Sandberg!  "May you live all the 
days of your life." Jonathan Swift


"Here's to you old friend, may you live a thousand years,
Just to sort of cheer things up, in this vale of [trans]human tears;
And may I live a thousand too-a thousand-less one day,
Because I wouldn't want to be on earth, and hear you'd passed away. (Anon)


And for fun:

"Inside every older person is a younger person - wondering what the hell 
happened." Cora Harvey Armstrong

"To me, old age is always 15 years older than I am." Bernard Baruch

"Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative." Maurice Chevalier

"Of late I appear
To have reached that stage
When people who look old
Who are only my age."
Richard Armour

"When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it happened or 
not." Mark Twain

"I'm at an age when my back goes out more than I do." Phyllis Diller

"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's
birthday but never remembers her age."  Robert Frost

"You are only young once, but you can be immature for a lifetime." John P. 
Grier

"If I'd known I was going to live this long (100 years),
I'd have taken better care of myself."  Ubie Blake

"Men are like wine. Some turn to vinegar, but the best improve with age." 
C.E.M. Joad

"Let us respect gray hairs, especially our own." J. P. Sears

"Age is a high price to pay for maturity." Tom Stoppard

"If we could be twice young and twice old we could correct all our 
mistakes." Euripides

"Growing old is like being increasingly penalized for a crime you have not 
committed." Anthony Powell


Cheers!
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/20050710/60d9a831/attachment.html>

From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 17:48:56 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <42D14F54.2090706@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710174856.88221.qmail@web34412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Maybe so but, anyway, WWP can't be trusted across the
street, they in no way can be considered democratic.
WWP doesn't want peace in the Mideast, they want
peoples' war all across the region, and most of WWP
are motivated by revenge. Interesting in the morbid
sense, they are strongly pro-gay rights but can you
imagine if they were to actually pull off their
hopeless Revolution:
 "Comrade Lesbian Linda, we regret to inform you of
your dismissal from the Peoples' Vanguard Theatre
Company, and we so sorry to tell you are under arrest
as Party deviationist and saboteur". 
No parody, they absolutely mean business, when the WWP
Grand Dragon of Art (who specialized in psychedelic Ho
Chi Minh wall posters) confided, "the other groups
think we are like Manson", he was trying to impart
something. Just glancing at their site it was apparent
they haven't changed in the 30 years since I saw them
close up.

> Well, better just ask the CIA who can be relied upon
> to provide truthful 
> answers to all such question. NOT.
> Would these be the same records that smeared George
> Galloway?
> Your naivete is touching.
> 
> -- 
> 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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 -
> Release Date: 09/07/2005
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 18:09:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <42D14F54.2090706@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710180959.25679.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >WWP and several of these other groups accepted, prior to the Iraq
> war,
> >significant sums from Saddam Hussein, according to records captured
> in
> >Bagdad. Whether they continue to receive funds from the Baathist
> Party
> >in Syria, as is suspected, has not yet been confirmed.
> >
> >  
> >
> Well, better just ask the CIA who can be relied upon to provide
> truthful answers to all such question. NOT.
> Would these be the same records that smeared George Galloway?
> Your naivete is touching.

Your excuse making for stalinists and baathists is revealing. It also
displays ignorance and naivete of the international left and its
agenda. Domestic revolutionary and insurgency groups come under the
surveillance of the FBI's Department 5, not the CIA.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370660

http://caosblog.com/archives/803

"The FBI considers the WWP a terrorist organization. On May 10, 2001,
FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that ?Anarchists and extremist
socialist groups ? many of which, such as the Workers World Party, have
an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential
threat in the United States.? Imagine that; the mainstream media
somehow missed the fact that the most ubiquitous organizer of
?anti-war? protests is directed by a terrorist support group. Shouldn?t
a question on this front be aimed directly at Ramsey Clark at one of
his regular press conferences?

The Korean Truth Commission and Pastors for Peace are staunch allies of
Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro, respectively, and both groups continue to
support these murderous regimes? violation of International law. In
addition to its role as a front for the support of
totalitarian/communist governments in North Korea and Cuba, members of
ANSWER?s steering committee such as the Muslim Student Association and
the Free Palestine Alliance continue to provide ideological, logistical
and financial support for organizations devoted to the destruction of
the state of Israel, including the terrorist group, Hamas. A
comprehensive investigation of the members of ANSWER?s steering
committee make it clear that the organization is in actuality one of
Peace?s greatest enemies. "

This isn't the first time the WWP has pandered for overseas thugs. They
also accepted funds and lobbied for former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevich. Ramsey Clark served as legal counsel in the US for Saddam
Hussein. The WWP also runs the KTC, the Korea Truth Commission, a front
for North Korean thug-in-chief Kim Jong Il.

http://www.brookesnews.com/031502peacerally.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2592
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310163.shtml
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5734
http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2005/000001.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370637

"The IAC has felt the sting. In a statement it blasted those who
"dishonestly claim that ANSWER is a 'front' group in order to diminish
the coalition," though it acknowledges "the presence of socialists and
Marxists, in particular members of the Workers World Party." Their
critics, IAC says, are racists: "Those who claim that ANSWER is a
'front' organization demonstrate their own racist and elitist
perception of reality." 

And ANSWER has ripped what it calls "a repugnant red-baiting campaign
against the ANSWER coalition because of its role as a principal
organizer of the mass grass-roots movement of opposition to war
throughout the United States." 

The WWP is nothing if not consistent. According to a 1974 congressional
report, it split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1959 in a dispute
over the Soviet invasion of Hungary three years before. The Socialist
Workers opposed the invasion, while Workers World partisans supported
it. "In 1968, the Workers World Party supported the invasion of
Czechoslovakia by the communist Warsaw Pact armies," the report
continued. The party, which never numbered more than a few hundred
people, supported the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army against the
United States during the Vietnam War, according to the congressional
report. Some of its activities were coordinated with enemy military
actions. An April 8, 1972, internal letter "To All Branches" of the
party urged participation in "antiwar" demonstrations in support of a
Viet Cong offensive in South Vietnam. The letter's author, John
Catalinotto, remains in the party as managing editor of its weekly
Workers World "newspaper," and occasionally represents the IAC. 

Party members received revolutionary training in Cuba as members of the
Venceremos Brigades in the 1960s and early 1970s, and at about that
time the party oriented itself ideologically with North Korea. Deirdre
Griswold Stapp, a voice of the party and currently editor of Workers
World, described how the party functioned in a 1972 report to the Cuban
Communist Party. Explaining its "international relationships," she told
Cuban leaders about the WWP's new contacts with North Korea, via a
front group called the American Servicemen's Union, according to
congressional investigators. "The chairman of the American Servicemen's
Union, Andy Stapp, recently visited the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea and opened friendly discussions with the party there," she wrote.
She later married Stapp. 

In a speech to the 6th Congress of the League of Socialist Working
Youth of Korea, the youth branch of North Korea's ruling party, Andy
Stapp praised "Comrade Kim Il-sung, ever victorious, iron-willed,
brilliant commander and outstanding leader of the international
communist and working-class movements," according to a transcript
published in a congressional report. "As instructed by Marshal Kim
Il-sung, the outstanding leader of the international and working-class
movements, the No. 1 target of all the revolutionary people in the
world is U.S. imperialism. In order to avenge the many oppressed people
who have died a bloody death, and in order to build a new society in
America in which everyone enjoys happiness, as in Korea, I recognize
the great juche idea of Marshal Kim Il-sung as the Marxism-Leninism of
the present time." 

Stapp committed himself and his organization to armed violence and to
promoting mutiny within the U.S. military. According to the transcript
of his speech broadcast over Radio Pyongyang, Stapp stated, "The
American Servicemen's Union will study as documents, that must be read,
the works of genius of Marshal Kim Il-sung. ... With the juche idea as
the guiding compass of struggle, we will consolidate the branches of
the American Servicemen's Union in order to rally more soldiers around
the organization. In this way the American GIs will fight against their
real enemies, against the policy of aggression and war enforced on them
by the U.S. ruling circles and the fascist military officers." 

He added that his goal was "to build a powerful American Servicemen's
Union that will turn the guns against their fascist officers. ... If
the American Servicemen's Union cuts the windpipe of U.S. imperialism
inside the army while at the same time it is mutilated in all parts of
the world, U.S. imperialism will surely perish forever." 

Today, the WWP and its fronts claim to be nonviolent, but they remain
as enthusiastic as ever about North Korea. Visiting Pyongyang to
celebrate the 90th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il-sung in April
2002, Griswold Stapp signed a statement denouncing President George W.
Bush's "notorious antiterrorism war" and demanding that "the Korean
peninsula be reunified without fail under the wise leadership of the
respected leader Kim Jong-il following the banner of the Three Charters
for the national reunification set forth by the great President Kim
Il-sung." Filing an article from the North Korean capital for the July
23, 2002, issue of Workers World, Griswold Stapp called Pyongyang
"truly one of the most beautiful cities in the world." 

Brian Becker, a WWP secretariat member and a director of ANSWER and the
IAC, visited North Korea in March 2002 to denounce the United States,
discredit the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea and reaffirm a
commitment to reunify the divided peninsula along the lines of the plan
set by Kim Jong-il. Becker serves as a spokesman for the IAC and its
antiwar campaign. 

The second major coordinating faction of the present-day antiwar
movement, headed by UPJ under Leslie Cagan's leadership, has its roots
in the old Soviet "active-measures" agitprop networks, say
homeland-security experts. 

Insight has traced Cagan's career to Cuba, where in the early 1970s as
a member of the Venceremos Brigades she received revolutionary training
and indoctrination. In the last years of the Cold War, Cagan organized
mass protests from an office called Mobilization for Survival,
according to former congressional investigators. She coordinated with
Soviet international front organizations and the CPUSA as the vanguard
element of broader-based demonstrations around the world against U.S.
resistance to Soviet expansion. This magazine has obtained Mobilization
for Survival documents from the 1980s that show the group's support for
Marxist-Leninist insurgencies and terrorist groups in the Third World,
Middle Eastern terrorists (including the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine), Soviet-backed dictatorships in Africa and
Latin America, and Soviet-inspired campaigns for the unilateral
disarmament of the United States. 

In 1990-91, when the United States led an international coalition to
free Kuwait from the Iraqi military, Cagan coordinated the National
Campaign for Peace in the Middle East to organize grass-roots
opposition to the liberation. Also in 1991, when the CPUSA broke into
two factions, Cagan cofounded the splinter group, called the Committees
of Correspondence. Now she runs the UPJ, coordinating opposition to the
war on terrorism in general and the effort to destroy Saddam's arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction. 

Meanwhile, longtime Cagan associate Michael Meyerson is helping to run
protests in New York, according to the Associated Press. Formerly a
member of the national council or "Politburo" of the CPUSA, Meyerson
has been involved in protests since at least 1960. It was Meyerson who,
in a 1965 visit to Hanoi, was made an "honorary nephew" of North
Vietnamese Communist Party leader Ho Chi Minh. He returned home to
attend "antiwar" protests sporting a Viet Cong cap and the ring he
famously said was made from the wreckage of an American fighter plane.
He ran the U.S. Peace Council, the New York-based branch of the World
Peace Council, a Soviet international front organization that,
according to 1982 CIA and FBI testimony before the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, received covert funding and direction
from the KGB. "



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 beb_cc at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 19:37:05 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] obit of WWP founder
Message-ID: <20050710193705.48195.qmail@web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This link is to a '98 obituary, of the founder of WWP, written by a Communist who describes his distaste for the byzantine workings of WWP and its neoStalinists.
http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb2-98/marcy.htm







__________________________________________________
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/20050710/18158a9e/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 19:55:16 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:55:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] obit of WWP founder
In-Reply-To: <20050710193705.48195.qmail@web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710193705.48195.qmail@web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D17D24.3070109@neopax.com>

c c wrote:

> This link is to a '98 obituary, of the founder of WWP, written by a 
> Communist who describes his distaste for the byzantine workings of WWP 
> and its neoStalinists.
> http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb2-98/marcy.htm
>
I think it's relatively easy to see that people who claim to be 
Socialists while abandoning the interests of the working class are just 
opportunistic fakes.
The only Socialist Party I rather like is the 100yr old Socialist Party 
of Great Britain
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/about.html

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 20:02:35 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] obit of WWP founder
In-Reply-To: <42D17D24.3070109@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050710200235.23154.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> c c wrote:
> 
> > This link is to a '98 obituary, of the founder of WWP, written by a
> 
> > Communist who describes his distaste for the byzantine workings of
> WWP 
> > and its neoStalinists.
> > http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb2-98/marcy.htm
> >
> I think it's relatively easy to see that people who claim to be 
> Socialists while abandoning the interests of the working class are
> just opportunistic fakes.
> The only Socialist Party I rather like is the 100yr old Socialist
> Party of Great Britain
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/about.html

SWP UK is of course the largest component of the Respect Coalition
party, whose sole member in parliament is Joe Galloway, aka "The Member
from Bagdad Central".

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 dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 10 20:31:17 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:31:17 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] obit of WWP founder
In-Reply-To: <20050710200235.23154.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710200235.23154.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D18595.2060607@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>c c wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>This link is to a '98 obituary, of the founder of WWP, written by a
>>>      
>>>
>>>Communist who describes his distaste for the byzantine workings of
>>>      
>>>
>>WWP 
>>    
>>
>>>and its neoStalinists.
>>>http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb2-98/marcy.htm
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I think it's relatively easy to see that people who claim to be 
>>Socialists while abandoning the interests of the working class are
>>just opportunistic fakes.
>>The only Socialist Party I rather like is the 100yr old Socialist
>>Party of Great Britain
>>http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/about.html
>>    
>>
>
>SWP UK is of course the largest component of the Respect Coalition
>party, whose sole member in parliament is Joe Galloway, aka "The Member
>from Bagdad Central".
>
>  
>
So what has that to do with SPGB ??????????????

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 10 23:43:19 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <1121014861.20123@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:


> If you'd thought about this for more than half a
> second, you would
> realize that the US is the only one that can do it
> because the US is the
> only country left that can project significant
> military and logistical
> force beyond its own borders.  Even the UK is a
> shadow of what it could
> do a couple decades ago in the force projection
> arena, and they are the
> runner-up.
> 
> The Chinese have zero ability to project military
> force beyond
> immediately adjacent territories on their land
> borders.  It is absurd
> that you would even suggest that the Chinese could
> provide "teeth" to
> the UN, unless the UN needs troops on the Chinese
> border.  Wishing
> otherwise does not make it reality.

Actually the Chinese COULD be the teeth of the U.N. if
the U.S. would be so kind as to be the legs and give
them a ride. I don't think anyone would want to tangle
with American aircraft carriers loaded down with
Chinese marines. If the U.N. wasn't a joke, that is
exactly what would be happening in the Middle East
right now. But, to turn a cliche on its head, being as
there is no "team" in U.N., it won't happen. 



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 dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 00:42:58 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:42:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>

The Linux community has an aphorism:
"Many eyes make all bugs shallow."

We can extend this concept to anti-terrorism. The London police are 
currently asking the public for any video records they may have of the 
time surrounding the London bombings. We need to train the public to 
immediately begin taking pictures whenever something bad happens in 
public. The basic rule should be: If you cannot think of something more 
useful to do, take pictures. When taking pictures, if you do not have 
and obviously important subject, then take a multi-shot panorama.

If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot panorama 
at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a picture of 
at least one of the bombers.

To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic 
infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures, 
there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process 
quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed 
database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do a 
preliminary analysis.

Similarly, pictures from all the security cameras in London could be 
made public. This would permit volunteers to assist the police in the 
analysis.

To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged to 
make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. If 
nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will never 
even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from prior to the 
event would become available for analysis.

Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.

I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during the 
ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 00:52:17 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:52:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>

The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.

In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at least 
50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some number of 
insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by American 
and/or Alliance troops.

Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss of 
lives in Iraq?



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Mon Jul 11 00:58:16 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:58:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>

David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing 
(disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his novel 
"Earth".

He posits a future in which private surveilance (by cameras embedded in 
sunglasses, which transmit in realtime to secure data archives) causes a 
drastic drop in violent crime. If every potential mugging victim is 
recording everything he sees, muggers become a lot less numerous.

The classic response to questions of "what happened to my right to 
privacy?" in Brin's world, is "What do you have to hide?"

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> The Linux community has an aphorism:
> "Many eyes make all bugs shallow."
>
> We can extend this concept to anti-terrorism. The London police are 
> currently asking the public for any video records they may have of the 
> time surrounding the London bombings. We need to train the public to 
> immediately begin taking pictures whenever something bad happens in 
> public. The basic rule should be: If you cannot think of something 
> more useful to do, take pictures. When taking pictures, if you do not 
> have and obviously important subject, then take a multi-shot panorama.
>
> If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot 
> panorama at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a 
> picture of at least one of the bombers.
>
> To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic 
> infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures, 
> there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process 
> quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed 
> database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do 
> a preliminary analysis.
>
> Similarly, pictures from all the security cameras in London could be 
> made public. This would permit volunteers to assist the police in the 
> analysis.
>
> To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged to 
> make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. If 
> nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will 
> never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from 
> prior to the event would become available for analysis.
>
> Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
> places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
>
> I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during 
> the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 01:03:21 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:03:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <42D1C559.1060501@cox.net>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

> David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing 
> (disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his novel 
> "Earth".
>
> He posits a future in which private surveilance (by cameras embedded 
> in sunglasses, which transmit in realtime to secure data archives) 
> causes a drastic drop in violent crime. If every potential mugging 
> victim is recording everything he sees, muggers become a lot less 
> numerous.
>
> The classic response to questions of "what happened to my right to 
> privacy?" in Brin's world, is "What do you have to hide?"
>
I discussed "The Transparent society" with Brin at the Foresight fellows 
conference in 1998, the year it was published.  I'm even enough of a 
fanboy that I got him to autograph my copy :-)

My proposal here is that we should put Brin's theory/observation into 
practice. We can do this without any new infrastructure. A large enough 
percentage of the population is now carrying cameras: we just need to 
use them.




From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 01:08:01 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:08:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <42D1C671.7080003@cox.net>

Joseph Bloch wrote:

> David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing 
> (disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his novel 
> "Earth".
>
Sorry: I was referring to Brin's non-fiction work "The Transparent 
Society," not to "Earth", although I got him to autograph "Earth" also. 
"Earth" is particularly appropriate today, given Hurricane Denis.



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jul 11 01:32:43 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:32:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
Message-ID: <1121045563.19203@whirlwind.he.net>

Avantguardian wrote:
> Actually the Chinese COULD be the teeth of the U.N. if
> the U.S. would be so kind as to be the legs and give
> them a ride.


And provide the logistics.  Doing things this way would not save much US
money, though perhaps it would save a few US soldier lives at the
expense of a great many more Chinese soldier lives.  The Chinese
military is not exactly professional in the sense most expect with a
modern western military -- the results won't be equivalent.

But that would require that Chinese soldiers be under direct US command
for all intents and purposes, and I do not see the Chinese going along
with that any time soon.  You'll notice that the countries that do
regularly go into real combat operations together have long experience
working together under joint commands, and when it involves the US,
usually under US battle management.


cheers,

j. andrew rogers






From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 01:37:32 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:37:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> The Linux community has an aphorism:
> "Many eyes make all bugs shallow."
>
> We can extend this concept to anti-terrorism. The London police are 
> currently asking the public for any video records they may have of the 
> time surrounding the London bombings. We need to train the public to 
> immediately begin taking pictures whenever something bad happens in 
> public. The basic rule should be: If you cannot think of something 
> more useful to do, take pictures. When taking pictures, if you do not 
> have and obviously important subject, then take a multi-shot panorama.
>
> If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot 
> panorama at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a 
> picture of at least one of the bombers.
>
> To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic 
> infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures, 
> there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process 
> quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed 
> database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do 
> a preliminary analysis.
>
> Similarly, pictures from all the security cameras in London could be 
> made public. This would permit volunteers to assist the police in the 
> analysis.
>
> To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged to 
> make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. If 
> nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will 
> never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from 
> prior to the event would become available for analysis.
>
> Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
> places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
>
> I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during 
> the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.

An average Londoner will be picked up on hundreds of cameras on a normal 
day.
The security services have had the City cameras connected to computer 
syatems that tracks every car entering and leaving that area for years, 
due to IRA attacks. I also recall that they were trialling a system in 
the 90s where the face of every person caught on camera was compared to 
a database of wanted people.

The bombers will undoubtedly have been caught on camera and even now 
extremely powerful computersystems will be running pattern matching and 
people-tracing algorithms on all captured video for hours before and 
hours after the attack. I suspect that by now they may well have 
pictures of some of those responsible.

It's how the last London bomber was caught.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 01:38:30 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:38:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
>
> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at 
> least 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some 
> number of insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by 
> American and/or Alliance troops.
>
> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss 
> of lives in Iraq?

Because London is not supposed to be a major war zone.
Iraq is.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jul 11 01:49:19 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:49:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com><42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <002001c585ba$c2ca8270$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss of 
>> lives in Iraq?
>
> Because London is not supposed to be a major war zone.
> Iraq is.

But a life is a life.

I will jump to a hunch, and say that IMO something like what is imputed in 
the article below cannot be discounted:

"JonBenet Ramsey, Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart... all household names 
right? Well then how about Alexis Patterson, Georgia Moses, or even Evelyn 
Hernandez? Chances are you've never heard of them. Yet all of these women 
were victims of brutal kidnappings. The difference is that Patterson, Moses, 
and Hernandez were women of color and the reality is that nobody cares. "

http://www.popandpolitics.com/articles_detail.cfm?articleID=1545

Olga




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jul 11 01:52:24 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:52:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:52 PM 7/10/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:

>Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss of 
>lives in Iraq?

Because we are tribal animals.

If 50 Iraqi scientists were being `executed' by fanatics every day or week, 
I think we'd* be more angstish.

*those on this list

Damien Broderick 



From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 01:55:22 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:55:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged 
>> to make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. 
>> If nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will 
>> never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from 
>> prior to the event would become available for analysis.
>>
>> Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
>> places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
>>
>> I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during 
>> the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
>
>
> An average Londoner will be picked up on hundreds of cameras on a 
> normal day.
> The security services have had the City cameras connected to computer 
> syatems that tracks every car entering and leaving that area for 
> years, due to IRA attacks. I also recall that they were trialling a 
> system in the 90s where the face of every person caught on camera was 
> compared to a database of wanted people.
>
> The bombers will undoubtedly have been caught on camera and even now 
> extremely powerful computersystems will be running pattern matching 
> and people-tracing algorithms on all captured video for hours before 
> and hours after the attack. I suspect that by now they may well have 
> pictures of some of those responsible.
>
> It's how the last London bomber was caught.
>
Yes, Dick. The authorities do have a lot of video coverage, garnered at 
great expense, and they are working hard at analyzing it. The 
authorities have (in the last six hours or so) broadcast a request to 
the public for any video or other pictures that the public may have.

This request conveys two facts:
1) the "official" record is incomplete.
2) the "official analysts have not yet found the perpetrators.

I do not contend that "official"cameras and analysts are inadequate. 
Rather, I contend that society need not depend on the official 
infrastructure. As individuals, we can instead fine the perpetrators 
ourselves. Ten thousand amateurs are at least as effective as a hundred 
professionals. This is the "cathedral" versus the "bazaar" with a 
vengence (using the term advisedly.)


From mawelch at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 02:02:16 2005
From: mawelch at gmail.com (Matthew Welch)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:02:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <813086600507101902558827f8@mail.gmail.com>

I'd be happier not having to worry about taking photos of my boring
life even if I might one day brush shoulders with a bomber.

On 7/10/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> 
> > The Linux community has an aphorism:
> > "Many eyes make all bugs shallow."
> >
> > We can extend this concept to anti-terrorism. The London police are
> > currently asking the public for any video records they may have of the
> > time surrounding the London bombings. We need to train the public to
> > immediately begin taking pictures whenever something bad happens in
> > public. The basic rule should be: If you cannot think of something
> > more useful to do, take pictures. When taking pictures, if you do not
> > have and obviously important subject, then take a multi-shot panorama.
> >
> > If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot
> > panorama at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a
> > picture of at least one of the bombers.
> >
> > To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic
> > infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures,
> > there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process
> > quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed
> > database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do
> > a preliminary analysis.
> >
> > Similarly, pictures from all the security cameras in London could be
> > made public. This would permit volunteers to assist the police in the
> > analysis.
> >
> > To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged to
> > make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. If
> > nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will
> > never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from
> > prior to the event would become available for analysis.
> >
> > Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public
> > places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
> >
> > I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during
> > the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
> 
> An average Londoner will be picked up on hundreds of cameras on a normal
> day.
> The security services have had the City cameras connected to computer
> syatems that tracks every car entering and leaving that area for years,
> due to IRA attacks. I also recall that they were trialling a system in
> the 90s where the face of every person caught on camera was compared to
> a database of wanted people.
> 
> The bombers will undoubtedly have been caught on camera and even now
> extremely powerful computersystems will be running pattern matching and
> people-tracing algorithms on all captured video for hours before and
> hours after the attack. I suspect that by now they may well have
> pictures of some of those responsible.
> 
> It's how the last London bomber was caught.
> 
> --
> 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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jul 11 02:04:34 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:04:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050710210148.01d46e48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:52 PM 7/10/2005 -0500, I wrote:

>If 50 Iraqi scientists were being `executed' by fanatics every day or 
>week, I think we'd* be more angstish.

Let me rephrase that. If [n] Iraqi scientists were being [`collaterally 
damaged to death'] by anyone except [Bush, Blair, Howard, etc] every day or 
week, I think we'd* be more angstish.

>*[many of] those on this list


Damien Broderick



From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 02:00:38 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:00:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
>>
>> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
>> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at 
>> least 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some 
>> number of insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by 
>> American and/or Alliance troops.
>>
>> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss 
>> of lives in Iraq?
>
>
> Because London is not supposed to be a major war zone.
> Iraq is.
>
According to the US Government, major war operations ceased in Iraq in 
mid 2004. Why is an Iraqi life less important than the life of a 
Londoner? The US Government contends that Iraq is NOT a "major war zone."


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jul 11 02:11:59 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:11:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1D56F.8070309@pobox.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
> 
> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at least 
> 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some number of 
> insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by American 
> and/or Alliance troops.
> 
> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss of 
> lives in Iraq?

Speak for yourself.  Half a minute in London is no different than half a 
minute in Iraq.

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


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 02:15:15 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:15:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42D1D633.8090701@cox.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 08:52 PM 7/10/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:
>
>> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss 
>> of lives in Iraq?
>
>
> Because we are tribal animals.
>
> If 50 Iraqi scientists were being `executed' by fanatics every day or 
> week, I think we'd* be more angstish.
>
> *those on this list
>
I think you are correct.

If we are Anglophones, we identify with the London dead in the abstract. 
We abstract the Iraqi dead as "them" and the London dead as "us."
But is this valid? Some percentage of the Iraqis dead are Anglophone. 
(Certainly, the US dead US troops.) Some of the London dead are Sunnis, 
even if you exclude the perpetrators.

As Extropians, we should presumably be beyond nationalism and racism. 
Why is a London life more relevant than a Baghdad life?


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Mon Jul 11 02:21:35 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:21:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>	<42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
	<42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1D7AF.1000403@humanenhancement.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> This request conveys two facts:
> 1) the "official" record is incomplete.
> 2) the "official analysts have not yet found the perpetrators.


I would submit there is a third possibility:

3) the "official" record has yielded a lead, but one which requires 
confirmation from another source before it can be acted upon.

Joseph


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 02:28:03 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:28:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com> <42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1D933.4040301@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged 
>>> to make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously. 
>>> If nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will 
>>> never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from 
>>> prior to the event would become available for analysis.
>>>
>>> Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
>>> places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
>>>
>>> I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during 
>>> the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
>>
>>
>>
>> An average Londoner will be picked up on hundreds of cameras on a 
>> normal day.
>> The security services have had the City cameras connected to computer 
>> syatems that tracks every car entering and leaving that area for 
>> years, due to IRA attacks. I also recall that they were trialling a 
>> system in the 90s where the face of every person caught on camera was 
>> compared to a database of wanted people.
>>
>> The bombers will undoubtedly have been caught on camera and even now 
>> extremely powerful computersystems will be running pattern matching 
>> and people-tracing algorithms on all captured video for hours before 
>> and hours after the attack. I suspect that by now they may well have 
>> pictures of some of those responsible.
>>
>> It's how the last London bomber was caught.
>>
> Yes, Dick. The authorities do have a lot of video coverage, garnered 
> at great expense, and they are working hard at analyzing it. The 
> authorities have (in the last six hours or so) broadcast a request to 
> the public for any video or other pictures that the public may have.
>
> This request conveys two facts:
> 1) the "official" record is incomplete.
> 2) the "official analysts have not yet found the perpetrators.
>
> I do not contend that "official"cameras and analysts are inadequate. 
> Rather, I contend that society need not depend on the official 
> infrastructure. As individuals, we can instead fine the perpetrators 
> ourselves. Ten thousand amateurs are at least as effective as a 
> hundred professionals. This is the "cathedral" versus the "bazaar" 
> with a vengence (using the term advisedly.)
>
I'm not sure how useful that would be since most of the effort is 
looking for correlations between camera shots, in time sequence. That 
is, picking which faces out of a crowd occurs in what sequence on what 
cameras in order to determine movements pre and post event. It needs all 
the data to be run through the same algorithm, probably on a distributed 
computing system eg grid computing. I don't see the open source guys 
getting into the surveillance state thing and to me it sounds difficult 
since face recognition is only a subset of the problem.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 02:30:57 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:30:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com> <42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
>>>
>>> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
>>> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at 
>>> least 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some 
>>> number of insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by 
>>> American and/or Alliance troops.
>>>
>>> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the 
>>> loss of lives in Iraq?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because London is not supposed to be a major war zone.
>> Iraq is.
>>
> According to the US Government, major war operations ceased in Iraq in 
> mid 2004. Why is an Iraqi life less important than the life of a 
> Londoner? The US Government contends that Iraq is NOT a "major war zone."
>
The US government can content what it likes.
Maybe all its troops are being shot and blown up by muggers.

As for why an Iraqi life seems less important than a London one, there 
are many reasons, not least the fact that I spend half my time in London 
rather than Iraq. I suspect that Iraqis feel that what has happened in 
London is nothing special. Works both ways.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 02:35:57 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:35:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <813086600507101902558827f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
	<813086600507101902558827f8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42D1DB0D.9050100@cox.net>

Matthew Welch wrote:

>I'd be happier not having to worry about taking photos of my boring
>life even if I might one day brush shoulders with a bomber.
>  
>
This is your option. You do not need to participate. If a small 
percentage of the population participates, then we win. As I recall. 
there are about 100 Londoners in each carriage in the London Underground 
during rush hour. Assume that 2 percent of these people choose to 
participate. Then we have on average two cameras per carriage. Assume 
that participation jumps to 20% after an event occurs: we have 20 
cameras per carriage.

If no event occurs, assume that participation in analysis is zero: every 
day, the commuters simply purge their pictures. If an event occurs, I 
think that essentially all of the pictures will be made available, and 
all of the picture-takers. plus a very large number of volunteer 
analysts, will look at the pictures.


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 03:12:20 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:12:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050711024536.20192.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711024536.20192.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D1E394.9060605@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>You don't have to guess.
>>They have been explained here, on Usenet and on the
>>Consensus site.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>     I have now checked out your website. I understand
>you now. Your premise that nation-states must be
>sancrosanct as a mechanism of maintaining cultural
>diversity is a premise I can understand but don't
>necessarily share. Diversity can be maintained so long
>as freedom reigns and human rights are preserved. We
>  
>
The Ideal American Culture.
What about postHuman cultures that are hive minds, or super-hierarchies? 
Or how about the engineering of postHumans with strong territorial and 
xenophobic tendencies? Are they to be banned from day one?
What about people who don't recognise your versions of freedoms and 
rights as being correct?
There are more visions of the future of Humanity than just the ones 
mentioned here, and I see many of them as being in fundamental conflict 
from the start.

>don't really need a byzantine hodgepodge of republics,
>democracies, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies,
>theocracies, and dictatorships on our planet to
>maintain cultural diversity. We just need universal
>freedom. The Muslims in the U.S. are just as Islamic
>as the ones in the Middle East, they just happen to be
>free and tolerant.
>  
>
I beg to differ.
Most people, let alone Moslems, are not 'free and tolerant'.

>      If you REALLY believe that we should suffer the
>existence of archaic forms of government in far flung
>corners of the world, then we should go all the way
>set them up as "historical anthropological preserves"
>and forbid the transfer of technology beyond that of
>agrarian societies into their borders.
>     I don't trust caliphs and sheiks to wield germs
>and nukes responsibly, not with what they have shown
>me so far.   
>
>  
>
So in your future there is really only One Culture - The American Way.
In the end we all need to control the bit of turf we stand upon, whether 
metaphorical or literal. Territoriality is not going to disappear in the 
future. Or at least, not in my future, which obvious differs from yours.
That two Transhumanists should be in such conflict is less an irony and 
more a prophecy.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 09/07/2005



From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jul 11 02:31:58 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:31:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian-geoethical-biotech-Vermont-Conference
Message-ID: <42D1DA1E.6050902@sasktel.net>

I find this quite ironic to me.

This  Extropian oriented  Conference is headquartered where myself and a 
friend  stayed when we went down to investigate
a person who later  tried to  gut our business Extropian Agroforestry 
Ventures in March 1999.

We have gone on to commercialize cannabis medicine with Lifespan  Pharma 
Inc. with the first significant activity  this very month.

A curious personal connection to this area of Vermont.


Morris Johnson







From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Jul 11 03:33:00 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:33:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com><42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net><42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
	<002001c585ba$c2ca8270$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <00ff01c585c9$3d919940$9a893cd1@pavilion>

On Sunday, July 10, 2005 9:49 PM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com
wrote:
> I will jump to a hunch, and say that IMO something like what is
imputed in
> the article below cannot be discounted:
>
> "JonBenet Ramsey, Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart... all household
names
> right? Well then how about Alexis Patterson, Georgia Moses, or even
Evelyn
> Hernandez? Chances are you've never heard of them. Yet all of these
women
> were victims of brutal kidnappings. The difference is that Patterson,
Moses,
> and Hernandez were women of color and the reality is that nobody
cares. "

I think it can be discounted for one reason alone:  they become
household names partly because of other people.  For instance, someone
else might not be racist, either implicitly or explicitly, but unless
they closely follow non-mainstream news closely, she or he will hear
more about the former set and much less about the latter.

Regards,

Dan



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 05:41:26 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:41:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0507102241221da9ab@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/10/05, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
> 
> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20
> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at least
> 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some number of
> insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by American
> and/or Alliance troops.
> 
> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss of
> lives in Iraq?

Or for that matter, why we're more upset by the loss of lives in
London than by a similar number of lost lives in, say, Jerusalem. I'm
not completely certain myself, but I suspect a large part of it has to
do with the fact that this is the first time (I think) that militant
Islamists have attacked the UK. Novel events tend to be more salient
and important from an information perspective.

-- Neil


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 06:12:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <42D1E394.9060605@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711061209.13277.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

>> Diversity can be maintained so
> long
> >as freedom reigns and human rights are preserved.
> >  
> >
> The Ideal American Culture.
> What about postHuman cultures that are hive minds,
> or super-hierarchies? 
> Or how about the engineering of postHumans with
> strong territorial and 
> xenophobic tendencies? Are they to be banned from
> day one?
> What about people who don't recognise your versions
> of freedoms and 
> rights as being correct?

Why do you call it the Ideal American Culture? Do you
believe that liberty and civil rights are an entirely
American construct? Why? Are not the English or the
French just as free? Don't you have rights too? I am
speaking on a plane of abstraction here where my
country of residence is inconsequential. We Americans
did not invent these concepts nor is the American
culture necessarily the best possible implementation
thereof. 

> There are more visions of the future of Humanity
> than just the ones 
> mentioned here, and I see many of them as being in
> fundamental conflict 
> from the start.

Then let them come and vy for hearts and minds of men.
Somehow I just don't see the tranhumanist government
of the future evolving from the Sultany of Brunai or
some theocracy. Empires and republics fade with time.
Freedom and rights should not.

> I beg to differ.
> Most people, let alone Moslems, are not 'free and
> tolerant'.

But they COULD be and what is so wrong with that?

> So in your future there is really only One Culture -
> The American Way.

Not necessarily. Acknowledging that I am a patriotic
American, you seem more obsessed with America than I
am. Why can't it be the Athenian way? Or the Japanese
way? Or the way of a republic of nation-states that
does not yet exist? All I am saying is that any
culture a people want to have, whether it has yet to
be invented or even if it is that of long lost
Atlantis should be allowed to prosper so long as they
respect fundamental human rights.

> In the end we all need to control the bit of turf we
> stand upon, whether 
> metaphorical or literal. Territoriality is not going
> to disappear in the 
> future.

I agree that territoriality is not going to go away.
This troubles me because philosophically I am not
altogether certain that there is a right to property
beyond the molecules of ones body and the turf upon
one stands. Scientifically, I know that we evolved to
compete with one another for territory. Spiritually I
feel everything I have including the very atoms of my
body, I merely borrow from the universe. Is there
anything more enlightened to the aquisition of
property and wealth than the mere legal sanctioning of
primate territoriality and dominance? Are we doomed to
be literate monkeys? 




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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From john at kozubik.com  Mon Jul 11 06:16:26 2005
From: john at kozubik.com (John Kozubik)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050710230613.M89964@kozubik.com>


Dan,

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot panorama
> at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a picture of
> at least one of the bombers.
>
> To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic
> infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures,
> there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process
> quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed
> database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do a
> preliminary analysis.


Ok.  But how do you distinguish fake data and analysis from real data and
analysis ?  What if the criminals involved created hundreds or thousands
of CGI photos of real and/or fake persons at the scene and submitted them
as part of the broader public response ?

Such a barrage of misleading information could hamper the investigation at
best, and falsely redirect it at worse.

Comments ?

-----
John Kozubik - john at kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 07:45:32 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] tolerant?
In-Reply-To: <42D1E394.9060605@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711074532.43651.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Muslims in the US could be considered free, they can
travel freely, thay have first and second amendment
rights, they are relatively safe, and so forth; but
whether muslims in the US are tolerant remains to be
seen. It appears they will gradually become more
tolerant. But at this time they are not tolerant,
certainly they are not tolerant of swine. "on
Judgement Day", an Islamic informed me, "all pigs are
going to be killed-- they are unclean".


> The Muslims in the U.S. are just as
> Islamic
> >as the ones in the Middle East, they just happen to
> be
> >free and tolerant.


> I beg to differ.
> Most people, let alone Moslems, are not 'free and
> tolerant'.



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


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 07:55:14 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] tolerant?
In-Reply-To: <20050711074532.43651.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050711075514.81714.qmail@web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

However might I add there is a duality involved here.
Since swine are considered unclean Islamics will not
kill them for pork. Being unclean has its privileges!
As the homeless person said, "though I don't have a
place of my own to bathe, at least I don't have to
clean my shower".


> certainly they are not tolerant of swine. "on
> Judgement Day", an Islamic informed me, "all pigs
> are
> going to be killed-- they are unclean".



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jul 11 09:07:24 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:07:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] tolerant?
References: <20050711074532.43651.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c585f7$f4d7d910$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "c c" <beb_cc at yahoo.com>

> Muslims in the US could be considered free, they can
> travel freely, thay have first and second amendment
> rights, they are relatively safe, and so forth; but
> whether muslims in the US are tolerant remains to be
> seen. It appears they will gradually become more
> tolerant.

1) Islam is not monolithic (same goes for Jews and Christians).

2) Intolerance and mutual exclusivity (often even within their own 
religions) makes religions thrive - it is their main "product."

> But at this time they are not tolerant,
> certainly they are not tolerant of swine. "on
> Judgement Day", an Islamic informed me, "all pigs are
> going to be killed-- they are unclean".

"On Judgement Day," a Christian informed me, "all heathens will know the 
wrath of [g]od."

Olga 




From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 11 10:16:33 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:16:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050710163417.85920.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710163417.85920.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6C5F1CDB-D9E0-4064-A6F4-A3DA64884C2D@mac.com>


On Jul 10, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you going to blame the people for telling the truth about this
>> outrageous stupidity to the best of their abilities to know it?   My
>> motive is to get the US out of their and bring in the UN for the
>> purpose of returning the country to the Iraqis.   The economic blow
>> will be far worse imho if we stay.   I also disagree that our being
>> there saves more lives than if we left.
>>
>
> Samantha, who do you think historically makes up the bulk of UN
> peacekeeping forces? The UN has about 57,000 peacekeeping troops
> deployed around the world, most of whom are 'observers' without any
> capacity even to defend themselves, never mind protect others.  
> There is
> absolutely no way the UN could take control of things in Iraq without
> the US being the bulk of its force.


Did I say there would be no US troops under the UN uspices?  I don't  
believe I did.

> You are also being ignoring
> history, as well as being unrealistic: the UN already came into Iraq,
> got bombed, turned tail, and ran screeching like a little girl.

Hardly a fair characterization but then I wouldn't expect one from you.

>
> You can disagree all you want about numbers of lives saved, but the
> numbers contradict your beliefs.
>

What numbers are those?


- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 11 10:53:57 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:53:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <20050710180959.25679.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710180959.25679.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <631DA022-E02B-4038-9722-D97E726E7E6D@mac.com>

Baathists were a relatively weak group until we forced them into  
power in Iraq.  bit afaik Baathists are no more uniformly evil than  
the other sects at play.


I really don't care a lot if some of the groups organizing protesters  
are not very nice folks if the people themselves will get off their  
duff and speak up.

The FBI considers people who take the Constitution seriously as  
likely terrorists so excuse me if I am not too impressed with a claim  
that they consider the WWP to be terrorists.

There are no scare quotes around anti-war protest.

Look at the thugs you are pandering for Mike.

- samantha

On Jul 10, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> WWP and several of these other groups accepted, prior to the Iraq
>>>
>> war,
>>
>>> significant sums from Saddam Hussein, according to records captured
>>>
>> in
>>
>>> Bagdad. Whether they continue to receive funds from the Baathist
>>>
>> Party
>>
>>> in Syria, as is suspected, has not yet been confirmed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well, better just ask the CIA who can be relied upon to provide
>> truthful answers to all such question. NOT.
>> Would these be the same records that smeared George Galloway?
>> Your naivete is touching.
>>
>
> Your excuse making for stalinists and baathists is revealing. It also
> displays ignorance and naivete of the international left and its
> agenda. Domestic revolutionary and insurgency groups come under the
> surveillance of the FBI's Department 5, not the CIA.
>
> http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370660
>
> http://caosblog.com/archives/803
>
> "The FBI considers the WWP a terrorist organization. On May 10, 2001,
> FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that ?Anarchists and extremist
> socialist groups ? many of which, such as the Workers World Party,  
> have
> an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential
> threat in the United States.? Imagine that; the mainstream media
> somehow missed the fact that the most ubiquitous organizer of
> ?anti-war? protests is directed by a terrorist support group.  
> Shouldn?t
> a question on this front be aimed directly at Ramsey Clark at one of
> his regular press conferences?
>
> The Korean Truth Commission and Pastors for Peace are staunch  
> allies of
> Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro, respectively, and both groups  
> continue to
> support these murderous regimes? violation of International law. In
> addition to its role as a front for the support of
> totalitarian/communist governments in North Korea and Cuba, members of
> ANSWER?s steering committee such as the Muslim Student Association and
> the Free Palestine Alliance continue to provide ideological,  
> logistical
> and financial support for organizations devoted to the destruction of
> the state of Israel, including the terrorist group, Hamas. A
> comprehensive investigation of the members of ANSWER?s steering
> committee make it clear that the organization is in actuality one of
> Peace?s greatest enemies. "
>
> This isn't the first time the WWP has pandered for overseas thugs.  
> They
> also accepted funds and lobbied for former Yugoslav President Slobodan
> Milosevich. Ramsey Clark served as legal counsel in the US for Saddam
> Hussein. The WWP also runs the KTC, the Korea Truth Commission, a  
> front
> for North Korean thug-in-chief Kim Jong Il.
>
> http://www.brookesnews.com/031502peacerally.html
> http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2592
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310163.shtml
> http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html
> http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5734
> http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2005/000001.html
> http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370637
>
> "The IAC has felt the sting. In a statement it blasted those who
> "dishonestly claim that ANSWER is a 'front' group in order to diminish
> the coalition," though it acknowledges "the presence of socialists and
> Marxists, in particular members of the Workers World Party." Their
> critics, IAC says, are racists: "Those who claim that ANSWER is a
> 'front' organization demonstrate their own racist and elitist
> perception of reality."
>
> And ANSWER has ripped what it calls "a repugnant red-baiting campaign
> against the ANSWER coalition because of its role as a principal
> organizer of the mass grass-roots movement of opposition to war
> throughout the United States."
>
> The WWP is nothing if not consistent. According to a 1974  
> congressional
> report, it split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1959 in a dispute
> over the Soviet invasion of Hungary three years before. The Socialist
> Workers opposed the invasion, while Workers World partisans supported
> it. "In 1968, the Workers World Party supported the invasion of
> Czechoslovakia by the communist Warsaw Pact armies," the report
> continued. The party, which never numbered more than a few hundred
> people, supported the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army against the
> United States during the Vietnam War, according to the congressional
> report. Some of its activities were coordinated with enemy military
> actions. An April 8, 1972, internal letter "To All Branches" of the
> party urged participation in "antiwar" demonstrations in support of a
> Viet Cong offensive in South Vietnam. The letter's author, John
> Catalinotto, remains in the party as managing editor of its weekly
> Workers World "newspaper," and occasionally represents the IAC.
>
> Party members received revolutionary training in Cuba as members of  
> the
> Venceremos Brigades in the 1960s and early 1970s, and at about that
> time the party oriented itself ideologically with North Korea. Deirdre
> Griswold Stapp, a voice of the party and currently editor of Workers
> World, described how the party functioned in a 1972 report to the  
> Cuban
> Communist Party. Explaining its "international relationships," she  
> told
> Cuban leaders about the WWP's new contacts with North Korea, via a
> front group called the American Servicemen's Union, according to
> congressional investigators. "The chairman of the American  
> Servicemen's
> Union, Andy Stapp, recently visited the Democratic People's  
> Republic of
> Korea and opened friendly discussions with the party there," she  
> wrote.
> She later married Stapp.
>
> In a speech to the 6th Congress of the League of Socialist Working
> Youth of Korea, the youth branch of North Korea's ruling party, Andy
> Stapp praised "Comrade Kim Il-sung, ever victorious, iron-willed,
> brilliant commander and outstanding leader of the international
> communist and working-class movements," according to a transcript
> published in a congressional report. "As instructed by Marshal Kim
> Il-sung, the outstanding leader of the international and working-class
> movements, the No. 1 target of all the revolutionary people in the
> world is U.S. imperialism. In order to avenge the many oppressed  
> people
> who have died a bloody death, and in order to build a new society in
> America in which everyone enjoys happiness, as in Korea, I recognize
> the great juche idea of Marshal Kim Il-sung as the Marxism-Leninism of
> the present time."
>
> Stapp committed himself and his organization to armed violence and to
> promoting mutiny within the U.S. military. According to the transcript
> of his speech broadcast over Radio Pyongyang, Stapp stated, "The
> American Servicemen's Union will study as documents, that must be  
> read,
> the works of genius of Marshal Kim Il-sung. ... With the juche idea as
> the guiding compass of struggle, we will consolidate the branches of
> the American Servicemen's Union in order to rally more soldiers around
> the organization. In this way the American GIs will fight against  
> their
> real enemies, against the policy of aggression and war enforced on  
> them
> by the U.S. ruling circles and the fascist military officers."
>
> He added that his goal was "to build a powerful American Servicemen's
> Union that will turn the guns against their fascist officers. ... If
> the American Servicemen's Union cuts the windpipe of U.S. imperialism
> inside the army while at the same time it is mutilated in all parts of
> the world, U.S. imperialism will surely perish forever."
>
> Today, the WWP and its fronts claim to be nonviolent, but they remain
> as enthusiastic as ever about North Korea. Visiting Pyongyang to
> celebrate the 90th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il-sung in April
> 2002, Griswold Stapp signed a statement denouncing President George W.
> Bush's "notorious antiterrorism war" and demanding that "the Korean
> peninsula be reunified without fail under the wise leadership of the
> respected leader Kim Jong-il following the banner of the Three  
> Charters
> for the national reunification set forth by the great President Kim
> Il-sung." Filing an article from the North Korean capital for the July
> 23, 2002, issue of Workers World, Griswold Stapp called Pyongyang
> "truly one of the most beautiful cities in the world."
>
> Brian Becker, a WWP secretariat member and a director of ANSWER and  
> the
> IAC, visited North Korea in March 2002 to denounce the United States,
> discredit the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea and reaffirm a
> commitment to reunify the divided peninsula along the lines of the  
> plan
> set by Kim Jong-il. Becker serves as a spokesman for the IAC and its
> antiwar campaign.
>
> The second major coordinating faction of the present-day antiwar
> movement, headed by UPJ under Leslie Cagan's leadership, has its roots
> in the old Soviet "active-measures" agitprop networks, say
> homeland-security experts.
>
> Insight has traced Cagan's career to Cuba, where in the early 1970s as
> a member of the Venceremos Brigades she received revolutionary  
> training
> and indoctrination. In the last years of the Cold War, Cagan organized
> mass protests from an office called Mobilization for Survival,
> according to former congressional investigators. She coordinated with
> Soviet international front organizations and the CPUSA as the vanguard
> element of broader-based demonstrations around the world against U.S.
> resistance to Soviet expansion. This magazine has obtained  
> Mobilization
> for Survival documents from the 1980s that show the group's support  
> for
> Marxist-Leninist insurgencies and terrorist groups in the Third World,
> Middle Eastern terrorists (including the Popular Front for the
> Liberation of Palestine), Soviet-backed dictatorships in Africa and
> Latin America, and Soviet-inspired campaigns for the unilateral
> disarmament of the United States.
>
> In 1990-91, when the United States led an international coalition to
> free Kuwait from the Iraqi military, Cagan coordinated the National
> Campaign for Peace in the Middle East to organize grass-roots
> opposition to the liberation. Also in 1991, when the CPUSA broke into
> two factions, Cagan cofounded the splinter group, called the  
> Committees
> of Correspondence. Now she runs the UPJ, coordinating opposition to  
> the
> war on terrorism in general and the effort to destroy Saddam's arsenal
> of weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Meanwhile, longtime Cagan associate Michael Meyerson is helping to run
> protests in New York, according to the Associated Press. Formerly a
> member of the national council or "Politburo" of the CPUSA, Meyerson
> has been involved in protests since at least 1960. It was Meyerson  
> who,
> in a 1965 visit to Hanoi, was made an "honorary nephew" of North
> Vietnamese Communist Party leader Ho Chi Minh. He returned home to
> attend "antiwar" protests sporting a Viet Cong cap and the ring he
> famously said was made from the wreckage of an American fighter plane.
> He ran the U.S. Peace Council, the New York-based branch of the World
> Peace Council, a Soviet international front organization that,
> according to 1982 CIA and FBI testimony before the House Permanent
> Select Committee on Intelligence, received covert funding and  
> direction
> from the KGB. "
>
>
>
> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 11 11:20:48 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:20:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>


On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing  
> (disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his  
> novel "Earth".
>
> He posits a future in which private surveilance (by cameras  
> embedded in sunglasses, which transmit in realtime to secure data  
> archives) causes a drastic drop in violent crime. If every  
> potential mugging victim is recording everything he sees, muggers  
> become a lot less numerous.
>
> The classic response to questions of "what happened to my right to  
> privacy?" in Brin's world, is "What do you have to hide?"

I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a  
crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to  
hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's  
life.  I have to hide if I am not a perfect shmoo or perfectly  
willing be targeted by one of thousands of laws that exist for no  
other purpose at some politician or cop's discretion.   Lastly I have  
a need to be able to hide as long as the government is the biggest  
danger to life and liberty.   How would you propose to have a chance  
to change or at least avoid a turly corrupt and non-responsive  
government or to avoid their clutches somewhat with on privacy  
whatsoever?

Really people, please think it through before you propose that Big  
Brother knows all.  Whit do I have to hide?  Worng question.  What  
gives you and the government the right to stick your nose into every  
aspect of my life?

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 11 11:23:35 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:23:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>
	<42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
Message-ID: <F07FE2E9-0652-4D18-96D4-C41EF850FE0E@mac.com>

I am less trusting.  The timing was too useful.  I am too suspicious  
after 911, the "Patriot Act" and the rest.   I very much doubt the  
real perps will ever be found.

- samantha

On Jul 10, 2005, at 6:55 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>
>> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be  
>>> encouraged to make random pictures in public places, more or less  
>>> continuously. If nothing  interesting happens, most of these  
>>> digital pictures will never even be stored. If something bad  
>>> happens, the pictures from prior to the event would become  
>>> available for analysis.
>>>
>>> Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in  
>>> public places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
>>>
>>> I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept  
>>> during the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
>>>
>>
>>
>> An average Londoner will be picked up on hundreds of cameras on a  
>> normal day.
>> The security services have had the City cameras connected to  
>> computer syatems that tracks every car entering and leaving that  
>> area for years, due to IRA attacks. I also recall that they were  
>> trialling a system in the 90s where the face of every person  
>> caught on camera was compared to a database of wanted people.
>>
>> The bombers will undoubtedly have been caught on camera and even  
>> now extremely powerful computersystems will be running pattern  
>> matching and people-tracing algorithms on all captured video for  
>> hours before and hours after the attack. I suspect that by now  
>> they may well have pictures of some of those responsible.
>>
>> It's how the last London bomber was caught.
>>
>>
> Yes, Dick. The authorities do have a lot of video coverage,  
> garnered at great expense, and they are working hard at analyzing  
> it. The authorities have (in the last six hours or so) broadcast a  
> request to the public for any video or other pictures that the  
> public may have.
>
> This request conveys two facts:
> 1) the "official" record is incomplete.
> 2) the "official analysts have not yet found the perpetrators.
>
> I do not contend that "official"cameras and analysts are  
> inadequate. Rather, I contend that society need not depend on the  
> official infrastructure. As individuals, we can instead fine the  
> perpetrators ourselves. Ten thousand amateurs are at least as  
> effective as a hundred professionals. This is the "cathedral"  
> versus the "bazaar" with a vengence (using the term advisedly.)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 11 11:32:09 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:32:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5EFB6009-0F0F-40A0-A443-2A70CEF5C7F5@mac.com>

Apologies for typos.  Time for bed.

On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>
>> David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing  
>> (disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his  
>> novel "Earth".
>>
>> He posits a future in which private surveilance (by cameras  
>> embedded in sunglasses, which transmit in realtime to secure data  
>> archives) causes a drastic drop in violent crime. If every  
>> potential mugging victim is recording everything he sees, muggers  
>> become a lot less numerous.
>>
>> The classic response to questions of "what happened to my right to  
>> privacy?" in Brin's world, is "What do you have to hide?"
>>
>
> I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a  
> crime that real should never have been one.  I have to
real -> really
>  be able to hide as long as some people wish to legally run  
> everyone else's life.  I have to hide if I am not a perfect shmoo  
> or perfectly willing be targeted by one of thousands of laws that  
> exist for no other purpose at some politician or cop's  
> discretion.   Lastly I have a need to be able to hide as long as  
> the government is the biggest danger to life and liberty.   How  
> would you propose to have a chance to change or at least avoid a  
> turly corrupt and non-
turly-> truly
> responsive government or to avoid their clutches somewhat with on  
> privacy whatsoever?

on -> no

> Really people, please think it through before you propose that Big  
> Brother knows all.  What do I have to hide?  Wrong question.  What  
> gives you and the government the right to stick your nose into  
> every aspect of my life?
>
> - samantha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Jul 11 13:09:58 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:09:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com> <42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net>
	<42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <EAD8A752-3F34-49A8-98C6-2A227FD507CD@bonfireproductions.com>




I would like to posit that we view the lives as equal in value, or we  
wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.


I think we need to consider the origins of what we believe as a  
group, where it came from, how it came about. What do we need to do  
for it to thrive, aside from popular acceptance. Will Iraq and the  
people of Iraq be better off in 100 years for this having happened or  
not?


Let's change scale. Tomorrow doesn't matter. It is too immediate.  
Give me a year as a hundred. It is not the day to day dealings and  
beliefs that will carry us, it is the results. Results don't come  
from rehashing arguments, obviously, but a stalwart commitment to the  
positive. Maintenance of this requires more courage than the offering  
of any opinion, more time than the average person is allowed.



]3


On Jul 10, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>
>> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
>>>>
>>>> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis.  
>>>> Yesterday, 20 Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this  
>>>> year, on average, at least 50 Iraqis per week have been killed  
>>>> by insurgents, and some number of insurgents and/or Iraqi non- 
>>>> combatants have been killed by American and/or Alliance troops.
>>>>
>>>> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the  
>>>> loss of lives in Iraq?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because London is not supposed to be a major war zone.
>>> Iraq is.
>>>
>>>
>> According to the US Government, major war operations ceased in  
>> Iraq in mid 2004. Why is an Iraqi life less important than the  
>> life of a Londoner? The US Government contends that Iraq is NOT a  
>> "major war zone."
>>
>>
> The US government can content what it likes.
> Maybe all its troops are being shot and blown up by muggers.
>
> As for why an Iraqi life seems less important than a London one,  
> there are many reasons, not least the fact that I spend half my  
> time in London rather than Iraq. I suspect that Iraqis feel that  
> what has happened in London is nothing special. Works both ways.
>
> -- 
> 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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date:  
> 09/07/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jul 11 12:16:08 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:16:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] eyes 4U
Message-ID: <42D26308.7000500@sasktel.net>

If gates and the medical industry quickly perfect the wireless delivery 
of audio and video  directly to
the consciousness in a manner safe enough for  implantation into those 
with hearing and sight
diabilities then the reverse, a back door which jacks imagery and audio 
back into the net would be
available. Add to the list of those carrying these devices persons 
convicted of medium level
criminal offences then one has quite a numerous  force of public eyes 
and ears for security.

Expand the sensory input range from ordinary light to IR, UV, and add 
higher than natural resolution as well as add
360degrees vision field to create a dome wide vsual field.

Create a monetary trade-off to enable all the above to afford the costs 
of implantation and maintenenace of these devices.

Like GPS the data channeled to the user might be reduced to that close 
to normal vision and hearing while the data
uploaded to security services would be as detailed as the technology can 
deliver.


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Jul 11 13:30:16 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:30:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <EAD8A752-3F34-49A8-98C6-2A227FD507CD@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net> <42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
	<42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net> <42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>
	<EAD8A752-3F34-49A8-98C6-2A227FD507CD@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050711133016.GA9401@ofb.net>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:09:58AM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
> 
> I would like to posit that we view the lives as equal in value, or we  
> wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

No, the war was sold largely on the grounds of Iraq having WMDs, e.g. on the
grounds of Iraq being a threat to us.  If we really cared about lives we'd be
intervening in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe, and funding a lot more foreign aid
in clean water and health care.

> for it to thrive, aside from popular acceptance. Will Iraq and the  
> people of Iraq be better off in 100 years for this having happened or  
> not?

This seems like "the ends justify the means", beloved of violent
revolutionaries everywhere.

We can't see 10 years ahead very well, let alone 100.  The people who planned
the invasion couldn't even see 1 year ahead, to see the resistance.

> Let's change scale. Tomorrow doesn't matter. It is too immediate.  
> Give me a year as a hundred. It is not the day to day dealings and  

People die in the tomorrow, in the day to day.

> beliefs that will carry us, it is the results. Results don't come  
> from rehashing arguments, obviously, but a stalwart commitment to the  
> positive. Maintenance of this requires more courage than the offering  

Our civilization is centered largely on stalwart committment to following good
means, not good ends.  

-xx- Damien X-) 


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 14:36:28 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] tolerant?
In-Reply-To: <000b01c585f7$f4d7d910$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050711143629.24228.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Right on both counts, Olga. Unfortunately they often
are instructed to attempt to convert nonbelievers in a
very tedious (after you've heard their sales pitch
100x) hardsell manner. In fact those who try to hide
their zeal to convert are the worst because you don't
see where they are coming from until they have wasted
too much of your time. 
 No doubt there are many exceptions, but when a Jew,
Xian or Muslim comes in my direction I turn and go the
other way. Same goes for Republicans, Communists, and
the socialists who are pushy, no matter how much they
all add to diversity and the marketplace of ideas.

 
> 1) Islam is not monolithic (same goes for Jews and
> Christians). 
> 2) Intolerance and mutual exclusivity (often even
> within their own 
> religions) makes religions thrive - it is their main
> "product."



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 14:53:57 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <631DA022-E02B-4038-9722-D97E726E7E6D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050711145357.54469.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, I really don't care if the FBI from time to time
violates the rights of ANSWER or WWP or whomever. No
it is not legal or ethically right to violate anyone's
rights, but with all the rights of relatively innocent
persons being violated in America, the undeserved
punishment of  those who operate on the border of
treason will stir little reaction from some of us. 
Samantha, you think I don't know what you are saying?
Wrong. You are correct that more ought to get off
their duffs and speak up against the war. And you will
kindly allow we who despise ANSWER and WWP to speak up
against them as well. Personally I'd rather see ANSWER
and WWP killed than Baathists-- and I have a first
amendment right to say so.

 
> I really don't care a lot if some of the groups
> organizing protesters  
> are not very nice folks if the people themselves
> will get off their  
> duff and speak up.
> 
> The FBI considers people who take the Constitution
> seriously as  
> likely terrorists so excuse me if I am not too
> impressed with a claim  
> that they consider the WWP to be terrorists.
> 
> There are no scare quotes around anti-war protest.
> 
> Look at the thugs you are pandering for Mike.
> 
> - samantha
> 
> On Jul 10, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> WWP and several of these other groups accepted,
> prior to the Iraq
> >>>
> >> war,
> >>
> >>> significant sums from Saddam Hussein, according
> to records captured
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>> Bagdad. Whether they continue to receive funds
> from the Baathist
> >>>
> >> Party
> >>
> >>> in Syria, as is suspected, has not yet been
> confirmed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Well, better just ask the CIA who can be relied
> upon to provide
> >> truthful answers to all such question. NOT.
> >> Would these be the same records that smeared
> George Galloway?
> >> Your naivete is touching.
> >>
> >
> > Your excuse making for stalinists and baathists is
> revealing. It also
> > displays ignorance and naivete of the
> international left and its
> > agenda. Domestic revolutionary and insurgency
> groups come under the
> > surveillance of the FBI's Department 5, not the
> CIA.
> >
> >
>
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370660
> >
> > http://caosblog.com/archives/803
> >
> > "The FBI considers the WWP a terrorist
> organization. On May 10, 2001,
> > FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that ?Anarchists
> and extremist
> > socialist groups ? many of which, such as the
> Workers World Party,  
> > have
> > an international presence and, at times, also
> represent a potential
> > threat in the United States.? Imagine that; the
> mainstream media
> > somehow missed the fact that the most ubiquitous
> organizer of
> > ?anti-war? protests is directed by a terrorist
> support group.  
> > Shouldn?t
> > a question on this front be aimed directly at
> Ramsey Clark at one of
> > his regular press conferences?
> >
> > The Korean Truth Commission and Pastors for Peace
> are staunch  
> > allies of
> > Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro, respectively, and
> both groups  
> > continue to
> > support these murderous regimes? violation of
> International law. In
> > addition to its role as a front for the support of
> > totalitarian/communist governments in North Korea
> and Cuba, members of
> > ANSWER?s steering committee such as the Muslim
> Student Association and
> > the Free Palestine Alliance continue to provide
> ideological,  
> > logistical
> > and financial support for organizations devoted to
> the destruction of
> > the state of Israel, including the terrorist
> group, Hamas. A
> > comprehensive investigation of the members of
> ANSWER?s steering
> > committee make it clear that the organization is
> in actuality one of
> > Peace?s greatest enemies. "
> >
> > This isn't the first time the WWP has pandered for
> overseas thugs.  
> > They
> > also accepted funds and lobbied for former
> Yugoslav President Slobodan
> > Milosevich. Ramsey Clark served as legal counsel
> in the US for Saddam
> > Hussein. The WWP also runs the KTC, the Korea
> Truth Commission, a  
> > front
> > for North Korean thug-in-chief Kim Jong Il.
> >
> > http://www.brookesnews.com/031502peacerally.html
> > http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2592
> >
>
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310163.shtml
> > http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html
> >
>
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5734
> >
>
http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2005/000001.html
> >
>
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=370637
> >
> > "The IAC has felt the sting. In a statement it
> blasted those who
> > "dishonestly claim that ANSWER is a 'front' group
> in order to diminish
> > the coalition," though it acknowledges "the
> presence of socialists and
> > Marxists, in particular members of the Workers
> World Party." Their
> > critics, IAC says, are racists: "Those who claim
> that ANSWER is a
> > 'front' organization demonstrate their own racist
> and elitist
> > perception of reality."
> >
> > And ANSWER has ripped what it calls "a repugnant
> red-baiting campaign
> > against the ANSWER coalition because of its role
> as a principal
> > organizer of the mass grass-roots movement of
> opposition to war
> > throughout the United States."
> >
> > The WWP is nothing if not consistent. According to
> a 1974  
> > congressional
> > report, it split from the Socialist Workers Party
> in 1959 in a dispute
> > over the Soviet invasion of Hungary three years
> before. The Socialist
> > Workers opposed the invasion, while Workers World
> partisans supported
> > it. "In 1968, the Workers World Party supported
> the invasion of
> > Czechoslovakia by the communist Warsaw Pact
> armies," the report
> > continued. The party, which never numbered more
> than a few hundred
> > people, supported the Viet Cong and North
> Vietnamese army against the
> > United States during the Vietnam War, according to
> the congressional
> > report. Some of its activities were coordinated
> with enemy military
> > actions. An April 8, 1972, internal letter "To All
> Branches" of the
> > party urged participation in "antiwar"
> demonstrations in support of a
> > Viet Cong offensive in South Vietnam. The letter's
> author, John
> > Catalinotto, remains in the party as managing
> editor of its weekly
> > Workers World "newspaper," and occasionally
> represents the IAC.
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 15:07:15 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:07:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <20050711145357.54469.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711145357.54469.qmail@web34402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D28B23.1010708@neopax.com>

c c wrote:

>Well, I really don't care if the FBI from time to time
>violates the rights of ANSWER or WWP or whomever. No
>it is not legal or ethically right to violate anyone's
>rights, but with all the rights of relatively innocent
>persons being violated in America, the undeserved
>punishment of  those who operate on the border of
>treason will stir little reaction from some of us. 
>Samantha, you think I don't know what you are saying?
>Wrong. You are correct that more ought to get off
>their duffs and speak up against the war. And you will
>kindly allow we who despise ANSWER and WWP to speak up
>against them as well. Personally I'd rather see ANSWER
>and WWP killed than Baathists-- and I have a first
>amendment right to say so.
>  
>
The borders of treason have an ugly habit of shifting ever closer to 
home due to such sentiments.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 15:15:37 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <42D28B23.1010708@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711151538.10318.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Oh, do they? Well then I wont get off my duff to speak
up. I'll meditate at a buddhist retreat instead. Who
needs the ugly habits of temporal politics? You so
inclined can fight the Empire. Tally Ho.

> The borders of treason have an ugly habit of
> shifting ever closer to 
> home due to such sentiments.


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


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Jul 11 16:56:53 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:56:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll/and not merely a great ethicist with
	lengthy hands-on Defense background 
In-Reply-To: <20050711133016.GA9401@ofb.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net> <42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>
	<42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net> <42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>
	<EAD8A752-3F34-49A8-98C6-2A227FD507CD@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050711133016.GA9401@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <C89806E8-85AC-47E4-942E-98A372D06963@bonfireproductions.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:09:58AM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to posit that we view the lives as equal in value, or we
>> wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
>>
>
> No, the war was sold largely on the grounds of Iraq having WMDs,  
> e.g. on the
> grounds of Iraq being a threat to us.  If we really cared about  
> lives we'd be
> intervening in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe, and funding a lot more  
> foreign aid
> in clean water and health care.

and

On Jul 9, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> The distinction between the cold war and the present is that trade  
> with
> the states sponsoring or otherwise supporting terrorism is too
> lucrative for a cold war strategy of economic embargo, as we employed
> against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. Seing how the coalition
> against Iraq unravelled through the 90's as the UN, nations and
> individuals were bribed to corrupt the system, doing the same to Saudi
> Arabia, Iran, Syria, and others would not last long, not unless the
> terrorists really get agressive and attack France, Germany, and Russia
> as well.


Lets look at this as a history lesson, like talking about the crash  
of the German mark in the early 20th century. It may hurt less if we  
do it that way. I am trying not to blur any of this. To keep the NPOV  
as it were.

This isn't about WMD, and it is not about Oil. It is about social  
infection. Break out a world map and look at the countries involved.  
There is a belt tightening from both ends of the Middle East/Persia.  
What motivates it? Consider - If you project forward 20 years, when  
there is technological parody between the west and rulers who  
currently take quiet offense to western civilization, what would  
happen next? If these rulers are answering directly to God, then they  
rule without question or consequence, and the people will follow. If  
those people had freedom of choice and a better quality of life,  
would they decide not to fight?

I am not trying to propagate anything here, I'm not even saying I am  
convinced of the above. Just look at the situation, the maps, the  
parties involved. Is it based in fear? Well sure, to some degree. But  
saying an insurgence was unexpected? Unadmitted, perhaps, because it  
would be unpopular. The long road was taken in this instance, from  
the beginning. People have been wondering why the US didn't plop down  
the 350k+ from the Gulf War. It's not because we don't have them. It  
isn't because of Afghanistan. It is long term resource rotation, to  
season as many soldiers as possible for the future, and to remain  
capable of having a go at perhaps a 3rd or 4th instance as well.

There are models that that have 'worked'. Japan, South Korea. Others.  
Exposure to the west makes western culture propagate. As Mike Lorrey  
stated in a previous post - no, the west cannot embargo the countries  
involved because the west is over a barrel both literally and  
figuratively. But where the west cannot bankrupt these countries  
financially, they can bankrupt them morally.

The easiest answers just arent the best in this case. Plenty of  
people want to bang the drum of 'he (Bush) did it for his father'  
while others say Bush isn't really  in control. Others want to  
comfort themselves with the simplicity of 'no blood for oil' - which  
appeals to anyone who has ever played Risk or Age of Empires as well.  
We are an opportunity seeking species regardless of theological  
inclination. When presented, we will leverage anything we can. We can  
take your resources, so we will. What these ideas have in common is  
an immediate horizon, and a simple enough plot for the average R- 
rated moviegoer. What they lack is projection, rationale and accuracy.

Thoughts? It's Bret with one 't' if its going in your killfile. =)


]3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/05c96904/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 17:17:09 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:17:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll/and not merely a great ethicist with
	lengthy hands-on Defense background
In-Reply-To: <C89806E8-85AC-47E4-942E-98A372D06963@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
	<42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com>	<42D1D2C6.9070906@cox.net>
	<42D1D9E1.3030900@neopax.com>	<EAD8A752-3F34-49A8-98C6-2A227FD507CD@bonfireproductions.com>	<20050711133016.GA9401@ofb.net>
	<C89806E8-85AC-47E4-942E-98A372D06963@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <42D2A995.1060203@neopax.com>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> This isn't about WMD, and it is not about Oil. It is about social 
> infection. Break out a world map and look at the countries involved. 
> There is a belt tightening from both ends of the Middle East/Persia. 
> What motivates it? Consider - If you project forward 20 years, when 
> there is technological parody between the west and rulers who 
> currently take quiet offense to western civilization, what would 
> happen next? If these rulers are answering directly to God, then they 
> rule without question or consequence, and the people will follow. If 
> those people had freedom of choice and a better quality of life, would 
> they decide not to fight?
>
Any analysis that ignores the west's support for secular tyrannies in 
the ME is doomed to fail.
Who do you turn to when the biggest mouth ranting on about 'human rights 
and democracy' not only suports the local dictator but often as not 
helped kill the nascent democracy in order to put him there?

If I lived in the ME (outside of Israel) I sure as Hel wouldn't trust or 
support the West, let alone the US.
Ten times bitten, twice shy to mangle an old saying.
It's called 'blowback' if you are on the receiving end, or 'payback' if 
you're AQ handing it out.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 18:07:40 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D2A995.1060203@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711180740.56000.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Whatever the case may be, America will push the game as far as possible-- that is how Empires/Superpowers do their thing. If only we could elect a libertarian syndico-socialist extropian transhumanist government to power then might we make deep changes in how America does its foreign policy in a world of nations operated by landsharks. And if only my grandmother were a man then she would be my grandfather.

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
 Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/b56ec088/attachment.html>

From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 18:21:51 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:21:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>

<quote>
I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a
crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to
hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's
life.
</quote>

I agree with Samantha on this point.  I for one am not opposed to a
Transparent Society, I just don't happen to believe that our society
is quite ready to be transparent.  I don't care if there are cameras
in every nook and cranny, I have "Nothing to Hide".  What I do care
about is the fact that many feel that they have the right to comment,
be concerned with, or regulate my life when the choices I make do not
harm anyone else.  I do not care if the world can see me sitting in my
home enjoying the First Season DVD's of Invader Zim, but would find
the first comment as to the appropriateness of that behavior to not
only be annoying, but a veritable call to arms.

Society is simply not ready to be transparent.  It will be ready to be
transparent only when the people in it no longer feel the need to be
concerned about others behavior, as long as that behavior does not
pose a direct threat to others (I at this time limit the idea of
"threat" to murder, rape, assault etc.)

A step before the "Transparent Society" will be eliminating all of the
laws that proscribe behavior which ought to be left to personal
choice.  Anyone remember the case in Texas a few years back of a
couple charged with Sodomy, and the evidence was a video tape taken by
a neighbour through the bedroom window of the couple in question?  Was
that couple really doing anything wrong?  Certainly they were breaking
the law, but were they wrong?  I for one think that the neighbor was
definately wrong.  In light of that case if you were to ask me did I
do anything wrong that I needed to hide I would certainly say no.  If
you were to ask me if I did anything illegal that I needed to hide I
would have to say that I don't know for there are too many laws to
keep track of and likely my wife and I have broken many with out ever
realizing that someone would bother making such a law in the first
place.


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 18:27:19 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050710205030.01cc6e40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050711182719.59049.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com>

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

> At 08:52 PM 7/10/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:
> 
> >Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in
> London than by the loss of 
> >lives in Iraq?
> 
> Because we are tribal animals.
> 
> If 50 Iraqi scientists were being `executed' by
> fanatics every day or week, 
> I think we'd* be more angstish.
> 
> *those on this list
 
Succinctly put.  Tells the whole story.  Tribalism is
all.  The Rosetta stone of human behavior.  Axiom One.

Us vs the Other trumps all.  It trumps Truth vs Myth
(when the truth speaks against the interest of the
tribe, truth is discarded and replaced by a
self-serving myth), it trumps lawful vs criminal, and
without missing a beat, it trumps right vs wrong.

The only thing it cannot trump is the up close and
personal, kiss-your-sorry-ass-goodbye prospect of
imminent annhilation.

Training oneself to escape the instinct-mediated
"trap" of tribal loyalty is arguably Transhuman
Enhancement One.

Best, Jeff Davis

"We're a band of higher primates stuck on the surface
of an atmosphere-hazed dirtball. I can associate with
that. I certainly can't identify with which patch of
the dirtball I currently happen to be on, and which
monkey tribe happens to reside therein.

Only by taking the big view we can make it a common
dream, and then a reality. It's worth it."
                               Eugen Leitl



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


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 11 18:36:39 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:36:39 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050709195504.94897.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050709195504.94897.qmail@web34413.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2BC37.8070102@aol.com>

After a year away, I'm happy to see progressive thinking people still 
debating the morality of this issue.

Few people have claimed that Al Quaeda or Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein 
are great people.  Although the tendency to confuse the three has tended 
to justify quite a lot of pundit-bullshit.  But few people will claim 
that GW Bush is a great person either.   The question is whether or not  
we should be going out bombing all the bad people and whoever happens to 
be standing within 20 miles of them.  As this policy is obviously 
ridiculous, and the policy of pre-emptive war is now obviously not such 
a good idea, I think it's time to announce that history has in fact 
judged as our own moral sensitivities should have before we started 
shocking and awing in downtown Baghdad.

If there are secret aspects of this war, we will likely only -really- 
find them out 40-years later (since we refuse to believe the things we 
already know, like the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
and the untimely death of weapons inspector David Kelly, etc.), as we 
did with Pearl Harbor.  No conspiracy-theory is needed to understand 
what is going on now, though.  In America, a conservative revolution is 
taking place - a war on personal liberty, economic prosperity and 
anything else we can give a name is scourging the US for its decadence 
(we get the leaders we deserve, in some ways).  Control of economic 
interests so tightly held in small groups of bankers amounts to a class 
war and as we learned in Malachi, if you've read it, no justice, no 
peace.  Welcome to the world without justice.  If you want peace, 
provide justice.

What qualifies one as a conspiracy theorist is that one is suspicious of 
the established power-order of one's own country (like Jefferson, 
Lincoln, Washington, MLK, et. al.).  One is not a conspiracy theorist if 
one is suspicious of the established power orders of a different country 
- especially if we can think of some good other reason to be at war with 
them (say, if they have lots of oil or something).  The belief, in fact, 
in Al Quaeda is just a classic conspiracy theory (vaguely identified 
people and groups of people secretly conspiring to destroy our country) 
targeted at the current "them" of our nationalistic hatred - the 
Conservative (oil owning) Muslim.

If you wish to characterize someone as a "religious thug" I suggest Mr. 
Bush is the world's most dangerous religious thug, persecuting his 
"apparently religious" war (for the sake of the poor Christian 
sucker-soldiers who go to kill off the infidels in this new crusade for 
the oily-land  cf. the Mayberry Machiavelli on whether you should invoke 
the name of God when going to war) on apparently defenseless countries 
worldwide.  "The only new thing in this world is the history you don't 
know."

Consequently, your contempt for intellectual pursuit stated so nicely in 
the language of among the most ruthless imperial killers in the history 
of the Western World has its obvious roots in your own psyche.  A 
universal solution to every puzzle - smash it, burn it, then throw it 
away.  Unfortunately, if the puzzle is alive and has cousins, as we've 
found out, this isn't a good idea.  Don't underestimate your enemies.  
Had you taken the time to think this through ahead of time, you may have 
realized that.  But with a policy of refusing to think, it's hard to see 
how any language could help the situation.  Pugilistic thugs rule the 
world, this we know.  In the few occasions where intellectuals have 
attempted to take over the world with their idealism in the modern era 
(China, Russia) we've had bad times.  In fact even the American 
Experiment is showing itself to be a failure - here we are dominating 
the world through economic and both over and covert military imperialism 
riding on an "elected" government selected by the top 1/400,000,000th of 
our population (Scalia).  But simply aquiescing to this as "human 
nature" I would think is against extropian principles, certainly against 
the Christian principles of justice, mercy and faithfulness.

With kind regards,

Robbie Lindauer


beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

> Samantha, I dont know how to communicate with you as we both speak the 
> same language but I cannot express my difference of opinion with you 
> at all. It is as if I came from another planet. You write as if I have 
> taken a definite position on the war. Such is not the case, I don't 
> know what is going on, and every time I ask a dissident or conspiracy 
> theorist for info on the secret aspects of the allied war the 
> inevitable reply is forthcoming, "do your own research". It is so 
> predictable, thereafter the personal attacks start. But though I have 
> severe doubts concerning the allies, I have no respect for al qaeda or 
> bin Laden whatsoever. I see no intrinsic difference between the 
> 'Werewolves' terrorists of 1945-6 Germany and al qaeda, bin Laden is 
> just a religious thug. BTW if you don't like the designation 
> 'terrorist' then substitute 'freedom fighter', the name 
> Islamo-militants call themselves or are called means nothing. For 
> starters you would have t! o fill me in on grave allied secrets, which 
> you can't do. We could start with a morals discussion of the Hiroshima 
> and Nagasaki bombings of 60 years ago, but we would go nowhere, being 
> intellectuals. Morality aside, /soldiers do; intellectuals perseverate/.
>  
> >If I were to express my abhorrence in a similar way then I would wish
> >that you and those who agree with you would be at ground zero if such
> >a thing was done. But since I understand what you apparently miss I
> >would not wish that on you. What you are missing is that all "those.
> >people" are all potential immortals. Exactly why do they deserve to
> >miss eternity for some real or imagined stupidities of their
> >(relatively) *very* early childhood? We who have not learned yet to
> >truly understand indefinitely long life or understand its requisites
> >are willing to kill all too easily.
>
> - samantha
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions 
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTE0bG4ybmRjBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNhdWN0aW9ucw--/SIG=10vb8ief1/**http%3a//auctions.yahoo.com/> 
> - No fees. Bid on great items.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 18:45:54 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <20050711182719.59049.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050711184554.43779.qmail@web34401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

We can make it a common dream, but we don't want to. The bearded lady can work in a nightclub, bur she doesn't want to. 

Only by taking the big view we can make it a common
dream, and then a reality. It's worth it."
Eugen Leitl




		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/cc2cd674/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jul 11 19:02:07 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:02:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, John Calvin wrote:

> <quote>
> I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a
> crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to
> hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's
> life.
> </quote>
>
> I agree with Samantha on this point.  I for one am not opposed to a
> Transparent Society, I just don't happen to believe that our society
> is quite ready to be transparent.

[...]

I agree here also. And who is to know when some different group will
decide to outlaw something that *was* legal - and make it retroactive?

Who is watching the watchers?

I am not ready to live in a fishbowl. Yet I work in a place where
everything is videorecorded.

What recourse would we have when our private lives are made public for
public entertainment or ridicule or legal action? None?

Some folks don't have enough to do.

Regards,
MB


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 11 19:06:04 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:06:04 -1000
Subject: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists
In-Reply-To: <20050710110146.43208.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050710110146.43208.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2C31C.7090309@aol.com>

avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com wrote:

>--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New
>>Age and 
>>ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who
>>embrace both metaphysics and 
>>advanced science. I do not regard them as
>>incompatible, if each is kept in 
>>its proper sphere. I wonder if anyone here is
>>familiar with the Integral 
>>approach of Ken Wilber?
>>(http://wilber.shambhala.com/)
>>    
>>
>In my opinion the relationship of metaphysics to
>science is that metaphysics encompasses science and as
>science grows, metaphysics shrinks. Perhaps someday
>science will understand all and there will be no more
>metaphysics left, but then again - maybe not.
>  
>

If you mean by "metaphysics" merely "not science" then the whether or 
not something is science is just a question of what you call science.  
In modern science, science is understood as technique - control of the 
environment.  Metaphysics is also sometimes called ontology - the theory 
of being-in-general.  The likelihood that it would become 'merely a 
science' has been debated at length by competent and sometimes honest 
people for centuries.  I suggest that the problem is significantly 
solved by post-modernism which regards ontological decisions as policy 
statements and therefore not techniques except in an extended sense of 
"technique" and that Levinas' desire to inject morality in our decision 
process for high-level policy decisions is the right one.

Best wishes,

Robbie Lindauer



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 19:13:16 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <42D2BC37.8070102@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050711191316.71191.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

So now i'm an anti-intellectual who does not think things through (a policy) before doing a post? In my town I'm a protester-pinko fag who thinks too much and has not enough respect for God and conservative authorities. And pray tell who might this 'among the most ruthless imperial killers in the history of the Western World' be? 


 

Consequently, your contempt for intellectual pursuit stated so nicely in 
the language of among the most ruthless imperial killers in the history 
of the Western World has its obvious roots in your own psyche. A 
universal solution to every puzzle - smash it, burn it, then throw it 
away. Unfortunately, if the puzzle is alive and has cousins, as we've 
found out, this isn't a good idea. Don't underestimate your enemies. 
Had you taken the time to think this through ahead of time, you may have 
realized that. But with a policy of refusing to think, it's hard to see 
how any language could help the situation. Pugilistic thugs rule the 
world, this we know. In the few occasions where intellectuals have 
attempted to take over the world with their idealism in the modern era 
(China, Russia) we've had bad times. In fact even the American 
Experiment is showing itself to be a failure - here we are dominating 
the world through economic and both over and covert military imperialism 
riding on an "elected" government selected by the top 1/400,000,000th of 
our population (Scalia). But simply aquiescing to this as "human 
nature" I would think is against extropian principles, certainly against 
the Christian principles of justice, mercy and faithfulness.

With kind regards,

Robbie Lindauer


		
---------------------------------
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/20050711/27713fee/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 19:46:07 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:46:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42D2CC7F.6040705@neopax.com>

John Calvin wrote:

><quote>
>I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a
>crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to
>hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's
>life.
></quote>
>
>I agree with Samantha on this point.  I for one am not opposed to a
>Transparent Society, I just don't happen to believe that our society
>is quite ready to be transparent.  I don't care if there are cameras
>in every nook and cranny, I have "Nothing to Hide".  What I do care
>about is the fact that many feel that they have the right to comment,
>be concerned with, or regulate my life when the choices I make do not
>harm anyone else.  I do not care if the world can see me sitting in my
>home enjoying the First Season DVD's of Invader Zim, but would find
>the first comment as to the appropriateness of that behavior to not
>only be annoying, but a veritable call to arms.
>
>  
>
Ultimately we must have a transparent society.
However our current leaders seem to take a dual approach - transparency 
coupled with restricting freedom.
I will not accept or condone that package.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 19:46:35 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050711194635.89763.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss
> of 
> lives in Iraq?

Because we knew there was ongoing violence in Iraq, while the deaths
in London - minor even compared to accidental deaths in London - were
unexpected.

It's an emotional reaction: shock, pure and simple.  Emotions often
have causes that are not solidly connected to logic and rationality.


From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 19:48:01 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:48:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <20050711182719.59049.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711182719.59049.qmail@web60024.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2CCF1.9020409@neopax.com>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>At 08:52 PM 7/10/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in
>>>      
>>>
>>London than by the loss of 
>>    
>>
>>>lives in Iraq?
>>>      
>>>
>>Because we are tribal animals.
>>
>>If 50 Iraqi scientists were being `executed' by
>>fanatics every day or week, 
>>I think we'd* be more angstish.
>>
>>*those on this list
>>    
>>
> 
>Succinctly put.  Tells the whole story.  Tribalism is
>all.  The Rosetta stone of human behavior.  Axiom One.
>
>Us vs the Other trumps all.  It trumps Truth vs Myth
>(when the truth speaks against the interest of the
>tribe, truth is discarded and replaced by a
>self-serving myth), it trumps lawful vs criminal, and
>without missing a beat, it trumps right vs wrong.
>
>The only thing it cannot trump is the up close and
>personal, kiss-your-sorry-ass-goodbye prospect of
>imminent annhilation.
>
>Training oneself to escape the instinct-mediated
>"trap" of tribal loyalty is arguably Transhuman
>Enhancement One.
>
>  
>
IMO less to do with 'instinct' and more to do with defending those who 
share common values.
Transhumanists, and indeed PostHumans will not 'escape' this tribalism 
and survive.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 20:15:56 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D2CC7F.6040705@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711201556.43228.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Right, and I don't care if cameras pick up my naked image in the bathroom to broadcast it out at the four corners of the globe. Why? because I'm fat, middle-aged & plain. And let them comment however they wish on such behavior, by the time you get to a certain age you've heard just about everything anyway.

Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote: I do not care if the world can see me sitting in my
>home enjoying the First Season DVD's of Invader Zim, but would find
>the first comment as to the appropriateness of that behavior to not
>only be annoying, but a veritable call to arms.


		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/ce5c74fb/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 20:18:22 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NPOV
In-Reply-To: <C89806E8-85AC-47E4-942E-98A372D06963@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050711201822.35331.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> To keep the NPOV
> as it were.

I am slightly amused, and slightly concerned, to see the term "NPOV"
popping up on this list, after I posted a definition of it here not too
long ago.  :)

NPOV is something that the Wikipedia project has defined as a subgoal,
to help its goal of being an online encyclopedia.  Is there a call for
its use in stating facts here, at least as a guideline and in certain
types of debates (i.e., in efforts to first establish mutually
acceptable sets of facts, given as one of the problems of debate is
often that both sides use good logic but reason from completely
different and somewhat contradictory sets of facts)?

Mostly just curious here.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 20:47:52 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <20050711204752.37974.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

I think I agree with Perry's statement, but restating it in clearer
terms (or, at least, in my terms):

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry at piermont.com> wrote:
> > Geoethical nanotechnology is the development and implementation
> under a
> > global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling
> molecules
> 
> Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid I'll be rather
> suspicious that the word "Geoethical" and the phrase "global
> regulatory framework" are not biocompatible with my lunch, so tuning
> in to this "webcast" might cause me to lose it.

Most or all recent proposals for global regulatory frameworks have been
thinly-disguised proposals to postpone or permanently outlaw the
technological research that is one of the main tenets of transhuman
philosophy.  X-ethics - i.e., geoethics, bioethics, and similar types
of "ethics" - have turned out to be mostly just restatements of luddite
and religious beliefs, many of them (like the Precautionary Principle,
as it is applied in practice rather than the ideals it tries to
achieve) demonstrably more dangerous than the dangers they seek to
address.

It does not overstate things to say that these delays equal death.  The
sooner we can develop and distribute the technologies that will
significantly enhance quality of life, the more people will live longer
and more productive (as well as happier and more fulfilling) lives.
True, there are risks that must be addressed on this path, but at this
time we do not even know enough about the possible risks to reliably
legislate against them.  Indeed, much of the basic research being
conducted on nanotechnology at this time is just starting to get a
glimpse of what is possible and what is not; recall the scare about
"grey goo", until new research (which would almost certainly be
impossible, or practically impossible, under a ban) discovered quite
recently that grey goo is actually impossible, at least on any large
and self-perpetuating scale.

It has been the case in related industries that significant legislation
- aside from that which also applies to older, more well-studied
threats, like pollution - generally just stops the research from being
done to clarify and classify the threats, thus actually preventing
reasonable legislation from ever being drafted.  Efforts are ongoing,
in legislatures which passed said laws and have come to realize the
consequences, to oveturn them despite the political climate of fear
they have set up - and thus at potential risk to the legislators' own
political careers.  (The uneducated public sees a law against
something, and comes to the usually quite reasonable conclusion that
their legislators, having adequately studied the topic, found the
dangers outweighed the risks.  So, when a legislator proposes removing
said laws, the public's trust in the legislator understandably slips,
even if the legislator is in fact doing the right thing.)

> It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian
> approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global
> regulatory framework".

Given the above, it is disturbing - to say the least* - that advocates
of transhumanism would lend any degree of credibility to new attempts
to impose said regulatory frameworks, or to any new "X-ethical"
arguments.

It is, perhaps, possible to attempt to subvert and recast these
regulations and ethics, by demonstrating the ethics of things like the
Proactionary Principle and the damage - "horrors" is perhaps not too
strong a term - inevitably caused by things like the Precautionary
Principle.  But if this is the true intent of ExI's presence, then
given as this is drastically different from the common proposals for
global regulatory frameworks and X-ethics, this should be explicitly
stated.  It was not.  Ergo, this gives the appearance of ExI endorsing
things like the Precautionary Principle - and even giving the
appearance of doing so goes against ExI's interests.

* To the degree that, like Perry, I shall most certainly not listen to
this Webcast - so as to avoid purging my most recent meal, among other
reasons.


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 21:02:17 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:02:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <20050711201556.43228.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <42D2CC7F.6040705@neopax.com>
	<20050711201556.43228.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c7050711140248e9da57@mail.gmail.com>

"Ultimately we must have a transparent society."

"Must" is a strong word, though I would ceertainly agree that
Ultimately it is in our best interest to have a transparent society,
though we have many other issues to take care of in getting there.

There are benefits of a truly wired and trasparent society.   One or
two times in my life, I have said something that was absolutley
brilliant.  Unfortunately for the lack of ubiquitous cameras there is
no evidence that I have ever shown a spark of brilliance.

Yet here too is the another downside to the transparent society.  What
if our memories of an event are better than the actual event itself? 
Would it be a let down to be able to go look at the footage of an
event in your life and discover that it was not nearly as cool or
poignant as your memory would have it, or would you discard truth in
favor of your personal myth.  I must admit that there may be times
when I would choose personal myth.


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 21:15:12 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues
In-Reply-To: <20050711204752.37974.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Of all the posters here, the one I have the least in common with is Mike Lorrey yet he is the easiest to communicate with because he is so direct.
Samantha on the other hand is far too slippery i.e. a few weeks ago she said she would join the resistance in Iraq if she knew what was occurring there on the ground. However she has no intention of joining in any part of any resistance in Iraq, and if she did she would be captured, taken to a tent, and violated. How can you take someone's posts seriously when they are so evasive?



		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/9727cba4/attachment.html>

From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Jul 11 21:27:35 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:27:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <20050711204752.37974.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<20050711204752.37974.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050711212735.GA14900@ofb.net>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:47:52PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> "grey goo", until new research (which would almost certainly be
> impossible, or practically impossible, under a ban) discovered quite
> recently that grey goo is actually impossible, at least on any large
> and self-perpetuating scale.

Can you say more about that research?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 21:56:17 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D2CCF1.9020409@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Jeff Davis wrote:
...
> >Training oneself to escape the instinct-mediated
> >"trap" of tribal loyalty is arguably Transhuman
> >Enhancement One.

> IMO less to do with 'instinct' and more to do with
> defending those who share common values.

In a tribal context values are arbitrary except
insofar as they are identifiers of tribal membership. 
If their values compel tribal members go over the
cliff, then over the cliff they go.  Instinct--tribal
instinct adhered to--all the way to the sudden stop. 

> Transhumanists, and indeed PostHumans will not
> 'escape' this tribalism and survive.

No.  If survival is the goal, then you get there by
rational behavior.  If multiple individuals with
similar values act in concert, their survival ***as a
group*** may be enhanced, but the similarity to
tribalism is merely coincidental.   

An occasional correlation in the outcomes of rational
and instinctive behavior cannot make instinctive
behavior more than "seemingly" rational.  A case might
be made that instinctive behaviors dispassionately
evolved in the wild, on the basis of gene "selection",
are "rational" by virtue of the correlation of
survival and environmental conditions.  However,
virtually by definition, human, transhuman, and
post-human "environments" are/will be "engineered", in
contrast to the "wild" environments of proto- and
early humans.

Best, Jeff Davis
 
"I know it is a weakness of human nature to become
emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats,
but people who want to be transhumanists need to be
able to get past that almost as a prerequisite.  In
fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are
all about shedding this behavior."
                       j. andrew rogers
 


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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 22:02:34 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <20050711212735.GA14900@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050711220234.27972.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:47:52PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > "grey goo", until new research (which would almost certainly be
> > impossible, or practically impossible, under a ban) discovered
> quite
> > recently that grey goo is actually impossible, at least on any
> large
> > and self-perpetuating scale.
> 
> Can you say more about that research?

It was posted to this list - last year, I think - partly in reaction
to Michael Chricton's "Prey".  I recall a few different threads -
though I'm not 100% sure I'm stating any of them completely correctly:

* Even if you had self-replicating, all-consuming nanites, they'd soon
  form a skin-and-interior system much like a growing cancer cell.
  Unfortunately, only the "skin" would be receiving new energy and new
  nutrients; for the interior to survive, you'd need so much heat that
  it would eventually disrupt the structures of the nanites.
  Otherwise, the skin's area would go up with the cube of the volume it
  covered, but it would need some method of obtaining power with which
  to break up matter (most matter is not explosive or otherwise
  contains easy-to-tap energy); solar power would, at best, go up with
  the square of the volume...and eventually, the nanites would run out.
  (Or at least slow down enough to allow countermeasures.  The world
  would not sit by indefinitely if something like this happened.)

* Unless you programmed it to avoid going down (for which you'd first
  need a way to measure gravity on the device), the mass would
  eventually break through the Earth's crust...and it seems highly
  unlikely that any nanites could survive the resulting magma flow.
  (Although, since this would disrupt an area for miles around, this
  could be counted as "large scale".)

* Nanotechnology in general requires knowing what atoms you're
  operating with.  A silicon atom can't do all the things a carbon atom
  can, and both have different properties from an oxygen atom.  Yet the
  very nature of an "all-consuming" nanite assumes that just any atom
  will do - which is not the case.  (Even if you just had it select
  favorable atoms from its environment, it would most likely come to
  some barrier - different types of rock, barren areas, et cetera -
  where its food completely ran out.  Although this isn't a barrier to
  large-scale disruption either - there's probably a continual-enough
  chain of carbon atoms in any large city, for example.)

Google around if you want more.


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Jul 11 22:13:55 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:13:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <20050711220234.27972.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711212735.GA14900@ofb.net>
	<20050711220234.27972.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050711221355.GA20966@ofb.net>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:02:34PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> --- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:47:52PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > > "grey goo", until new research (which would almost certainly be
> > > impossible, or practically impossible, under a ban) discovered
> > quite
> > > recently that grey goo is actually impossible, at least on any
> > large
> > > and self-perpetuating scale.

> * Even if you had self-replicating, all-consuming nanites, they'd soon
>   form a skin-and-interior system much like a growing cancer cell.

>   favorable atoms from its environment, it would most likely come to
>   some barrier - different types of rock, barren areas, et cetera -
>   where its food completely ran out.  Although this isn't a barrier to

Oh.  I used arguments like these, along with "diamondoid nanites in oxygen
bring to mind the word 'flammable'", some years ago on the onld list.  I
thought there was more behind "research".

-xx- Damien X-) 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 11 22:24:55 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:24:55 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050711191316.71191.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711191316.71191.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2F1B7.6060408@aol.com>

I didn't put the words in your mouth.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  If 
you would like to be a protester pinko-fag, stop saying nice things 
about war-mongers.

Robbie

PS - answer to your question - Rome.


beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

> So now i'm an anti-intellectual who does not think things through (a 
> policy) before doing a post? In my town I'm a protester-pinko fag who 
> thinks too much and has not enough respect for God and conservative 
> authorities. And pray tell who might this 'among the most ruthless 
> imperial killers in the history of the Western World' be?
>
>
>  
>
>
>     Consequently, your contempt for intellectual pursuit stated so
>     nicely in
>     the language of among the most ruthless imperial killers in the
>     history
>     of the Western World has its obvious roots in your own psyche. A
>     universal solution to every puzzle - smash it, burn it, then throw it
>     away. Unfortunately, if the puzzle is alive and has cousins, as we've
>     found out, this isn't a good idea. Don't underestimate your enemies.
>     Had you taken the time to think this through ahead of time, you
>     may have
>     realized that. But with a policy of refusing to think, it's hard
>     to see
>     how any language could help the situation. Pugilistic thugs rule the
>     world, this we know. In the few occasions where intellectuals have
>     attempted to take over the world with their idealism in the modern
>     era
>     (China, Russia) we've had bad times. In fact even the American
>     Ex! periment is showing itself to be a failure - here we are
>     dominating
>     the world through economic and both over and covert military
>     imperialism
>     riding on an "elected" government selected by the top
>     1/400,000,000th of
>     our population (Scalia). But simply aquiescing to this as "human
>     nature" I would think is against extropian principles, certainly
>     against
>     the Christian principles of justice, mercy and faithfulness.
>
>     With kind regards,
>
>     Robbie Lindauer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31132/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail> 
> Check email on your mobile phone.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 11 22:30:56 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:30:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2F320.6060206@neopax.com>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Jeff Davis wrote:
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>>Training oneself to escape the instinct-mediated
>>>"trap" of tribal loyalty is arguably Transhuman
>>>Enhancement One.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>IMO less to do with 'instinct' and more to do with
>>defending those who share common values.
>>    
>>
>
>In a tribal context values are arbitrary except
>insofar as they are identifiers of tribal membership. 
>If their values compel tribal members go over the
>cliff, then over the cliff they go.  Instinct--tribal
>instinct adhered to--all the way to the sudden stop. 
>
>  
>
>>Transhumanists, and indeed PostHumans will not
>>'escape' this tribalism and survive.
>>    
>>
>
>No.  If survival is the goal, then you get there by
>rational behavior.  If multiple individuals with
>similar values act in concert, their survival ***as a
>group*** may be enhanced, but the similarity to
>tribalism is merely coincidental.   
>
>An occasional correlation in the outcomes of rational
>and instinctive behavior cannot make instinctive
>behavior more than "seemingly" rational.  A case might
>be made that instinctive behaviors dispassionately
>evolved in the wild, on the basis of gene "selection",
>are "rational" by virtue of the correlation of
>survival and environmental conditions.  However,
>virtually by definition, human, transhuman, and
>post-human "environments" are/will be "engineered", in
>contrast to the "wild" environments of proto- and
>early humans.
>
>  
>
I would say that the critical environment variable that cannot be 
engineered is competition.
Me and my gang will always beat the lone idealist, unless he has his 
gang back him up.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 22:51:13 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <42D2F1B7.6060408@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050711225113.71574.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Rome? I write like a Roman? that's a new one.. okay it's a tiny thing. 
Main beef is a sense the opponents of the war are being as disingenuous as the hawks. When I protested the Vietnam War the feeling back then was "what does our side have to hide? They were childish, yes, but the info was more or less accurate. All sorts of rumors in the past 46 months have been circulating, the administration was active in the attacks or complicit. Now there's something else. And how can you trust mere memos without knowing 100% the source of those memos?
  Sure the administration lied, truth is the first casualty even before the shooting starts. What else is new? What definitive evidence can you furnish showing the war was not only snaked into but is undeniably wrong?

Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
I didn't put the words in your mouth. If the shoe fits, wear it. If 
you would like to be a protester pinko-fag, stop saying nice things 
about war-mongers.

Robbie

PS - answer to your question - Rome.



		
---------------------------------
 Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/5a4e1d94/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 11 23:13:46 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:13:46 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] feeling more better
In-Reply-To: <20050711225113.71574.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711225113.71574.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D2FD2A.3070104@aol.com>

Yes, you write like a roman "intellectuals pontificate, soldiers act".  
Sloganeering replacing critical thought.

Rumors are irrelevant, facts in evidence stand.  The definitive evidence 
that the war was wrong is the giant pile of dead bodies and the now 
obvious (well, then-obvious too) fact (by your own admission) that it 
was over weapons of mass deception, not destruction.

Robbie


beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

> Rome? I write like a Roman? that's a new one.. okay it's a tiny thing. 
> Main beef is a sense the opponents of the war are being as 
> disingenuous as the hawks. When I protested the Vietnam War the 
> feeling back then was "what does our side have to hide? They were 
> childish, yes, but the info was more or less accurate. All sorts of 
> rumors in the past 46 months have been circulating, the administration 
> was active in the attacks or complicit. Now there's something else. 
> And how can you trust mere memos without knowing 100% the source of 
> those memos?
>   Sure the administration lied, truth is the first casualty even 
> before the shooting starts. What else is new? What definitive evidence 
> can you furnish showing the war was not only snaked into but is 
> undeniably wrong?
>
> */Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>/* wrote:
>
>     I didn't put the words in your mouth. If the shoe fits, wear it. If
>     you would like to be a protester pinko-fag, stop saying nice things
>     about war-mongers.
>
>     Robbie
>
>     PS - answer to your question - Rome.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions 
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTE0bG4ybmRjBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNhdWN0aW9ucw--/SIG=10vb8ief1/**http%3a//auctions.yahoo.com/> 
> - No fees. Bid on great items.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 11 23:28:22 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
Message-ID: <20050711232822.10200.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I overreacted, got nervous after the London attacks.
A childish remnant from the Vietnam era where if you were young enough you saw the war in terms of black & white, from both sides. Now I don't trust anyone. With age, info from abroad appears less trustworthy-- there is no true international law or reliable information from overseas, is there? We don't even receive reliable information domestically.You chose your stance on this war thanks to the sum total of all you were told, didn't you? What I've been told is inconclusive, so I err on the side of the nation I live in. 
Can you direct us to the url of a smoking gun that can't be denied? Can you provide overwhelming evidence?

__________________________________________________
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/20050711/819af71b/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 11 23:31:20 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:31:20 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <20050711232822.10200.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711232822.10200.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D30148.7020409@aol.com>

What evidence of wrongness are you looking for other than piles of dead 
bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?



beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

> I overreacted, got nervous after the London attacks.
> A childish remnant from the Vietnam era where if you were young enough 
> you saw the war in terms of black & white, from both sides. Now I 
> don't trust anyone. With age, info from abroad appears less 
> trustworthy-- there is no true international law or reliable 
> information from overseas, is there? We don't even receive reliable 
> information domestically.You chose your stance on this war thanks 
> to the sum total of all you were told, didn't you? What I've been 
> told is inconclusive, so I err on the side of the nation I live in.
> Can you direct us to the url of a smoking gun that can't be denied? 
> Can you provide overwhelming evidence?
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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 dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 23:37:58 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:37:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <20050710230613.M89964@kozubik.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<20050710230613.M89964@kozubik.com>
Message-ID: <42D302D6.1090307@cox.net>

John Kozubik wrote:

>Dan,
>
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot panorama
>>at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have a picture of
>>at least one of the bombers.
>>
>>To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic
>>infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures,
>>there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process
>>quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a distributed
>>database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could do a
>>preliminary analysis.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Ok.  But how do you distinguish fake data and analysis from real data and
>analysis ?  What if the criminals involved created hundreds or thousands
>of CGI photos of real and/or fake persons at the scene and submitted them
>as part of the broader public response ?
>
>Such a barrage of misleading information could hamper the investigation at
>best, and falsely redirect it at worse.
>
>Comments ?
>
>  
>
MD5 signatures. Each photographer can either join a pre-existing chain 
of trust. No need to
actually divulge the photographer's name to all, but the police can find 
it if an analyst
decides something is wrong.

Similarly, analysts are identifiable if necessary, and analysis is 
overlapped, so many analysts
will cross-check each other.


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jul 11 23:54:15 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:54:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <F07FE2E9-0652-4D18-96D4-C41EF850FE0E@mac.com>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1CD5C.3090204@neopax.com>	<42D1D18A.7060404@cox.net>
	<F07FE2E9-0652-4D18-96D4-C41EF850FE0E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42D306A7.1000805@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I am less trusting.  The timing was too useful.  I am too suspicious  
> after 911, the "Patriot Act" and the rest.   I very much doubt the  
> real perps will ever be found.
>
> - samantha
>
But this is a compelling argument in favor of a grass-roots surviellance 
and analysis effort. If any incident is a hoax perpetrated by the 
authorities, then fully-distributed grass-roots surveillance and 
analysis is a very strong deterrent.

I personally do not think that "authorities" deliberately planned or 
desired any of these horrific events, with the exception of the Iraq 
war. Yes, many "authorities" did in fact react to 9-11 by pushing their 
totalitarian agendas. but I don't think they actually planned 9-11 or 
even  wanted such an event to occur.




From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 00:38:33 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:38:33 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <42D30148.7020409@aol.com>
References: <20050711232822.10200.qmail@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D30148.7020409@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42D31109.9030905@aol.com>

robgobblin at aol.com wrote:

One last thing - sufficient for what?  Sufficient for impeachment?  
Certainly - an impeachment proceeding proceeds on the basis of a trial - 
if there is an impeachable offense alleged and some reason - any reason 
- to suspect malfeasance the accused can be tried where their guilt must 
be proved.  But there is no need to provide the proof beforehand 
obviating the legal process of discovery.

Robbie

> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you direct us to the url of a smoking gun that can't be denied? 
>> Can you provide overwhelming evidence?
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 12 01:25:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:25:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c7050711140248e9da57@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42D2CC7F.6040705@neopax.com>
	<20050711201556.43228.qmail@web34414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5d74f9c7050711140248e9da57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <131D97C0-9559-4599-B126-F88F24269E85@mac.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 2:02 PM, John Calvin wrote:

> "Ultimately we must have a transparent society."
>
> "Must" is a strong word, though I would ceertainly agree that
> Ultimately it is in our best interest to have a transparent society,
> though we have many other issues to take care of in getting there.
>
> There are benefits of a truly wired and trasparent society.   One or
> two times in my life, I have said something that was absolutley
> brilliant.  Unfortunately for the lack of ubiquitous cameras there is
> no evidence that I have ever shown a spark of brilliance.

Controllable persistence of one's own perceptions and thoughts does  
not require a transparent society.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 12 01:27:00 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:27:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues
In-Reply-To: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E2D79046-AD84-4F8B-99F5-FE882A4FA502@mac.com>

I cannot be held wholly or even primarily responsible for your  
seeming failure to understand me.

- s

On Jul 11, 2005, at 2:15 PM, c c wrote:

> Of all the posters here, the one I have the least in common with is  
> Mike Lorrey yet he is the easiest to communicate with because he is  
> so direct.
> Samantha on the other hand is far too slippery i.e. a few weeks ago  
> she said she would join the resistance in Iraq if she knew what was  
> occurring there on the ground. However she has no intention of  
> joining in any part of any resistance in Iraq, and if she did she  
> would be captured, taken to a tent, and violated. How can you take  
> someone's posts seriously when they are so evasive?
>
>
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050711/3f1d77d8/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jul 12 01:31:44 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:31:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>
	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>

MB wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, John Calvin wrote:
>  
>
>><quote>
>>I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a
>>crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to
>>hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's
>>life.
>></quote>
>>
>>I agree with Samantha on this point.  I for one am not opposed to a
>>Transparent Society, I just don't happen to believe that our society
>>is quite ready to be transparent.
>>    
>>
>
>[...]
>
>I agree here also. And who is to know when some different group will
>decide to outlaw something that *was* legal - and make it retroactive?
>
>Who is watching the watchers?
>
>I am not ready to live in a fishbowl. Yet I work in a place where
>everything is videorecorded.
>
>What recourse would we have when our private lives are made public for
>public entertainment or ridicule or legal action? None?
>
>Some folks don't have enough to do.
>
>  
>
I think we have argued this point ad nauseum in years past.

Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
constant monitoring of everybody. Brin argues that the only feasible
response is to explicitly enable anybody to monitor anybody else: If the 
cops can
monitor you, then you can monitor the cops. They can monitor you at home or
at work: You can monitor them at home or at work.

Brin does not argue that universal monitoring is "good." He argues that it
is inevitable, and then tries to determine the best ways to deal with the
technology.

Personally, I am neutral on privacy: I prefer to maintain my own 
privacy, but
I understand that I will not be able to do so in the future. I accept 
Brin's solution:
If I must forgo privacy, then so must everybody else, including all 
government officials,
church officials, and other arbiters of "moral behavior."

Please do not waste my time with arguments that transparency is "wrong."
Transparency is inevitable. You may as well argue against the laws of 
physics.


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 01:46:49 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <42D30148.7020409@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712014649.55373.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
war crimes?  Since technically Iraq was in violation
of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
have to be shown America invaded to entirely subjugate
Iraq and commit war crimes. If you look backwards to
2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the Baathist
regime was futile, and the administration had to know
a sustained resistance to occupation was inevitable &
unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
prove the course of the war was inevitable and America
knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this you
have a solid case.


--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> What evidence of wrongness are you looking for other
> than piles of dead 
> bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 02:08:17 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:08:17 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <20050712014649.55373.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712014649.55373.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D32611.1040607@aol.com>

beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

>Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
>of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
>war crimes?
>

Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very different standard of law 
well established here.

>  Since technically Iraq was in violation
>of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
>have to be shown America invaded to entirely subjugate
>Iraq and commit war crimes.
>

It hasn't been determined by the UN security council that Iraq was 
definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded over the objections of 
the security council and the UN weapons inspectors. It turns out they 
were right and we were lying, apparently intentionally.

> If you look backwards to
>2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
>couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the Baathist
>regime was futile, and the administration had to know
>a sustained resistance to occupation was inevitable &
>unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
>prove the course of the war was inevitable and America
>knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this you
>have a solid case.
>  
>

No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that war is bad and that 
there were other options and that the American Presidential group 
decided to go to war over the objections of the CIA, the UN and many, 
many, many citizens apparently on trumped up "evidence" of Iraq's 
capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction (such as having 
rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical weapons ability). As a 
result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died (baathists and 
non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few thousand americans 
have been killed or maimed. That there were other options was obvious 
and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad choice was obvious then 
and continues to be obvious now.

This point was made at length, even in this forum, BEFORE the war 
attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly by military advisors 
to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly by American 
Intelligence agents who were subsequently illegally "outed" by someone 
in the White House apparently as retalliation.

How is any of this controversial in the slightest?

Robbie

>
>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>What evidence of wrongness are you looking for other
>>than piles of dead 
>>bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>        
>____________________________________________________
>Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
>http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 02:40:24 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <42D32611.1040607@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712024024.66476.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, there were certainly options other than the war,
on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to scatter
the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
civilians, would be enough to acquit the
administration.



> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
> different standard of law 
> well established here.
> 
> >  Since technically Iraq was in violation
> >of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
> >have to be shown America invaded to entirely
> subjugate
> >Iraq and commit war crimes.
> >
> 
> It hasn't been determined by the UN security council
> that Iraq was 
> definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded over
> the objections of 
> the security council and the UN weapons inspectors.
> It turns out they 
> were right and we were lying, apparently
> intentionally.
> 
> > If you look backwards to
> >2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
> >couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
> Baathist
> >regime was futile, and the administration had to
> know
> >a sustained resistance to occupation was inevitable
> &
> >unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
> >prove the course of the war was inevitable and
> America
> >knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this you
> >have a solid case.
> >  
> >
> 
> No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that war
> is bad and that 
> there were other options and that the American
> Presidential group 
> decided to go to war over the objections of the CIA,
> the UN and many, 
> many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
> "evidence" of Iraq's 
> capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction
> (such as having 
> rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical weapons
> ability). As a 
> result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
> (baathists and 
> non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
> thousand americans 
> have been killed or maimed. That there were other
> options was obvious 
> and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
> choice was obvious then 
> and continues to be obvious now.
> 
> This point was made at length, even in this forum,
> BEFORE the war 
> attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly by
> military advisors 
> to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly by
> American 
> Intelligence agents who were subsequently illegally
> "outed" by someone 
> in the White House apparently as retalliation.
> 
> How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
> 
> Robbie
> 
> >
> >--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
> other
> >>than piles of dead 
> >>bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >        
>
>____________________________________________________
> >Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great
> items.  
> >http://auctions.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
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 12 02:43:44 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:43:44 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
Message-ID: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>

I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq. 

Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere. 

I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.

We all know that we can make up nonsense for ourselves we don't need to do it for each other.

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/501f3196/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jul 12 03:09:11 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:09:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:
> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
> misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>  
> Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And 
> yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? 
> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters 
> might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a 
> big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been 
> directed far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.

The term "lie" only applies to social systems or individuals whose 
(collective) minds are sufficiently directed to finding truth that there 
exists knowledge inverted to create a lie.  If you're mired down in a 
political system devoted to finding evidence for particular theories, 
selectively passing on arguments for particular theories, not contradicting 
the boss, etc., the boundary between dishonest lies and honest mistakes is too 
fuzzy to be worth pursuing.  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on 
WMD we'd call it a lie.  But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq 
had WMD.  Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all, 
including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for which Bush 
was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we believed it at the time.

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


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 03:20:37 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050712032037.30091.qmail@web34410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

After what happened in London, many are worried that
other allied nations are going to be targeted and also
that Britain- the main ally- will be hit again.


> One thing that I suspect most extropian or
> transhumanist list posters 
> > might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism
> business has grabbed a 
> > big chunk of the worlds attention. 


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 03:22:32 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:22:32 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <20050712024024.66476.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712024024.66476.qmail@web34407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D33778.9090800@aol.com>

In american courts, points of fact are found out in court.

That's why we have discovery.

On the moral point, it's not clear that "scattering the iraqi regime" is 
a justifiable pretense for slaughtering civilians wholesale and 
launching two or more countries into an extended military quagmire with 
daily deaths and mayhem ensuing.

Robbie


beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:

>Yes, there were certainly options other than the war,
>on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to scatter
>the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
>evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
>civilians, would be enough to acquit the
>administration.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
>>different standard of law 
>>well established here.
>>
>>    
>>
>>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
>>>of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
>>>have to be shown America invaded to entirely
>>>      
>>>
>>subjugate
>>    
>>
>>>Iraq and commit war crimes.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It hasn't been determined by the UN security council
>>that Iraq was 
>>definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded over
>>the objections of 
>>the security council and the UN weapons inspectors.
>>It turns out they 
>>were right and we were lying, apparently
>>intentionally.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>If you look backwards to
>>>2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
>>>couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
>>>      
>>>
>>Baathist
>>    
>>
>>>regime was futile, and the administration had to
>>>      
>>>
>>know
>>    
>>
>>>a sustained resistance to occupation was inevitable
>>>      
>>>
>>&
>>    
>>
>>>unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
>>>prove the course of the war was inevitable and
>>>      
>>>
>>America
>>    
>>
>>>knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this you
>>>have a solid case.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that war
>>is bad and that 
>>there were other options and that the American
>>Presidential group 
>>decided to go to war over the objections of the CIA,
>>the UN and many, 
>>many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
>>"evidence" of Iraq's 
>>capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction
>>(such as having 
>>rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical weapons
>>ability). As a 
>>result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
>>(baathists and 
>>non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
>>thousand americans 
>>have been killed or maimed. That there were other
>>options was obvious 
>>and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
>>choice was obvious then 
>>and continues to be obvious now.
>>
>>This point was made at length, even in this forum,
>>BEFORE the war 
>>attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly by
>>military advisors 
>>to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly by
>>American 
>>Intelligence agents who were subsequently illegally
>>"outed" by someone 
>>in the White House apparently as retalliation.
>>
>>How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
>>
>>Robbie
>>
>>    
>>
>>>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
>>>>        
>>>>
>>other
>>    
>>
>>>>than piles of dead 
>>>>bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>      
>>>
>>____________________________________________________
>>    
>>
>>>Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great
>>>      
>>>
>>items.  
>>    
>>
>>>http://auctions.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
>  
>
>
>
>
>        
>____________________________________________________
>Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
>http://auctions.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  Tue Jul 12 03:28:16 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:28:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D338D0.7090404@neopax.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied 
> or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>  
> Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. 
> And yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not 
> surely? One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list 
> posters might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has 
> grabbed a big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have 
> been directed far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>  
> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.

Well, in that case we better exonerate Hitler for the Holocaust since 
there are no *hard facts* that show he ordered it.
Just a lot of circumstantial evidence.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 03:32:50 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:32:50 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D339E2.4030000@aol.com>

bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:

> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied 
> or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>  
> Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. 
> And yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not 
> surely? One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list 
> posters might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has 
> grabbed a big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have 
> been directed far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.


$200,000,000,000 last count (in US spending, nevermind everywhere else) 
that easily could have built plenty of supercomputers into which we 
could have downloaded our minds :)  Hindsight is always 20/20 with 
investment opportunities though :(


> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.


The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what Mr. 
Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He (powell) 
is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not reading this 
bulshit".  The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on 
reading given that we obviously didn't know that there were weapons of 
the relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there, right?)  Or did he 
have further intelligence revealed to him.  If so, where is it?   I 
mean, if we KNEW where there were, we'd have found them.

Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons inspector 
working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the weapons of 
the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for his say-so.  But we do 
know that he said so.

Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
said they'd found no such evidence.

Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.  
Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
was flatly false.

Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
the sources of which are not in question.

Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing well..

In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory 
bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the 
administration's position in the matter is a 
nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there appears 
to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush really wanted to go to 
war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this wouldn't be a 
critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If you like this, I 
also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's normally valued 
at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000 cash.

>  
> We all know that we can make up nonsense for ourselves we don't need 
> to do it for each other.
>  
> Brett Paatsch
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 03:34:37 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:34:37 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <42D33A4D.5030108@aol.com>

sentience at pobox.com wrote:

> .  You can say we were all, including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving 
> intelligence system for which Bush was partially responsible; but the 
> fact remains, we believed it at the time.
>

Speak for yourself, I wasn't fooled for 10 seconds.

Robbie



From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 03:48:23 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <42D33778.9090800@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712034823.2255.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is all true yet still it appears international
law is too undefined to do much with. Even domestic
legal process is vague-- few get a jury of their
actual peers, as they are supposed to. Judges aren't
usually impartial, they are chosen to uphold very
conservative community standards.

By 'scatter' I meant innucleate; enough of the regime
remains to pose a threat.



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

> In american courts, points of fact are found out in
> court.
> 
> That's why we have discovery.
> 
> On the moral point, it's not clear that "scattering
> the iraqi regime" is 
> a justifiable pretense for slaughtering civilians
> wholesale and 
> launching two or more countries into an extended
> military quagmire with 
> daily deaths and mayhem ensuing.
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> >Yes, there were certainly options other than the
> war,
> >on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to
> scatter
> >the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
> >evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
> >civilians, would be enough to acquit the
> >administration.
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
> >>different standard of law 
> >>well established here.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
> >>>of agreements made previously with the UN, it
> would
> >>>have to be shown America invaded to entirely
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>subjugate
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Iraq and commit war crimes.
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>It hasn't been determined by the UN security
> council
> >>that Iraq was 
> >>definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded
> over
> >>the objections of 
> >>the security council and the UN weapons
> inspectors.
> >>It turns out they 
> >>were right and we were lying, apparently
> >>intentionally.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>If you look backwards to
> >>>2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
> >>>couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Baathist
> >>    
> >>
> >>>regime was futile, and the administration had to
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>know
> >>    
> >>
> >>>a sustained resistance to occupation was
> inevitable
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>&
> >>    
> >>
> >>>unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
> >>>prove the course of the war was inevitable and
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>America
> >>    
> >>
> >>>knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this
> you
> >>>have a solid case.
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that
> war
> >>is bad and that 
> >>there were other options and that the American
> >>Presidential group 
> >>decided to go to war over the objections of the
> CIA,
> >>the UN and many, 
> >>many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
> >>"evidence" of Iraq's 
> >>capability of delivering weapons of mass
> destruction
> >>(such as having 
> >>rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical
> weapons
> >>ability). As a 
> >>result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
> >>(baathists and 
> >>non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
> >>thousand americans 
> >>have been killed or maimed. That there were other
> >>options was obvious 
> >>and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
> >>choice was obvious then 
> >>and continues to be obvious now.
> >>
> >>This point was made at length, even in this forum,
> >>BEFORE the war 
> >>attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly
> by
> >>military advisors 
> >>to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly
> by
> >>American 
> >>Intelligence agents who were subsequently
> illegally
> >>"outed" by someone 
> >>in the White House apparently as retalliation.
> >>
> >>How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
> >>
> >>Robbie
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>other
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>than piles of dead 
> >>>>bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>      
> >>>
>
>>____________________________________________________
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>items.  
> >>    
> >>
> >>>http://auctions.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
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        
>
>____________________________________________________
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 03:51:36 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <42D33A4D.5030108@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712035136.84334.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Everyone senses that governments lie all the time, but
plausible deniability is always held in reserve- and
it works.


> Speak for yourself, I wasn't fooled for 10 seconds.
> 
> 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 


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jul 12 04:06:11 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:06:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com><42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net><42D1CD96.8020808@neopax.com><002001c585ba$c2ca8270$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<00ff01c585c9$3d919940$9a893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <018601c58697$0a562a90$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:33 PM

> On Sunday, July 10, 2005 9:49 PM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com wrote:
 >> I will jump to a hunch, and say that IMO something like what is imputed 
in the article below cannot be discounted:

>> "JonBenet Ramsey, Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart... all household
names right? Well then how about Alexis Patterson, Georgia Moses, or even 
Evelyn Hernandez? Chances are you've never heard of them. Yet all of these 
women were victims of brutal kidnappings. The difference is that Patterson, 
Moses, and Hernandez were women of color and the reality is that nobody 
cares. "

> I think it can be discounted for one reason alone:  they become household 
> names partly because of other people.  For instance, someone else might 
> not be racist, either implicitly or explicitly, but unless they closely 
> follow non-mainstream news closely, she or he will hear more about the 
> former set and much less about the latter.

Forgive me, I'm unclear what you meant by "... it can be discounted[?]" 
(*what* "can be discounted[?]").  Maybe it's because I don't  exactly 
understood what you wrote ... but no matter how I try to interpret it, it 
looks to me like you are contradicting yourself.

Just what is "non-mainstream" news?  Are the young women in that paragraph 
(and link I posted previously) "non-mainstream" (even though they are 
Americans?), and is that why you think that kind of racism can be 
discounted?  (It seems like what you are intimating is that it isn't the 
innie-mainstream people's fault - and, therefore, the innie-mainstream 
*people* cannot justifiably be called racists - because, with its 
designations of mainstream and non-mainstream news, it is in fact our 
amorphous media - and/or our society - that is racist?)

While we've been discussing this issue several people here have given their 
thoughts about the possible reasons for the seemingly different reactions of 
the London deaths v. Iraqi deaths.  I think racism (societal or otherwise) 
*is* one of those reasons, as well.  Do you disagree?

Olga

In your post (unless I misunderstood it) - 




From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Jul 12 04:27:12 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:27:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050712042712.GA17971@ofb.net>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of any of those
> "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq. 

There's also wilful delusion, misrepresentation to self.  And choosing to
listen to the Defense Dept. instead of the State when Defense says "we'll be
welcomed" and State says "uh, maybe not".

As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

-xx- Damien X-) 


From beb_cc at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 04:51:50 2005
From: beb_cc at yahoo.com (c c)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] OPW
Message-ID: <20050712045151.42428.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I feel better after discussing Iraq, and now temporary
impressions from last week's bombing are already
fading. Plus the odds of being harmed in an attack are
negligible, 

 It's easy to get caught up in OPW, Other People's
Worries. 


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 12 05:18:03 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:18:03 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc> <42D339E2.4030000@aol.com>
Message-ID: <049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
>
>> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
>> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
>> misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And 
>> yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? 
>> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters 
>> might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big 
>> chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed 
>> far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>
>
> $200,000,000,000 last count (in US spending, nevermind everywhere else) 
> that easily could have built plenty of supercomputers into which we could 
> have downloaded our minds :)  Hindsight is always 20/20 with investment 
> opportunities though :(
>
>
>> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
>> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.
>
>
> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what Mr. 
> Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He (powell) 
> is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not reading this 
> bulshit".

Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the American
Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I suspect that
I could find that evidence but why should I try to if you won't get it for
me?  What's your responsibility as a citizen in your political system? And
if I won't make the effort and you won't make the effort what does that
mean?

Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link to
a transcript or a mp3 file etc?

What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of opinions
there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their opinions 
together
in such a way that they might really have a chance to persuade impartial
people willing to make up their minds on the facts.

I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching President
George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there are good
grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their shit together
enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case is a case that
would be able to convince an impartial but interested person.

> The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on reading 
> given that we obviously didn't know that there were weapons of the 
> relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there, right?)  Or did he have 
> further intelligence revealed to him.  If so, where is it?   I mean, if we 
> KNEW where there were, we'd have found them.

That's not a question I am asking that's a diversion you are throwing up.

The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?

If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said it.

Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.

Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
the US Constitution to uphold the constitution. Its already clear that
international law duly ratified by congress (which includes the UN
Charter) is also US law and that that US Supreme Court has
jurisidiction over US law.

It is already clear that there is nothing within the UN Charter which
permits a pre-emptive war without a Security Council Resolution
and therefore also within US law. Its already clear that the Security
Council did not authorise the Invasion of Iraq. Even if they (the
Security Council) did it retrospectively that would not change that
it was illegal under US law at the time for the US President to
break the UN Charter which is part of US law and a part of the
hardwon birthright of all US citizens, not just the one that happens
to be President.

Seems to me that all that remains to be proven is that George W
Bush was acting in active bad faith rather than mere run of the mill
incompetence for the clearest possible case for impeachment to
be made.

If President George W Bush deliberately took the US to war on
a lie or a misrepresentation AND THAT CAN BE SHOWN then
you will have grounds for impeachment and as a US citizen you
should expect impeachment to happen.

> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
> weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.

"died mysteriously" is irrelevant.

If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
the more likely it is to be persuasive.

> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
> said they'd found no such evidence.

How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
they did it?

> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
> material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.

Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that he 
was
not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?

> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
> was flatly false.
>
> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
> trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
> the sources of which are not in question.

I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to am
impartial person?

> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
> close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this effort, 
> in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing well..

"mysteriously". Bollocks.

> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory bullshit 
> because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the administration's 
> position in the matter is a nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could 
> say "well, there appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush 
> really wanted to go to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this 
> wouldn't be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If you 
> like this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's 
> normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000 cash.

You miss the point. There is a perfectly good mechanism for impeaching
a President in the Constitution. *If* there is grounds for doing it.

But a million flapping traps don't add up to a case. Some *one* or some
*ones* have to put the case together. Once the case is put together the
million flapping traps can help create the political will to make sure that 
it is
considered but it will not and should not succeed in impeaching a President
unless the case is made.

If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the facts
then you have already lost.

Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
how to bring him to account.

Brett Paatsch 




From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 12 05:33:19 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:33:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net> <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>
	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>
Message-ID: <9E82146A-4A58-475A-9600-3BADA0983C8F@mac.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I think we have argued this point ad nauseum in years past.
>

No.  Usually the good of a transparent society and/or its universal  
implementation is largely assumed.   I always find this highly  
disturbing and quite dangerous.

> Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
> back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
> constant monitoring of everybody. Brin argues that the only feasible
> response is to explicitly enable anybody to monitor anybody else:  
> If the cops can
> monitor you, then you can monitor the cops. They can monitor you at  
> home or
> at work: You can monitor them at home or at work.
>

We live in a time where federal government is increasingly  
secretive.  I see no indication that mere technology will make it  
impossible for it to keep its secrets.  An unbalanced one way  
transparency seems to be the direction we are headed in.  If you know  
of some way to break government secrecy and make government more  
transparent I would love to hear it.   Even universal transparency  
still has problems.

> Brin does not argue that universal monitoring is "good." He argues  
> that it
> is inevitable, and then tries to determine the best ways to deal  
> with the
> technology.

I have seen him publicly argue that it is not only inevitable but  
good.  I don't agree it is inevitable.  I believe it is  
technologically feasible to keep some control and limits on what is  
monitored.  I do agree that for transhumans it would be immoral to  
limit the capacity of the natural and/or augmented mind to record any  
and all information in full fidelity.  But that doesn't mean that any  
and all uses of that information are acceptable ro that it is  
permissible to look through walls just for the fun of it.

>
> Personally, I am neutral on privacy: I prefer to maintain my own  
> privacy, but
> I understand that I will not be able to do so in the future.

Are you telling me that there is no technical or social way to  
preserve privacy even in your own home or in your thoughts?  I don't  
believe this is the case.

> I accept Brin's solution:
> If I must forgo privacy, then so must everybody else, including all  
> government officials,
> church officials, and other arbiters of "moral behavior."

If the majority are against you or your behavior then you are in big  
trouble in such a society.  Stagnation is the likely most benign result.

>
> Please do not waste my time with arguments that transparency is  
> "wrong."
> Transparency is inevitable. You may as well argue against the laws  
> of physics.

Do not waste my time claiming something this multifaceted is  
inevitable without proof.

- samantha


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 12 05:40:45 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:40:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	On	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc> <42D339E2.4030000@aol.com>
	<049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D357DD.2040407@neopax.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>>
>> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what 
>> Mr. Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He 
>> (powell) is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not 
>> reading this bulshit".
>
>
> Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the American
> Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I suspect that
> I could find that evidence but why should I try to if you won't get it 
> for
> me?  What's your responsibility as a citizen in your political system? 
> And
> if I won't make the effort and you won't make the effort what does that
> mean?
>
30 seconds to google
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 12 05:39:04 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:39:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	what	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <8846D69F-355D-4C61-91FE-3506120F6142@mac.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice  
> that both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush  
> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately  
> lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>
> Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it  
> yet. And yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or  
> not surely?

What else would it take to convince you?

> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list  
> posters might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has  
> grabbed a big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might  
> have been directed far more profitably (to the net human good)  
> elsewhere.
>
> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.
>

Sputter.  If you are not awake enough to be convinced already then I  
haven't the time or patience to spoon feed your apparently timid  
mind.  I would rather spend my energies preparing for and creating  
the future we all claim to be interested in.

- s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050711/4daa86d4/attachment.html>

From jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 06:22:53 2005
From: jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com (Jacques Mathieu)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] mitochondrial quantum leap
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605070922454c414ebf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050712062253.25703.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com>

I read the posts on this mailing list fairly often
(when I have some free time), and I have to say that
this is one of the best posts I have read. It's
refreshing to see someone actually making an effort to
realize one of the goals that many in this group dream
of. Congratulations on your research. I'm doing some
work of my own at Rice University and I hope it gives
such promising results.

Jacques Mathieu

--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Today our team confirmed our previous preliminary
> data showing that we
> can achieve robust mitochondrial transfection and
> protein expression
> in mitochondria of live rats, after an injection of
> genetically
> engineered mitochondrial DNA complexed with our
> protofection
> transfection agent. A significant fraction of cells
> in the brain is
> transfected with this single injection even though
> we so far did not
> optimize the dose.
> 
> This achievement has important implications for
> medicine: protofection
> technology works in vivo, and should be capable of
> replacing damaged
> mitochondrial genomes.
> 
> Stay tuned.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



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


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 07:20:56 2005
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans 2.0: Transhumanism and the Future of Work
Message-ID: <20050712072056.92479.qmail@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear friends,
 
     Santiago Ochoa and I have been interviewed concerning Humans 2.0: Transhumanism and the Future of Work
 
http://www.corante.com/futuretense/archives/2005/07/01/humans_20_tranhumanism_and_the_future_of_work.php
 
     We would love to see your comments at the end of the blog below...
 
July 01, 2005
Humans 2.0: Tranhumanism and the Future of Work
Posted by Elizabeth Albrycht 
In a couple of weeks, TransVision 2005, the 7th annual transhumanism conference will take place in Caracas, Venezuela. I am acquainted with the conference chair for the program, Jose Cordeiro, through some work I did with the Millennium Project a few years ago. I thought it would be interesting to catch up with him and have a conversation about transhumanism and what it might mean for the future of work. Along the way, he introduced me to the chair of the Venezuela committee, Santiago Ochoa , so I sent them both the same questions via email and asked them to respond.

First things first: what is transhumanism? The FAQ from the World Transhumanist Association states that:

Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase. We formally define it as follows: 
(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. 


(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.




There are a variety of ideas that go along with transhumanism, including superintelligence, singularity and extropy. Perhaps the most well-known feature of transhumanism is its seeking of immortality, most visibly represented by Ray Kurzweil. 

I read through a variety of resources (listed at the end of this post) about these topics, and was struck by how there was virtually no mention of work. With superintelligent, immortal transhumans running around, what would that mean for work? Now, I ask that question in a tongue-in-cheek fashion here, but honestly, as we look into the future, the increasing melding of technology and humans seems to be inevitable. So it would seem worthwhile to discuss what these trends might mean for work. Our Q&A, accomplished through email, follows. I have edited some of the answers for length.

Elizabeth: After reading the material you provided me about transhumanism and extropy, I was struck at the virtually total lack of discussion about human work. Can you describe for me what a transhumanist and/or an extropian thinks about work?

Jose: Human work will be considered less and less as "work" and more and more as "pleasure" since it will be more enjoyable and entertaining. In fact, throughout human history, the amount of free time has steadily been increasing. Since the time of the cavemen and the cavewomen, when most of our energies were spent just on survival, humans have continuously enjoyed more leisure time. In the future, it will be more so, and human work will be a pleasure in itself, with lower work forms being performed by machines. I believe that it was Winston Churchill who said that humans can do the thinking and machines can do the work.

Santiago: It?s hard to tell what other transhumanists think about work since there is probably not just one opinion on the matter, but I will tell you what I think.

In general, I don?t like to work for others, and I believe most humans share this view, but we have to do it in order to maintain an acceptable living standard. On the other hand, we all like to work on things that we consider fun; for example, I like reading, writing, translating interesting articles from English to Spanish, maintaining our website, doing sports and answering interesting interviews about transhumanism! In other words, things that are intellectually stimulating and fun and nobody is telling me when or how to do them. 

However, I believe civilization would have never reached this level of advancement if it weren?t for jobs. Because people have to make a living, they study, get prepared and look for jobs. This way, entrepreneurs and business owners can find qualified employees to develop or create whatever they need for their business to succeed and bring progress to humanity. Because of our ancestors? sacrifice, we might be able to reach a level of development where we could all do what we like to make a living.

Elizabeth: What does the future of work hold for us, as humans become transhumans or cyborgs?

Santiago: The more advanced technology becomes, the less we will be forced to perform physical tasks to survive. We should have more time to dedicate to things we like and, if we have an enhanced brain, those things should be more intellectually stimulating and creative, like ideas, philosophies, inventions, science, arts, games. We should have a lot of time to spend on these ?hobbies? which we should be able to exchange with other transhumans so we all benefit from each other?s creations.

Jose: You can find plenty of ideas in the Robotic Nation book. Another important consideration is that nanofactories will be producing most of the things that humans will require in the future, and nanoproducts will be incredibly cheap and made in environmentally friendly ways. Humans version 2.0 will live in an era of abundance.

Elizabeth: A longer life span, if not immortality itself, is a stated goal of transhumanism. What ramifications does this have for careers? For education? For funding a retirement (or does retirement exist anymore)?

Jose: With youthful longevity, people will keep learning and working forever. You can be an engineer for 100 years, then maybe a medical doctor for another century, and so on. There will be no retirement as such.

Santiago: There might be a transitional period when some jobs could be lost. Young people might find it hard to get a new job, especially if they are not well qualified for intellectually demanding jobs. Old people will be healthier and will work longer. Education will need to concentrate more on building intellectual careers. Eventually, thanks to robotics, nanotechnology and cybernetics, transhuman hobbies could become jobs and there wouldn?t be a need for retirement.

Elizabeth: The US is going through a heated debate right now about revising the Social Security system, which is going broke faced with an aging population and the baby boomers who are heading towards retirement. How do governments plan for transhumanism? Longer life spans? Do transhumans have a moral responsibility to save for their own retirement so as not to overstress a system that wasn't designed for them?

Jose: Just as average human lifespans have increased from 25 to 50 to 75 and soon to 100 years, over the last 2,000 years, societies have to adapt to these extraordinary changes in human longevity. Since people will live longer and stay employable for ages, the concepts of retirement and social security will eventually become obsolete. In any event, each person should be responsible for his/her own work and possible retirement, if ever (governments have no role to play there, like it was before Bismarck created social security in Germany during the XIX century).

Santiago: Is there something governments should be doing to make sure we all benefit from this transition? Probably just help technology become cheaper faster, so everyone can benefit, not only the rich. Maybe they could fund human enhancement and antiaging, since eventually this will turn into savings as more people get healthier and more productive. Promoting stem cell research is also a good idea.

Eventually, as most people become enhanced, knowledge and resources would be exchanged with other transhumans and posthumans, eliminating the need to have companies or governments. Actually, my brain is still not enhanced enough to be able to determine what new types of economic and political systems posthumans might be able to develop but they would surely be better than what we have now.

Elizabeth: Are the people who are thinking about superintelligence also thinking about how that would change the nature of work? Will people still be motivated to work? Does leisure become where we spend our time? How do people make a living?

Jose: Knowledge is the "infinite resource". The more we know, the more we seem to want to know. Since there is no apparent limit to the things that we can learn and discover, we can spend whole lives studying and creating. How about spending half a century in the USA, then starting again all over in China? And then maybe moving a hundred years to Mars before finally deciding to travel outside the Solar System for a few centuries. Our dreams can be almost as big as the universe itself.

Santiago: There are two ways in which we could take advantage of the development of superintelligence: one is to build superintelligent robots and computers, which could become new independent posthuman life forms; the second would be to enhance our own intelligence to become ourselves posthuman life forms. I think both can happen but the second should be more useful and interesting. Most superintelligent robots and computers could probably be used as extensions of ourselves so as to allow us to perform many tasks and solve many problems simultaneously.

With respect to spending our time and making a living, as I said, I am sure we will spend a lot more time having fun than we do now. The difference should be on what we call fun and how we spend our leisure time. Very intelligent people usually consider thinking and theorizing or philosophizing as fun, as well as arguing about complex topics and exchanging ideas. I believe, as transhumans, we should all be able to profit from this.

Elizabeth: Are there specific ideas of transhumanism, particularly regarding its embrace of technology, which can be adapted by corporations seeking to move into the future as regards their responsibilities towards employees, communities, the environment, etc.?

Santiago: The closest we can get to a transhuman work environment at the moment is to allow employees to work from home, at their own times, and reporting their work and interacting with their employers through Internet. This way we are adapting to the way transhumans will probably work and, at the same time, we are helping the environment by not having to commute to our workplace with contaminating vehicles and by freeing our streets from traffic.

I also think companies should invest in high level training and education so as to build a future workforce prepared for knowledge and information technology based jobs as opposed to jobs requiring physical and repetitive tasks which will eventually be filled by robots. Baby boomers should also be trained if they want to make a living as consultants, inventors or any other transhuman type job, once antiaging technologies become available.

Jose: Transhumanist technologies (mostly Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) will be the new corporate gold rush of the future. The NBIC technologies will become more and more environmentally and user friendly. Just to give one example, according to the US NSF Nano Initiative, close to one trillion dollars and millions of jobs will be produced thanks to nanotechnology in the year 2015.

Elizabeth: Can you share with me any other thoughts you might have on the future of work and transhumanism?

Santiago: The first transitional stage will probably occur in the next 30 to 50 years, the second transhuman stage should be between 50 and 70 year from now, and the third posthuman stage should probably start more than 70 years from now, but we can obtain a lot of benefits by identifying which transitional changes are already occurring and how to adapt to them.
Internet is already changing the way we work by allowing us to find any information as soon as we need it. Also by allowing us to exchange that information immediately through email or instant messaging systems. And, as I said, we can even work from home and for any employer in any part of the world.

Biotechnology is starting to cure many old age diseases allowing people to remain active and healthier longer. The development of stem cell research will speed this trend in the next ten years.

Cognitive enhancement drugs are already increasing our capacity to work longer, smarter and more creatively, allowing people to enter more easily into the knowledge and information technology workforce.

We already have quadriplegics connecting their brains to computers, imagine in ten years from now when they will be able to browse the web, send emails, program computers, write reports and create worksheets with their brains, much faster than we can, and working from home. We?d better connect our brains too if we want to compete!

Jose: The future is just fascinating, and transhumanism is the philosophy to transcend our human limitations thanks to science and technology. Human work will finally be enjoyable, and people will never get tired of learning and doing new things, for as long as anyone desires to live.

Elizabeth: There are clearly a wide variety of jumping off points here for discussion, and I leave it to you, dear readers, to choose which ideas you want to debate. I think Jose and Santiago gave us some big picture ideas to think about, but from my point of view, I'd like to see further discussion about the stresses that will incur as we move towards a transhumanist future. Perhaps Jose and Santiago will join us from time to time to discuss these issues. And to you other transhumanists out there: Please join in as well!

Jose Cordeiro:

Founder and president of the World Future Society (Venezuela Chapter), cofounder of the Venezuelan Transhumanist Association, chair of the Venezuelan Node of the Millennium Project of the American Council of the United Nations University (UNU), director of the World Transhumanist Association and of the Extropy Institute, advisor to the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, member of the Academic Committee of the Center for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge (CEDICE), former director of the Club of Rome (Venezuela Chapter, where he has being active promoting classical liberal ideas) and of the Venezuelan Association of Exporters (AVEX), and consultant to various companies and organizations, both Venezuelan and international. A full biography can be found here.

Santiago Ochoa:

Cofounder and Director, Venezuelan Transhumanist Association, Caracas, Venezuela. A full biography can be found here.

Sources:

World Transhumanist Association
* Declaration: http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/ 
* FAQ: http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/ 

Extropy Institute 
*FAQ: http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm#1.1 

Essays About Transhumanism: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/index-2.html#Essay 

Human Body Version 2.0 by Ray Kurzweil: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0551.html

[Tags: transhumanism] 


Category: Trends 


COMMENTS

There are no comments posted yet for this entry. 



TRACKBACKS
TrackBack URL: http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-pcorso.cgi/13258



 [input]   [input]  

POST A COMMENT
Name:
 [input] 
Email:
 [input] 
URL:
 [input] 
Comments:




La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org)

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/060b2030/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 07:50:53 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:50:53 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <20050712034823.2255.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712034823.2255.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5f7412e98bbed5538a03c4750c4f00df@aol.com>

The very idea that the President pretender would have a day in court is 
absurd.  It would cause a coup.

But his day in court belongs in the Senate under impeachment 
proceedings for taking us to war on false pretenses.

R

On Jul 11, 2005, at 5:48 PM, c c wrote:

> This is all true yet still it appears international
> law is too undefined to do much with. Even domestic
> legal process is vague-- few get a jury of their
> actual peers, as they are supposed to. Judges aren't
> usually impartial, they are chosen to uphold very
> conservative community standards.
>
> By 'scatter' I meant innucleate; enough of the regime
> remains to pose a threat.
>
>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In american courts, points of fact are found out in
>> court.
>>
>> That's why we have discovery.
>>
>> On the moral point, it's not clear that "scattering
>> the iraqi regime" is
>> a justifiable pretense for slaughtering civilians
>> wholesale and
>> launching two or more countries into an extended
>> military quagmire with
>> daily deaths and mayhem ensuing.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, there were certainly options other than the
>> war,
>>> on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to
>> scatter
>>> the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
>>> evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
>>> civilians, would be enough to acquit the
>>> administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
>>>> different standard of law
>>>> well established here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
>>>>> of agreements made previously with the UN, it
>> would
>>>>> have to be shown America invaded to entirely
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> subjugate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Iraq and commit war crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It hasn't been determined by the UN security
>> council
>>>> that Iraq was
>>>> definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded
>> over
>>>> the objections of
>>>> the security council and the UN weapons
>> inspectors.
>>>> It turns out they
>>>> were right and we were lying, apparently
>>>> intentionally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you look backwards to
>>>>> 2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
>>>>> couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Baathist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> regime was futile, and the administration had to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> know
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a sustained resistance to occupation was
>> inevitable
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> &
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
>>>>> prove the course of the war was inevitable and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> America
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this
>> you
>>>>> have a solid case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that
>> war
>>>> is bad and that
>>>> there were other options and that the American
>>>> Presidential group
>>>> decided to go to war over the objections of the
>> CIA,
>>>> the UN and many,
>>>> many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
>>>> "evidence" of Iraq's
>>>> capability of delivering weapons of mass
>> destruction
>>>> (such as having
>>>> rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical
>> weapons
>>>> ability). As a
>>>> result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
>>>> (baathists and
>>>> non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
>>>> thousand americans
>>>> have been killed or maimed. That there were other
>>>> options was obvious
>>>> and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
>>>> choice was obvious then
>>>> and continues to be obvious now.
>>>>
>>>> This point was made at length, even in this forum,
>>>> BEFORE the war
>>>> attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly
>> by
>>>> military advisors
>>>> to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly
>> by
>>>> American
>>>> Intelligence agents who were subsequently
>> illegally
>>>> "outed" by someone
>>>> in the White House apparently as retalliation.
>>>>
>>>> How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> other
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> than piles of dead
>>>>>> bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> items.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://auctions.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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
> http://auctions.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  Tue Jul 12 07:51:58 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:58 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <20050712035136.84334.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712035136.84334.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <75c3f7101f6b49c75799ef9fd243f05c@aol.com>

Works on who?

I've often expected that Herr Presidente is sacrificing goats to some 
demon in exchange for getting so many people to buy his bullshit.

R

On Jul 11, 2005, at 5:51 PM, c c wrote:

> Everyone senses that governments lie all the time, but
> plausible deniability is always held in reserve- and
> it works.
>
>
>> Speak for yourself, I wasn't fooled for 10 seconds.
>>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 08:10:51 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:10:51 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc> <42D339E2.4030000@aol.com>
	<049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:18 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
>>
>>> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice 
>>> that both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>>> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>>> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately 
>>> lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it 
>>> yet. And yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or 
>>> not surely? One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist 
>>> list posters might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business 
>>> has grabbed a big chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that 
>>> might have been directed far more profitably (to the net human good) 
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> $200,000,000,000 last count (in US spending, nevermind everywhere 
>> else) that easily could have built plenty of supercomputers into 
>> which we could have downloaded our minds :)  Hindsight is always 
>> 20/20 with investment opportunities though :(
>>
>>
>>> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
>>> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.
>>
>>
>> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what 
>> Mr. Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He 
>> (powell) is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not 
>> reading this bulshit".
>
> Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the American
> Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I suspect 
> that
> I could find that evidence but why should I try to if you won't get it 
> for
> me?  What's your responsibility as a citizen in your political system? 
> And
> if I won't make the effort and you won't make the effort what does that
> mean?

Check:

http://www.thetip.org/

I think you'll find there exactly what you're looking for.  Don't 
forget to check with your local nameservice provider too.

>
> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link 
> to
> a transcript or a mp3 file etc?

As a matter of fact...

>
> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
> opinions
> there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their opinions 
> together
> in such a way that they might really have a chance to persuade 
> impartial
> people willing to make up their minds on the facts.

The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
http://www.thetip.org/

> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching 
> President
> George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there are good
> grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their shit 
> together
> enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case is a case that
> would be able to convince an impartial but interested person.

Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold 
its soul to that devil.  All us ordinary citizens can really do is 
complain loudly, I'm afraid, given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone 
over it or blow anything up myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided 
whether it's a character flaw or not.)


>> The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on reading 
>> given that we obviously didn't know that there were weapons of the 
>> relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there, right?)  Or did he 
>> have further intelligence revealed to him.  If so, where is it?   I 
>> mean, if we KNEW where there were, we'd have found them.
>
> That's not a question I am asking that's a diversion you are throwing 
> up.

No, it's a fact in evidence.

>
> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?

Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.  George Bush 
said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought Uranium in 
Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans to be 
false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with citations 
from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, just to the 
right time....).

> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said 
> it.

Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org 
:)

>
> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.

Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard 
the statement before:

"The Buck Stops Here"

It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.

> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.

He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
suprising that he can't keep this one either.

>  Its already clear that
> international law duly ratified by congress (which includes the UN
> Charter) is also US law and that that US Supreme Court has
> jurisidiction over US law.
>
> It is already clear that there is nothing within the UN Charter which
> permits a pre-emptive war without a Security Council Resolution
> and therefore also within US law. Its already clear that the Security
> Council did not authorise the Invasion of Iraq. Even if they (the
> Security Council) did it retrospectively that would not change that
> it was illegal under US law at the time for the US President to
> break the UN Charter which is part of US law and a part of the
> hardwon birthright of all US citizens, not just the one that happens
> to be President.
>
> Seems to me that all that remains to be proven is that George W
> Bush was acting in active bad faith rather than mere run of the mill
> incompetence for the clearest possible case for impeachment to
> be made.
>
> If President George W Bush deliberately took the US to war on
> a lie or a misrepresentation AND THAT CAN BE SHOWN then
> you will have grounds for impeachment and as a US citizen you
> should expect impeachment to happen.

Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?

>
>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
>> weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>
> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.

Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.

> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
> the more likely it is to be persuasive.

Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record 
of the incident in the guardian, still available online.

>
>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and 
>> had said they'd found no such evidence.
>
> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
> they did it?

Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.

I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for 
no good reason :)

>
>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any 
>> nuclear material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the 
>> matter.
>
> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that 
> he was
> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?

Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
speak to is easily convinced of the matter.

Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
see past their own bile.

>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the 
>> matter was flatly false.
>>
>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
>> trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street 
>> Minutes the sources of which are not in question.
>
> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to 
> am
> impartial person?

Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.  Again, you can find 
them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!

>
>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
>> close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
>> effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing 
>> well..
>
> "mysteriously". Bollocks.

Quite right.  No mystery.

>> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory 
>> bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the 
>> administration's position in the matter is a 
>> nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there 
>> appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush really 
>> wanted to go to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this 
>> wouldn't be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If 
>> you like this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  
>> It's normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for 
>> $30,000 cash.
>
> You miss the point. There is a perfectly good mechanism for impeaching
> a President in the Constitution. *If* there is grounds for doing it.

Not if the congress is controlled by the President's party along with 
the Supreme Court, you idiot.

> But a million flapping traps don't add up to a case. Some *one* or some
> *ones* have to put the case together. Once the case is put together the
> million flapping traps can help create the political will to make sure 
> that it is
> considered but it will not and should not succeed in impeaching a 
> President
> unless the case is made.

Well, as I recall during the last Republican Impeachment Effort, no 
evidence was required to start the proceeding at all, just the 
political will.

> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the 
> facts
> then you have already lost.

Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.

> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
> how to bring him to account.

Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots 
large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats 
alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies 
and then make sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so 
we'll have to revamp the way people get and accept news because the 
major news services in the United States are uninterested in this 
story.  We'd have to make something internetty actually work.  If it's 
impossible at least we can have said we'd tried and we didn't blow 
anything up.

Start here:

http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php

It's not much but you'd be suprised :)

Robbie Lindauer
www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jul 12 11:22:35 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:22:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507120716021.-238429@pentium.mb.willtown.net>





On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:


> The term "lie" only applies to social systems or individuals whose
> (collective) minds are sufficiently directed to finding truth that there
> exists knowledge inverted to create a lie.  If you're mired down in a
> political system devoted to finding evidence for particular theories,
> selectively passing on arguments for particular theories, not contradicting
> the boss, etc., the boundary between dishonest lies and honest mistakes is too
> fuzzy to be worth pursuing.  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on
> WMD we'd call it a lie.  But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq
> had WMD.  Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all,
> including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for which Bush
> was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we believed it at the time.
>

 Thank you! This is the most sensible comment I've seen on this
subject in *years*! Although we certainly did not find an WMD (that I
know of) there is no telling what might have been spirited out befoer
we actually got there... that was a nasty group of folks, that crowd,
and I think there's very little argument on that score. Indedd they
might have had WMD, they surely wanted to!

I'm not a praying person, but I do spend a good bit of time hoping
that situation will settle down, that the people there will find
something more constructive to do than tear each other apart...
there's so much more to living than fighting!

Regards,
MB


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Jul 12 12:37:32 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:37:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NPOV
In-Reply-To: <20050711201822.35331.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711201822.35331.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4CDBF2E6-B836-4BF9-9EC2-10927B42970C@bonfireproductions.com>



It's not popping up, it was great that you brought it into the list,  
particularly at this point in time. So the mention here is  
intentional, and I think we need to deeply consider NPOV as a basis  
for certain discussion on this list. I appreciate the respect for  
freedom to post on whatever topic we want on Extropy-Chat, and that  
the moderators leave well enough alone.

Of course my posting, wasn't really NPOV - but perhaps NPOV when  
compared to the passion on this list in this topic in the past weeks.  
In regard to NPOV, I believe I can establish backing for the facts  
stated in my post, though not the speculations which I am looking to  
share and discuss, if anyone is interested.

As for the subject of the post itself, I find it hard to believe that  
with the intellectual width and breadth this list has, that we cannot  
discuss this topic at a higher level. I am offering some thoughts on  
the macro view, which is imho much more plausible then any of the  
inhumanities churned out by either political party, the media, and so  
forth.



Where it is true that we identify more strongly with our 'tribe' as  
indicated in previous threads and their postings, we should keep in  
mind that the level of socialization this represents is imprinted at  
the earliest stages of development. This in turn can lead to that  
level of dialogue.


Thanks again Adrian,

]3

ps - Guns, Germs & Steel is on PBS tonight. If it is even half as  
good as the book, it should be worth a Tivo.


On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
>
>> To keep the NPOV
>> as it were.
>>
>
> I am slightly amused, and slightly concerned, to see the term "NPOV"
> popping up on this list, after I posted a definition of it here not  
> too
> long ago.  :)
>
> NPOV is something that the Wikipedia project has defined as a subgoal,
> to help its goal of being an online encyclopedia.  Is there a call for
> its use in stating facts here, at least as a guideline and in certain
> types of debates (i.e., in efforts to first establish mutually
> acceptable sets of facts, given as one of the problems of debate is
> often that both sides use good logic but reason from completely
> different and somewhat contradictory sets of facts)?
>
> Mostly just curious here.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 13:23:12 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:23:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] NBIC's effects on biology and medicine
Message-ID: <470a3c520507120623463c633@mail.gmail.com>

Future Brief has an interesting short
article<http://www.futurebrief.com/jeffharrowcircle019.asp>by Jeffrey
R. Harrow <http://www.theharrowgroup.com/> on the future of converging 
technologies. NBIC (the coming together of the previously disparate fields 
of Nanotechnology, Biology & medicine, Information sciences, and Cognitive 
sciences) is already bringing fascinating new things to light. As we further 
illuminate the nanoworld we may find that it is NBIC's effects on biology 
and medicine that will yield the most extraordinary insights and 
capabilities of all. Examples:
nanowires<http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050623_125410.html>,
viral cameras <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994615>.
Harrow shows how simultaneous advances in NBIC disciplines produce positive 
feedback loops to facilitate more and more advances with exponential speed 
(" The Incestuous Technology Circle"). He also thinks cross-discipline 
"renaissance people" should be encouraged:
"This is why I'm so convinced that the most interesting and useful advances 
to be made in the foreseeable future will not come from a single field of 
endeavor (as has often been the case in the past), but will come from the 
knowledge we gain from the Convergence of many fields such as *N*anotechnology, 
*B*iology, *I*nformation sciences, and *C*ognitive sciences (NBIC)".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/8c517c68/attachment.html>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 12 14:29:27 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:29:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D338D0.7090404@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F1891D0935209A7285F9145B4DF0@phx.gbl>

Good job on Godwining this just 3 posts in. No one is arguing whether Hitler 
lied so I don't understand the utility of your statement. I don't see anyone 
asking if Bush sent troops into Iraq or if there are really 1800+ US 
casualities, etc.

BAL

>From: Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On 
>whatbasis?
>Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:28:16 +0100
>
>Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that both 
>>Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>>stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>>administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
>>misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And 
>>yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? One 
>>thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters might 
>>agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big chunk 
>>of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed far more 
>>profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>>  I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
>>so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.
>
>Well, in that case we better exonerate Hitler for the Holocaust since there 
>are no *hard facts* that show he ordered it.
>Just a lot of circumstantial evidence.
>
>--
>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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 11/07/2005
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Jul 12 14:48:57 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:48:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>If survival is the goal, then you get there by
>rational behavior.  If multiple individuals with
>similar values act in concert, their survival ***as a
>group*** may be enhanced, but the similarity to
>tribalism is merely coincidental.   
>
>  
>
Jeff makes a good point about rationality, but it is an ideal that 
doesn't fully map onto the world in which we live.  Do to real 
constraints on contextual knowledge and processing time, instinctive 
behavior can be much more survival enhancing than a so-called rational 
approach.  I think we are near the crossover point, however, beyond 
which the survival of humans and their organizations will most certainly 
depend on expanded contextual awareness and associated processing.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net




From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 15:02:58 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:02:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NPOV
In-Reply-To: <4CDBF2E6-B836-4BF9-9EC2-10927B42970C@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050711201822.35331.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4CDBF2E6-B836-4BF9-9EC2-10927B42970C@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050712080255625fb7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/05, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
> 
> 
> It's not popping up, it was great that you brought it into the list,
> particularly at this point in time. So the mention here is
> intentional, and I think we need to deeply consider NPOV as a basis
> for certain discussion on this list. I appreciate the respect for
> freedom to post on whatever topic we want on Extropy-Chat, and that
> the moderators leave well enough alone.
> 
> As for the subject of the post itself, I find it hard to believe that
> with the intellectual width and breadth this list has, that we cannot
> discuss this topic at a higher level. I am offering some thoughts on
> the macro view, which is imho much more plausible then any of the
> inhumanities churned out by either political party, the media, and so
> forth.
> 


Sorry, but you won't get a NPOV. The US is split into two almost equal
halves. The intellectuals, the literary talking-shop set still cannot
believe that Bush has won two successive elections. They just cannot
accept that (slightly) over half the country do not see things their
way. Note that I don't think they are Dem supporters, so much as a
conglomeration of anti-bush campaigners. Bush is the first pres since
his dad to get over 50% of the popular vote. So they claim the vote
must have been rigged. Bush has wide support through the South, Great
Plains, and Mountain states (83% by area). Which, coincidentally is
where most of the forces recruiting comes from.

The west coast and north east city intellectuals really cannot
communicate with the rest of the US. The web is full of their
anti-bush tirades, which they appear to be writing for each others'
benefit, just to confirm their anti-bush credentials. But if they try
to start lecturing your average mid-western type, then they are an
immediate turn-off and get booted out of town.

I don't see the split in the US changing for a very long time.

BillK


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 12 15:04:44 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:04:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	On	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1891D0935209A7285F9145B4DF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F1891D0935209A7285F9145B4DF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42D3DC0C.7050504@neopax.com>

Brian Lee wrote:

> Good job on Godwining this just 3 posts in. No one is arguing whether 
> Hitler lied so I don't understand the utility of your statement. I 
> don't see anyone asking if Bush sent troops into Iraq or if there are 
> really 1800+ US casualities, etc.
>
Screw Godwin.
The point, to spell it out for you, is that if there are no 'hard facts' 
concerning even someone like Hitler and one of Humanity's most heinous 
crimes then the poster who demanded 'hard facts' about Bush and the Iraq 
war before considering an opinion valid should be consistent. I would 
suggest that the poster does not doubt Hitler ordered the extermination 
of the Jews despite lack of 'hard facts' in that case.
Reductio ad absurdam.


-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 12 15:07:10 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:07:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <42D3DC9E.7070501@neopax.com>

Jef Allbright wrote:

> Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> If survival is the goal, then you get there by
>> rational behavior.  If multiple individuals with
>> similar values act in concert, their survival ***as a
>> group*** may be enhanced, but the similarity to
>> tribalism is merely coincidental.  
>>  
>>
> Jeff makes a good point about rationality, but it is an ideal that 
> doesn't fully map onto the world in which we live.  Do to real 
> constraints on contextual knowledge and processing time, instinctive 
> behavior can be much more survival enhancing than a so-called rational 
> approach.  I think we are near the crossover point, however, beyond 
> which the survival of humans and their organizations will most 
> certainly depend on expanded contextual awareness and associated 
> processing.
>
I suggest simple game theory indicates otherwise.
Namely, that a group A acting consistently in concert will win every 
time over either individuals or a looser group B that sometimes act for 
their own group and sometimes for A depending on circumstance.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Jul 12 15:37:49 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:37:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D3DC9E.7070501@neopax.com>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net>
	<42D3DC9E.7070501@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42D3E3CD.4080904@jefallbright.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
>> Jeff Davis wrote:
>>
>>> If survival is the goal, then you get there by
>>> rational behavior.  If multiple individuals with
>>> similar values act in concert, their survival ***as a
>>> group*** may be enhanced, but the similarity to
>>> tribalism is merely coincidental.   
>>>
>> Jeff makes a good point about rationality, but it is an ideal that 
>> doesn't fully map onto the world in which we live.  Due to real 
>> constraints on contextual knowledge and processing time, instinctive 
>> behavior can be much more survival enhancing than a so-called 
>> rational approach.  I think we are near the crossover point, however, 
>> beyond which the survival of humans and their organizations will most 
>> certainly depend on expanded contextual awareness and associated 
>> processing.
>>
> I suggest simple game theory indicates otherwise.
> Namely, that a group A acting consistently in concert will win every 
> time over either individuals or a looser group B that sometimes act 
> for their own group and sometimes for A depending on circumstance.
>
Dirk -

I'm glad to see that you and I are now apparently in agreement on the 
big-picture benefits of cooperation, however, game theory has often been 
used to demonstrate the opposite point--that at least in the short-term, 
narrowly defined domain of the game, rational behavior means ruthless 
identification with the local self and immediate goals.  This leads, as 
most on this list are well aware, to the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma 
paradox, where the paradox appears to arise precisely because of the 
limited scope of the game compared to our real-world experience of an 
open-ended and not fully knowable web of possible future interactions.

However, that wasn't the point of my previous post.  I was taking 
(slight) issue with another poster's statement that "if survival is the 
goal, then you get there by rational behavior", and pointing out that 
this is true only in the limited set of those cases where one has 
sufficient contextual information and sufficient processing power and 
time to come to a "rational" decision.  Very often, in a situation where 
survival is at stake, one does not have the luxury of rational 
evaluation and in fact evolved behaviors can be more likely to lead to 
success.  This is largely dependent on how closely the survival scenario 
matches the environment of evolutionary adaptation, diminishing with our 
increasing awareness, but will be always relevant as we can never 
comprehend the full context of our environment.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net




From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Tue Jul 12 15:50:00 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:50:00 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues
In-Reply-To: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D3E6A8.3060104@optusnet.com.au>


c c wrote:
> Of all the posters here, the one I have the least in common with is Mike Lorrey yet he is
   the easiest to communicate with because he is so direct.
> Samantha on the other hand is far too slippery i.e. a few weeks ago she said she would
   join the resistance in Iraq if she knew what was occurring there on the ground. However
   she has no intention of joining in any part of any resistance in Iraq, and if she did
   she would be captured, taken to a tent, and violated. How can you take someone's posts
   seriously when they are so evasive?
> 

What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in the resistance and
consider those cops turncoats to their own people."

Try re-reading the first four words. Especially the first one.



From gingell at gnat.com  Tue Jul 12 16:34:22 2005
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:34:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <A8062458-194E-4D89-B7B6-1DD546ADA073@gnat.com>


On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.

Here's how I look at it. I light a candle, then I call 911 and tell  
them "I'm at 123 Foobar Street and there's a fire in my house." I  
haven't lied, in that I haven't made any statement I know to be  
false: I really am at 123 Foobar Street, and there really is a fire.  
But I'm being dishonest in the sense I can reasonably expect the  
listener to come to a false conclusion.

The Bush administration spent a year putting Saddam Hussein and Osama  
bin Laden in the same sentence. They invented a rhetorical umbrella  
called the "War on Terrorism" as part of a deliberate campaign to  
conflate the threat posed by Iraq and the threat posed by Al Qaeda.  
They deliberately blurred the line between "tactical nonconventional  
capability" and "weapon of mass destruction." And the American people  
came to the false conclusion that Iraq posed a clear and present  
danger and that invading it was a sensible way of fighting the people  
responsible for 9/11.

I can't point to anything they said which they knew to be false, but  
the case they were willfully deceptive is, in my mind, overwhelming.  
I acknowledge there is a distinction between that and an outright  
unambiguous lie, but I don't find that distinction terribly  
interesting. That is, I don't really care whether they said "imminent  
threat" or whether they said "grave and gathering threat" - the fact  
that if you look hard enough there exists a defensibly parsing of the  
words that came out of their mouths doesn't, as far as I'm concerned,  
to get them off the hook.

Matt



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue Jul 12 17:12:40 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:12:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	what	basis?
Message-ID: <1121188360.19969@whirlwind.he.net>

Robbie wrote:
[...aluminum foil recycled...]
> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory 
> bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the 
> administration's position in the matter is a 
> nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there 
> appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush really
> wanted to go to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But
> this wouldn't be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass
> attitude.  


You might want to check that Kool-Aid dribbling down your chin -- you
can't drink and rant at the same time.


> If you like
> this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's
> normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000
> cash.


This would be a good deal in most southeast asian countries, sight
unseen.  Even crappy dirt plots in the middle of nowhere in nasty
communist countries are currently fetching these kinds of prices.  US
real estate inflation is quite tepid by comparison.


j. andrew rogers



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 12 17:30:58 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:30:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robbie Lindauer wrote:

>>> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what Mr. 
>>> Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He (powell) 
>>> is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not reading this 
>>> bulshit".
>>
>> Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the American
>> Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I suspect that 
>> I could find that evidence but why should I try to if you won't get it 
>> for me?  What's your responsibility as a citizen in your political 
>> system? And if I won't make the effort and you won't make the effort what 
>> does that mean?
>
> Check:
>
> http://www.thetip.org/

I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain name.

But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
wmd's in Iraq.

The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I don't
want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to back up
your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to back up
your assertion to be able to be persuasive.

> Don't forget to check with your local nameservice provider too.

I'm not sure what you mean. I checked that you, Robert Lindauer,
own the domain name THETIP.ORG.

>> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link o 
>> a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>
> As a matter of fact...

As a matter of fact what ?

>> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>> opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>> opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>> to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the facts.
>
> The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
> http://www.thetip.org/

The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
offence.

>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching President 
>> George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>> are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their
>> shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>> is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but interested 
>> person.
>
> Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
> it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold its 
> soul to that devil.

I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.

> All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm afraid, 
> given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow anything up 
> myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a character flaw or 
> not.)

I am not a citizen of the United States.

Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
political content make you an activist of sorts.

But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
you are a nutter or not yet.

Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
they can be worse.

>>> The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on reading 
>>> given that we obviously didn't know that there were weapons of the 
>>> relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there, right?)  Or did he have 
>>> further intelligence revealed to him.  If so, where is it?   I mean, if 
>>> we KNEW where there were, we'd have found them.
>>
>> That's not a question I am asking that's a diversion you are throwing up.
>
> No, it's a fact in evidence.

You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, the
first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
about.

>> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>
> Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.

I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't doubt
that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is available
somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then you'd
have shown that your archive is useful.

>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought 
> Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans 
> to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with 
> citations from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, just 
> to the right time....).

I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.

Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time. Only
some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.

However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
to people to see for themselves.

Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough if they
have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
site.

>> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
>> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said it.
>
> Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
> gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
> publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org :)

Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
thing.

>> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>
> Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
> point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard the 
> statement before:
>
> "The Buck Stops Here"

Yes. Harry Truman.

> It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>
>> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>
> He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
> suprising that he can't keep this one either.

This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.

>>  Its already clear that
>> international law duly ratified by congress (which includes the UN
>> Charter) is also US law and that that US Supreme Court has
>> jurisidiction over US law.
>>
>> It is already clear that there is nothing within the UN Charter which
>> permits a pre-emptive war without a Security Council Resolution
>> and therefore also within US law. Its already clear that the Security
>> Council did not authorise the Invasion of Iraq. Even if they (the
>> Security Council) did it retrospectively that would not change that
>> it was illegal under US law at the time for the US President to
>> break the UN Charter which is part of US law and a part of the
>> hardwon birthright of all US citizens, not just the one that happens
>> to be President.
>>
>> Seems to me that all that remains to be proven is that George W
>> Bush was acting in active bad faith rather than mere run of the mill
>> incompetence for the clearest possible case for impeachment to
>> be made.
>>
>> If President George W Bush deliberately took the US to war on
>> a lie or a misrepresentation AND THAT CAN BE SHOWN then
>> you will have grounds for impeachment and as a US citizen you
>> should expect impeachment to happen.
>
> Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
> media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?

I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
doubt.

>>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
>>> weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>
>> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>
> Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.

1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.

2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just raising
a red herring issue.

3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
same post.

>> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>> the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>
> Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record of 
> the incident in the guardian, still available online.

Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over Iraq?

>>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
>>> said they'd found no such evidence.
>>
>> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>> they did it?
>
> Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.

No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
you can find stuff in it yourself.

> I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for no 
> good reason :)

Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?

I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be relevent at
the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am only
interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
in relation to specific questions.

If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be different
but you haven't. Not with me.

>>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
>>> material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.
>>
>> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that he 
>> was
>> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>
> Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
> speak to is easily convinced of the matter.

Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.

> Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
> see past their own bile.



>>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
>>> was flatly false.
>>>
>>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
>>> trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
>>> the sources of which are not in question.
>>
>> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
>> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
>> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to am
>> impartial person?
>
> Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.

I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not sure is 
that
nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So perhaps
there is something, some memo I missed.

> Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!

I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.

>>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
>>> close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
>>> effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing 
>>> well..
>>
>> "mysteriously". Bollocks.
>
> Quite right.  No mystery.

I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
facts.

>>> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory 
>>> bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the 
>>> administration's position in the matter is a 
>>> nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there appears 
>>> to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush really wanted to go to 
>>> war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this wouldn't be a 
>>> critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If you like this, I 
>>> also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's normally valued 
>>> at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000 cash.
>>
>> You miss the point. There is a perfectly good mechanism for impeaching
>> a President in the Constitution. *If* there is grounds for doing it.
>
> Not if the congress is controlled by the President's party along with the 
> Supreme Court, you idiot.
>
>> But a million flapping traps don't add up to a case. Some *one* or some
>> *ones* have to put the case together. Once the case is put together the
>> million flapping traps can help create the political will to make sure 
>> that it is
>> considered but it will not and should not succeed in impeaching a 
>> President
>> unless the case is made.
>
> Well, as I recall during the last Republican Impeachment Effort, no 
> evidence was required to start the proceeding at all, just the political 
> will.
>
>> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the 
>> facts
>> then you have already lost.
>
> Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.

I am not your apprentice.

>> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
>> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
>> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>> how to bring him to account.
>
> Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots large-scale 
> impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats alike that we're 
> absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies and then make sure 
> that they don't get elected and in order to do so we'll have to revamp the 
> way people get and accept news because the major news services in the 
> United States are uninterested in this story.  We'd have to make something 
> internetty actually work.  If it's impossible at least we can have said 
> we'd tried and we didn't blow anything up.
>
> Start here:
>
> http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>
> It's not much but you'd be suprised :)

I started with the bloody question I asked you.

>
> Robbie Lindauer
> www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)

I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.

Brett Paatsch 




From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 18:02:32 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:02:32 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On	what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <1121188360.19969@whirlwind.he.net>
References: <1121188360.19969@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <42D405B8.9000009@aol.com>

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>Robbie wrote:
>[...aluminum foil recycled...]
>  
>
>>In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory 
>>bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the 
>>administration's position in the matter is a 
>>nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there 
>>appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush really
>>wanted to go to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But
>>this wouldn't be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass
>>attitude.  
>>    
>>
>
>
>You might want to check that Kool-Aid dribbling down your chin -- you
>can't drink and rant at the same time.
>  
>

There are your rational options.  Conspiracy theory bullshit OR possibly 
true and worthy of examination.  Don't like the presentation, go read a 
book, welcome to the itnernet.

>>If you like
>>this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's
>>normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000
>>cash.
>>    
>>
>
>
>This would be a good deal in most southeast asian countries, sight
>unseen.  Even crappy dirt plots in the middle of nowhere in nasty
>communist countries are currently fetching these kinds of prices.  US
>real estate inflation is quite tepid by comparison.
>  
>

Please make your check payable to cash and mail it to my PO Box here in 
Aruba.

Robbie



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 18:51:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <42D1C2C1.8050206@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050712185124.58377.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> The loss of 50 lives in London is horrible.
> 
> In today's news, insurgents killed at least 20 Iraqis. Yesterday, 20 
> Iraqis were killed by insurgents. So far this year, on average, at
> least 
> 50 Iraqis per week have been killed by insurgents, and some number of
> insurgents and/or Iraqi non-combatants have been killed by American 
> and/or Alliance troops.
> 
> Why are we more upset by the loss of lives in London than by the loss
> of lives in Iraq?

Because we don't believe in collective guilt or moral equivilancy. Iraq
is a low intensity civil war between a Baathist insurgency and the rest
of the nation. Britain was believed to be attacked by a group of
non-Iraqi jihadists who are also killing most of the Iraqis in Iraq,
though this is questionable. 

It is interesting it comes so soon after the electoral victory of the
extremist in Iran, and that Britains purview in Iraq is the Shiite
southeastern quarter of Iraq, that is under heavy infiltration from
Iranian forces. The only people that would gain from a British pullout
from Iraq would be Iran and extremist Shiite Iraqi groups that are
backed by Iran.

I suspect we will see a heavy uptick in extremist shiite activity,
possibly a coup attempt by al Sadr in Bagdad.

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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 18:56:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050712185636.61324.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

When plastic surgery becomes as commonplace as fast food, ubiquitous
surveillance is meaningless. Both will occur about the same time.

--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> David Brin, who has written on the subject of the changing 
> (disappearing) notion of privacy, covered this explicitly in his
> novel 
> "Earth".
> 
> He posits a future in which private surveilance (by cameras embedded
> in 
> sunglasses, which transmit in realtime to secure data archives)
> causes a 
> drastic drop in violent crime. If every potential mugging victim is 
> recording everything he sees, muggers become a lot less numerous.
> 
> The classic response to questions of "what happened to my right to 
> privacy?" in Brin's world, is "What do you have to hide?"
> 
> Joseph
> 
> Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
> http://www.humanenhancement.com
> New Jersey Transhumanist Association:
> http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
> PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated
> 6/14/05)
> 
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> 
> > The Linux community has an aphorism:
> > "Many eyes make all bugs shallow."
> >
> > We can extend this concept to anti-terrorism. The London police are
> 
> > currently asking the public for any video records they may have of
> the 
> > time surrounding the London bombings. We need to train the public
> to 
> > immediately begin taking pictures whenever something bad happens in
> 
> > public. The basic rule should be: If you cannot think of something 
> > more useful to do, take pictures. When taking pictures, if you do
> not 
> > have and obviously important subject, then take a multi-shot
> panorama.
> >
> > If every Londoner with a cell-phone camera had taken a 10-shot 
> > panorama at the time of the bombing, we would almost certainly have
> a 
> > picture of at least one of the bombers.
> >
> > To speed the analysis, we should also add a volunteer analytic 
> > infrastructure. If every relevant Londoner made panoramic pictures,
> 
> > there would be far more pictures than police analysts could process
> 
> > quickly. But each photographer could add the pictures to a
> distributed 
> > database, and each photographer (plus innumerable volunteers) could
> do 
> > a preliminary analysis.
> >
> > Similarly, pictures from all the security cameras in London could
> be 
> > made public. This would permit volunteers to assist the police in
> the 
> > analysis.
> >
> > To increase pre-explosion coverage, the public should be encouraged
> to 
> > make random pictures in public places, more or less continuously.
> If 
> > nothing  interesting happens, most of these digital pictures will 
> > never even be stored. If something bad happens, the pictures from 
> > prior to the event would become available for analysis.
> >
> > Privacy? Sorry, These are pictures taken by individuals, in public 
> > places. There is no right to privacy in this venue.
> >
> > I live in the Washington DC area. I thought of this  concept during
> 
> > the ugly "sniper attack" situation last year.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 18:55:45 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:55:45 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>
	<057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D41231.4060901@aol.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>>
>> Check:
>>
>> http://www.thetip.org/
>
>
> I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain name.
>
> But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
> wmd's in Iraq.


Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my own.  I suggest a 
baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old you are. 

>
> The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I 
> don't
> want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to back up
> your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to back up
> your assertion to be able to be persuasive.


Your point appears to be that I need to do your homework for you. But of 
course, anything I might say you'd want to see the sources for it, so 
there's thetip.org.  Do enjoy yourself while investigating the matter 
for yourself with an open mind. 

>>> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a 
>>> link o a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact...
>
>
> As a matter of fact what ?


Do, check thetip.org.

>
>>> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>>> opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>> opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>> to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the 
>>> facts.
>>
>>
>> The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
>> http://www.thetip.org/
>
>
> The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
> any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
> impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
> offence.


Yes, the notion of impartial person is absurd - ask any experienced lawyer.

>
>>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching 
>>> President George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>> are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their
>>> shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>>> is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but interested 
>>> person.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen 
>> so it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has 
>> sold its soul to that devil.
>
>
> I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.


You're not aware of how the impeachment process works?

>
>> All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm 
>> afraid, given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow 
>> anything up myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a 
>> character flaw or not.)
>
>
> I am not a citizen of the United States.


Then this is none of your freekin' business.  Go away foreigner, go fix 
your own country.

>
> Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
> like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
> of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
> political content make you an activist of sorts.


You'd no doubt enjoy my saturday-afternoon peace parties :)

>
> But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
> you are a nutter or not yet.

By who's standards?  I know lots of people who think I'm a nutter and 
lots of people who don't.  I find that when I say I prefer JR Lucas to 
Roger Penrose people think I'm crazy, well, I just like Lucas better, 
what can I say?

>
> Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
> alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
> they can be worse.

Well, if you're looking for a job, I could use the help.  Perhaps 
someone to organize the site better for people who are extremely lazy 
and don't like having to actually use the search engine to find what 
they want?  Know php?

>
> You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
> first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, the
> first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
> about.


See www.thetip.org.

>
>>> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>
>>
>> Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>
>
> I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't doubt
> that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is 
> available
> somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then you'd
> have shown that your archive is useful.


Please take 5 seconds out of your day to inform yourself about these 
things that you think you have something sufficiently important to say 
to make it worth listening to you debate it publicly.  See 
www.thetip.org for starters.  Also, GW said it several times on the 
radio.  Also nicely documented online at, you know where...

>
>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had 
>> sought Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and 
>> Americans to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete 
>> record with citations from the major news publications tracing back, 
>> oh, I dunno, just to the right time....).
>
>
> I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.


Well, if you want to INFORM YOURSELF about a matter as important as this 
so that you'd have something useful to say about it, I suggest starting 
at thetip.org and then moving on to moveon.org and then just check the 
standard archives to make sure the references are valid.

>
> Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time. 


Then look it up yourself.  I OBVIOUSLY already did.

> Only
> some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
> and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
> likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>
> However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
> to people to see for themselves.


Yes, please see www.thetip.org.  I agree this is a great goal. 

>
> Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough if 
> they
> have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
> site.


If you're offering design help, send me your resume.

>
>>> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
>>> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said 
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
>> gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
>> publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org :)
>
>
> Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
> thing.


There's a nice search engine.  And google has a nice feature where you 
can search within a site, it's really cool, it's kind of the modern way 
of researching news items quickly.  I suggest starting there if you 
can't get the search engine on my site to work for you.

>
>>> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>
>>
>> Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then 
>> the point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've 
>> heard the statement before:
>>
>> "The Buck Stops Here"
>
>
> Yes. Harry Truman.


So you don't see how this applies today?

>
>> It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>
>>> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>
>>
>> He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's 
>> not suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>
>
> This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.


It's relevant to whether or not he keeps his oaths, counselor.

>>
>> Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and 
>> the media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>
>
> I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
> statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
> doubt.

Well, is the congress controlled by republicans?

Is the media controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?

>
>>>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have 
>>>> the weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>
>>>
>>> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>
>
> 1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.


What quote?   What are you ranting about now?  I'm telling you that 
David Kelly died -mysteriously- and that an MI5 lawyer admitted that he 
was killed on the radio.  This information is publicly available in many 
places including from the AP.  If you want to have something relevant to 
say about it, look it up.    Thankfully, you can start at thetip.org if 
you just don't have any idea about how to go about researching this 
matter.  Next, try the guardian online, it has the best David Kelly news 
archive available online.  You could also try writing to their editorial 
staff as well as to MI5 to ask them about the progress of their 
investigation.   Although they have yet to answer my letter on the 
matter.  Maybe you'll have better luck.

>
> 2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just raising
> a red herring issue.


No, he was a whistle-blower who was actively involved on the ground in 
Iraq in UN weapons inspections who pointed out that there weren't any 
such things going on there.

>
> 3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
> know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
> from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
> same post.


I -genuinely- don't care what you think about me.  I mean what kind of 
person asks for links when the internet is FULL of links.  It's freekin' 
link christmas out there.  Here a link, there a link, everywhere a link, 
link.

>>> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>>> the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>
>>
>> Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice 
>> record of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>
>
> Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over Iraq?


Yes.  Read the sources, educate yourself.

>
>>>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and 
>>>> had said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>> they did it?
>>
>>
>> Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>
>
> No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
> you can find stuff in it yourself.


I have no need to PROVE that I can find things in the site that I MADE.  
I've enjoyed debating wacko-s over time on the internet.  You're not a 
very good wacko though.  My favorite wacko isn't available for public 
debate any more.

>
>> I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place 
>> for no good reason :)
>
>
> Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
> agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?


No, so that if someone with an open mind wanted to know what the details 
of these and other matters were, they could find the record there online 
quickly and easily.  Although recently I've decided that the ideological 
problem is more severe than the information problem.  People KNOW that 
Bush is a war-mongering liar or they know that if they managed to look 
into the matter objectively they'd become convinced of it, they're just 
okay with it.  That's the problem I'd like to address now.  It appears 
to be your problem.  I once debated a "radio evangelist" about whether 
or not it was useful to ridicule homosexuals into becoming Christians (I 
didn't think so, he did.)  I am now testing the theory in an area with 
which I am familiar, seeing if ridiculing the populace of dumbfuckistan 
helps them in their quest for truth, justice and peace.

> I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
> I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be relevent at
> the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am only
> interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
> in relation to specific questions.


Well, you know, sometimes when you're researching a matter that's 
important to you, you've got to actually DO a little research for 
yourself.  Normally this is a skill they teach in American High Schools 
(although it's a little sketchy in some places).  It's certainly 
something you -should- have learned in college no matter which country 
you're from.

>
> If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be different
> but you haven't. Not with me.


Actually, you're not the target, here, you're just a foil.  I've enjoyed 
our conversation :)

>
>>>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any 
>>>> nuclear material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the 
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not 
>>> that he was
>>> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>
>>
>> Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
>> speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>
>
> Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
> doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.


Which I've made over and over for years, as have many other people more 
"respectable" than me.  At this point, in general, I'm convinced that if 
someone WANTED to know, they'd have been able to find out for themselves 
in many, many ways.

>
>> Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage 
>> to see past their own bile.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the 
>>>> matter was flatly false.
>>>>
>>>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as 
>>>> a trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street 
>>>> Minutes the sources of which are not in question.
>>>
>>>
>>> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
>>> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
>>> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove 
>>> to am
>>> impartial person?
>>
>>
>> Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not 
> sure is that
> nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So 
> perhaps
> there is something, some memo I missed.


No doubt.  But you never know until you know, do you.  It's sad living 
in the dark like that, huh?

>
>> Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>
>
> I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.


Now THAT's suprising!  If you have design or topical input to make, you 
can become a member and be on our email list, and if you have editorial 
you'd like to share with the world and if it's well-researched, 
moderately well-written and substantiated, I'll even put it on the site.

>
>>>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's 
>>>> very close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in 
>>>> this effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are 
>>>> doing well..
>>>
>>>
>>> "mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>
>>
>> Quite right.  No mystery.
>
>
> I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
> facts.


Are you unaware of how Haliburton is just RAKING IN THE DOUGH over 
there?  Or how UDI's orders are just UP-UP-UP?  Well, you should check 
out thetip.org!

>>> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on 
>>> the facts
>>> then you have already lost.
>>
>>
>> Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>
>
> I am not your apprentice.


I know.  You've turned to the dark side.  "From my point of view, you're 
the evil one." etc.

>
>>> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
>>> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
>>> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>>> how to bring him to account.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots 
>> large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats 
>> alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies 
>> and then make sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so 
>> we'll have to revamp the way people get and accept news because the 
>> major news services in the United States are uninterested in this 
>> story.  We'd have to make something internetty actually work.  If 
>> it's impossible at least we can have said we'd tried and we didn't 
>> blow anything up.
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>
>> It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>
>
> I started with the bloody question I asked you.


And you didn't like my answers.  You wanted references.  Thankfully, 
I've compiled a near encyclopedic source of references on specifically 
this matter for the last few years which is available for your perusal 
online -oh so convenient-.  Now that you've got your references you're 
refusing to do the work of actually READING THEM.   This is typical of 
today's willful ignorance of the attrocities committed daily by the US 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

> Robbie Lindauer
>
>> www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>
>
> I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
> to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
> It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.

I have answered this question so many times, I'm tired of talking to 
people straight about it.  If you ACTUALLY want to find out, you can, 
it's neatly prepared for you and you know where.  It's telling that you 
don't actually want to do this work for yourself.  If, however, you 
decide you DO want to do the work and DO actually want to have something 
interesting to contribute to this debate, you can start, thankfully, at 
thetip.org which in addition to concentrating on specifically these (and 
closely related) issues over the last few years manages to have them 
nicely categorized for easy research and reference.

Robbie Lindauer



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:02:52 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian-geoethical-biotech-Vermont-Conference
In-Reply-To: <42D1DA1E.6050902@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050712190252.99947.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I find this quite ironic to me.
> 
> This  Extropian oriented  Conference is headquartered where myself
> and a friend  stayed when we went down to investigate
> a person who later  tried to  gut our business Extropian Agroforestry
> Ventures in March 1999.
> 
> We have gone on to commercialize cannabis medicine with Lifespan 
> Pharma Inc. with the first significant activity  this very month.
> 
> A curious personal connection to this area of Vermont.

Where? You didn't post any details. Perhaps I can help...

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 12 19:03:10 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:03:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NPOV
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050712080255625fb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050711201822.35331.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4CDBF2E6-B836-4BF9-9EC2-10927B42970C@bonfireproductions.com>
	<ee50357e050712080255625fb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <975540A1-71CE-40BC-8996-12207E61F81B@mac.com>


On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:02 AM, BillK wrote:

>
>
> Sorry, but you won't get a NPOV. The US is split into two almost equal
> halves. The intellectuals, the literary talking-shop set still cannot
> believe that Bush has won two successive elections. They just cannot
> accept that (slightly) over half the country do not see things their
> way.

I have large acceptance of the reality of  human stupidity.  I also  
have some acceptance of the fragility of election process and how  
easily an election can be bought or stolen  these days.   The two  
party lock is failing us all also.   A simple binary division of the  
country gets us nowhere.

> Note that I don't think they are Dem supporters, so much as a
> conglomeration of anti-bush campaigners. Bush is the first pres since
> his dad to get over 50% of the popular vote.

The election was quite close so what are you crowing about here?

> So they claim the vote
> must have been rigged. Bush has wide support through the South, Great
> Plains, and Mountain states (83% by area). Which, coincidentally is
> where most of the forces recruiting comes from.

I don't even want to rehash that.

>
> The west coast and north east city intellectuals really cannot
> communicate with the rest of the US. The web is full of their
> anti-bush tirades, which they appear to be writing for each others'
> benefit, just to confirm their anti-bush credentials. But if they try
> to start lecturing your average mid-western type, then they are an
> immediate turn-off and get booted out of town.

Is your acquiescence to some purported massive divide helping?

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/637a4fff/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:19:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what
	basis?
In-Reply-To: <A8062458-194E-4D89-B7B6-1DD546ADA073@gnat.com>
Message-ID: <20050712191901.45095.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Matthew Gingell <gingell at gnat.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of
> it, are
> > so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on
> hard facts.
> 
> Here's how I look at it. I light a candle, then I
> call 911 and tell  
> them "I'm at 123 Foobar Street and there's a fire in
> my house." I  
> haven't lied, in that I haven't made any statement I
> know to be  
> false: I really am at 123 Foobar Street, and there
> really is a fire.  
> But I'm being dishonest in the sense I can
> reasonably expect the  
> listener to come to a false conclusion.

Matt, IMO your example is overly generous to Bush.
Here are some excellent sourced quotes by Bush during
the lead up to the war in Iraq found in the CNN
webpage that Dirk posted earlier.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were: 

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological
weapons." 

United Nations address, September 12, 2002 

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons,
and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of
those weapons." 

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use
chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have." 

Radio address, October 5, 2002 

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons." 

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of
tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin
nerve gas, VX nerve gas." 

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq
has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned
that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for
missions targeting the United States." 

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held
numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a
group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear
holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq
is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part
of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted
to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other
equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used
to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." 

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam
Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500
tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." 

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003 

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised." 

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003 

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush either lied or
was irrationally deluded by his personal beef with
Saddam. The moment that Bush was elected in 2000, I
knew there would be a war. I just didn't know with
whom.

 
> The Bush administration spent a year putting Saddam
> Hussein and Osama  
> bin Laden in the same sentence. They invented a
> rhetorical umbrella  
> called the "War on Terrorism" as part of a
> deliberate campaign to  
> conflate the threat posed by Iraq and the threat
> posed by Al Qaeda.

Yes. To wage a war on an intangible entity is a great
way to excuse military action anywhere in the world.
The "War on Drugs" was a similar rhetorical tool used
in the 80's.
  
> They deliberately blurred the line between "tactical
> nonconventional  
> capability" and "weapon of mass destruction." And
> the American people  
> came to the false conclusion that Iraq posed a clear
> and present  
> danger and that invading it was a sensible way of
> fighting the people  
> responsible for 9/11.

Well apparently, if you say something over and over,
it somehow becomes true. While I agree that SOMETHING
had to be done in the Middle East, to use false
pretenses to stage an invasion of a formerly defeated
nation with little military power and a crippled
economy was very dishonorable. The initial invasion
might have been quick and easy, just like going to
hospital to finish off the guy you put there by
beating up the week before is, but this costly
quagmire is so far not accomplishing much. 
     I imagine its because our generals aren't really
sure what they are supposed to accomplish other than
wait for the insurgents to attack them so they can
kill a few more. Just for the record, the reason I
still grudgingly support the occupation of Iraq is
best explained by a metaphor. If you shoot someone
accidently with an arrow, just yanking it out and
apologizing, does not improve the situation at all.
Perhaps we should annex a few square miles of land
somewhere in the desert and build a permanent military
base there then withdraw to it. Close enough that we
can storm the cities if trouble occurs, but far enough
away that the insurgents would have to leave behind
the innocent human shields if they want to go on the
offensive. In any case, I agree we needed to occupy
the Middle East. I think we chose the wrong country
for our efforts. All the people who had the spine to
stand up to the Baathists had already been purged by
Saddam's bloody 30 yr rule.   
     As I see the cost of this occupation
skyrocketing, however, I am reminded of Sun Tzu's Art
of War in which the entire second chapter is
essentially a warning that military actions ought to
be quick and decisive and that no nation has ever
benefited from prolonged military campaigns unless
those armies finance themselves through "looting". He
also warns that occupying foreign cities is a waste of
time and money and exposes the occupier's homeland to
rebellions and enemy incursions. So whatever we are
planning to do there, we need to do it soon. Wars are
what make or break superpowers, and to see Cheney
rolling in cash is little consolation for hocking our
pensions and our children's futures. 
 
> I can't point to anything they said which they knew
> to be false, but  
> the case they were willfully deceptive is, in my
> mind, overwhelming.  
> I acknowledge there is a distinction between that
> and an outright  
> unambiguous lie, but I don't find that distinction
> terribly  
> interesting. That is, I don't really care whether
> they said "imminent  
> threat" or whether they said "grave and gathering
> threat" - the fact  
> that if you look hard enough there exists a
> defensibly parsing of the  
> words that came out of their mouths doesn't, as far
> as I'm concerned,  
> to get them off the hook.
> 
     I agree. I think the whole administration should
be thrown in prison. No President in all of history
was more covert, devious, or self serving than Bush
has been. Just look at all the mysterious resignations
and even a few mysterious deaths that surround his
administration.
      Yet as factually wrong as the statements that
come out of his mouth are, somehow when he speaks, he
comes across to the masses with such sincerity in
telling his bold faced lies that I have to wonder if
Bush suffers from Narcisism or some other
psychopathology. Even I had to agree that his demeanor
and body language during 2004 were more sincere than
John Kerry. Maybe a voice in his head really does
claim to be 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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:22:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <42D1E394.9060605@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050712192242.6258.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> >don't really need a byzantine hodgepodge of republics,
> >democracies, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies,
> >theocracies, and dictatorships on our planet to
> >maintain cultural diversity. We just need universal
> >freedom. The Muslims in the U.S. are just as Islamic
> >as the ones in the Middle East, they just happen to be
> >free and tolerant.
> >  
> >
> I beg to differ.
> Most people, let alone Moslems, are not 'free and tolerant'.

That is mighty intolerant and unenlightened of you.

> 
> >      If you REALLY believe that we should suffer the
> >existence of archaic forms of government in far flung
> >corners of the world, then we should go all the way
> >set them up as "historical anthropological preserves"
> >and forbid the transfer of technology beyond that of
> >agrarian societies into their borders.
> >     I don't trust caliphs and sheiks to wield germs
> >and nukes responsibly, not with what they have shown
> >me so far.   
> >
> >  
> >
> So in your future there is really only One Culture - The American
> Way.
> In the end we all need to control the bit of turf we stand upon,
> whether metaphorical or literal. Territoriality is not going to
> disappear in the future. Or at least, not in my future, which
> obvious differs from yours.
> That two Transhumanists should be in such conflict is less an irony
> and more a prophecy.

Well, if we are going to chat about 'diversity', shall we ask what the
point is of diversity? The only positive value of diversity, beyond
providing colorful dress and a wide selection of restaurants, is that
evolutionists claim it helps ensure that life survives crises: having a
wide selection of genomes or lifestyles ensures that when push comes to
shove, some or at least one of them will have the characteristics
needed to survive the crisis, like mammals surviving Chuxulub because
they have warm blood. Diversity, in and of itself, isn't valuable
except as an insurance policy for a means to an end.

Diversity, being merely ONE strategy of evolution, should not be
protected against evolutionary pressure itself. If evolution says some
species or some cultures cannot compete, then they should not be
preserved except as data.

If evolution says that The American Way is the best culture, then so be
it. If it isn't then evolution will evolve it, if it is capable (and I
think its history shows that it is that, if anything, capable of
evolving) or else cut it down as unworthy. Same goes for Islamic or
other societies. Western enlightened market culture is merely one
possible semi-stable equilibrium for the human race. One that has
dominated to date, but that does not mean that it will automatically
survive in the face of a truly barbaric and cruel islamo-fascism. 

We are overdue for a dark age. That Islam originally helped to preserve
empiricism and inspire the enlightenment in Europe seems immaterial to
those intent on ending the experiment.

Muslims who come to the US are mostly NOT like their bretheren
elsewhere. You read about the few exceptions in the news, but most who
are here in the west are enlightened muslims who recognise the
difference between the American attitude that we can always do better
and that nothing is impossible versus the general attitude of the rest
of the world that anything that doesn't already exist is either
impossible, or wrong, or against the will of whatever god that matters,
while much that does exist is wrong and needs to be atoned and punished
for.

There are lots of people who have the American attitude who are
elsewhere, but they are in the distinct minority and without power,
which is why many try to come here.

For this reason I tend to be confident about "the American Way", and
despite the moral equivilancy griping of Dirk, I have no problem with
the idea that the rest of the world should be like us.

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:27:30 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D41231.4060901@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712192730.53351.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my
> own.  I suggest a 
> baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old
> you are. 

For Pete's sake, Rob. Quit insulting Brett. Brett has
very little stake in this debate. He is not some
Republican defending Bush's actions, he is a complete
outsider (in Australia) that is trying to form an
unbiased opinion on the war. By your pointless
name-calling, you are only serving to justify the low
opinion that other nations have of us right now and
furthermore you are making the OTHER side of the
political spectrum more appealing to him by
comparison. Nobody has ever convinced anyone of
anything by insulting them.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:30:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] WWP
In-Reply-To: <631DA022-E02B-4038-9722-D97E726E7E6D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050712193029.68279.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Baathists were a relatively weak group until we forced them into  
> power in Iraq.  bit afaik Baathists are no more uniformly evil than  
> the other sects at play.
>  
> I really don't care a lot if some of the groups organizing protesters
> are not very nice folks if the people themselves will get off their  
> duff and speak up.
> 
> The FBI considers people who take the Constitution seriously as  
> likely terrorists so excuse me if I am not too impressed with a claim
> that they consider the WWP to be terrorists.
> 
> There are no scare quotes around anti-war protest.
> 
> Look at the thugs you are pandering for Mike.

As soon as you do the same. The thugs you pander for are collectively
responsible for over a hundred million deaths in the 20th century and
the slavery of billions. You've got quite a ways to go on the old karma calculator.

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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Jul 12 19:46:47 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:46:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology 
Message-ID: <380-22005721219464784@M2W054.mail2web.com>

Adrian writes:

"It is, perhaps, possible to attempt to subvert and recast these
regulations and ethics, by demonstrating the ethics of things like the
Proactionary Principle and the damage - "horrors" is perhaps not too
strong a term - inevitably caused by things like the Precautionary
Principle.  But if this is the true intent of ExI's presence, then
given as this is drastically different from the common proposals for
global regulatory frameworks and X-ethics, this should be explicitly
stated.  It was not.  Ergo, this gives the appearance of ExI endorsing
things like the Precautionary Principle - and even giving the
appearance of doing so goes against ExI's interests."

ExI is not involved in this event and there is no connection to any sort of
endorsement of the Precautionary Principle.  (That assumption flys about as
well as a wet shoe with laces tied.)

Adrian, there are several extremely important reasons for being involved in
the event's webcast.  First and foremost and of *immediate importance* is
to introduce and promote the "Proactionary Principle".

If you go to http://www.extropy.org and scroll down a little you can see
information about the "Proactionary Principle."  

ExI Project No. 1 - PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE
As human lives and the global environment become ever more interconnected
with technology, we become increasingly responsible for making wise
decisions about how to use it. We need a balanced opinion on how to apply
technology to human needs.  We should not reject the products of applied
science; neither should we implement powerful new technologies without
foresight and proactive preparation. Above all, we must not tackle the
decisions of the future with the cognitive habits of the past. We need new,
smarter ways to evaluate the opportunities and dangers issuing from
nanotechnology, genetics, machine intelligence, climate engineering, or
neurological modification. The Proactionary Principle is designed
explicitly for this purpose.

And you can read material on the "Proactionary Principle" and the VP Summit
from last year at http://www.extropy.org/summitabout.htm and the
Proactionary Principle at http://www.extropy.org/proactoinaryprinciple.htm 



Natasha Vita-More


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




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 19:48:02 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:48:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] eyes 4U
In-Reply-To: <42D26308.7000500@sasktel.net>
References: <42D26308.7000500@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050712124877d10ead@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/11/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
> If gates and the medical industry quickly perfect the wireless delivery
> of audio and video  directly to
> the consciousness in a manner safe enough for  implantation into those
> with hearing and sight
> diabilities then the reverse, a back door which jacks imagery and audio
> back into the net would be
> available. Add to the list of those carrying these devices persons
> convicted of medium level
> criminal offences then one has quite a numerous  force of public eyes
> and ears for security.

So you're advocating that the government be given the authority to
permanently monitor the thoughts of people it doesn't approve of? (Not
just muggers and rapists, but "persons convicted of medium level
criminal offences" - which in some countries can mean you published a
web site they didn't like.)

- Russell


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 19:52:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <42D32611.1040607@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712195224.43657.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> >Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
> >of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
> >war crimes?
> >
> 
> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very different standard of
> law well established here.

Yes, and you apparently don't know anything about it either.

> 
> >  Since technically Iraq was in violation
> >of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
> >have to be shown America invaded to entirely subjugate
> >Iraq and commit war crimes.
> >
> 
> It hasn't been determined by the UN security council that Iraq was 
> definitively in violation. 

This is a lie. The UN clearly stated several times in resolutions that
Iraq was in violation and made demands which the UN itself refused to
enforce, primarily because the UN had been corrupted by Saddam's
bribery as is now coming to light. Several countries, including France,
Germany, and Russia, were explicitly paid off by Saddam, while quite a
number of high UN officials were similarly bribed. A refusal to enforce
the law because you've been bribed does not equal a claim that no law
was broken.

You are suffering from a number of logical faults.


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 Jul 12 20:15:37 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] what can you show us?
In-Reply-To: <20050712195224.43657.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712195224.43657.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D424E9.5020904@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
>>>of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
>>>war crimes?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very different standard of
>>law well established here.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, and you apparently don't know anything about it either.
>  
>

I know something about the impeachment process and am unaware of the 
process for prosecuting international laws.

   1.

      The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate
      an impeachment inquiry.

   2.

      The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from
      the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before
      voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval
      requires a majority vote.

   3.

      The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly
      through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry,
      articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a
      majority of the Committee.

   4.

      The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of
      impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to
      pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is,
      technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in
      the Senate.

   5.

      The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by
      the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of
      the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

   6.

      At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to
      remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members
      present in the Senate is required for removal.

   7.

      If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the
      Presidency under the chain of succession established b Amendment XXV.

 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm)

So the judiciary committee needs to decide whether the case has merit 
which it does on a political basis (since having sex with someone is not 
an impeachable offense listed in the constitution Article 2 section 4).



>  
>
>>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
>>>of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
>>>have to be shown America invaded to entirely subjugate
>>>Iraq and commit war crimes.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It hasn't been determined by the UN security council that Iraq was 
>>definitively in violation. 
>>    
>>
>
>This is a lie. The UN clearly stated several times in resolutions that
>Iraq was in violation and made demands which the UN itself refused to
>enforce, primarily because the UN had been corrupted by Saddam's
>bribery as is now coming to light. Several countries, including France,
>Germany, and Russia, were explicitly paid off by Saddam, while quite a
>number of high UN officials were similarly bribed. A refusal to enforce
>the law because you've been bribed does not equal a claim that no law
>was broken.
>  
>

My mistake, I didn't intend to lie, Iraq was in violation and upon the 
demand of the UN re-admitted weapons inspectors into the country after 
the demand.  After that point the US decided to go to war unilatterally 
without the support of the UN.  I am unaware of the bribery by Saddam of 
the French, German and Russian governments.  If you have some links, I'd 
like to read up on it myself.

>You are suffering from a number of logical faults.
>  
>
Your claim was a factual, not logical correction.  If my logic is 
flawed, I'm not sure what you have in mind.

Robbie Lindauer
Fellow Libertarian, but kind of a leftist libertarian - free the people 
first.


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 12 20:19:14 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:19:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied overIraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D41231.4060901@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F32736CB286541BACBAF843B4DF0@phx.gbl>

I think it's really difficult to try to convince someone if you make 
statements without linking to a source. A high level domain name doesn't 
count (especially if it is your own site). That's like making crazy 
statements and then backing it up by saying visit wikipedia.org or 
nytimes.com or something else useless.

Since this thread has lowered down to calling each other dumb-asses and 
babies, perhaps it's utility is too low to deal with.

BAL

>From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied 
>overIraq?	Onwhatbasis?
>Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:55:45 -1000
>
>Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Check:
>>>
>>>http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>>I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain name.
>>
>>But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
>>wmd's in Iraq.
>
>
>Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my own.  I suggest a 
>baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old you are.
>
>>
>>The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I don't
>>want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to back up
>>your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to back up
>>your assertion to be able to be persuasive.
>
>
>Your point appears to be that I need to do your homework for you. But of 
>course, anything I might say you'd want to see the sources for it, so 
>there's thetip.org.  Do enjoy yourself while investigating the matter for 
>yourself with an open mind.
>
>>>>Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link o 
>>>>a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>>
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact...
>>
>>
>>As a matter of fact what ?
>
>
>Do, check thetip.org.
>
>>
>>>>What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>>>>opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>>>opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>>>to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the 
>>>>facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
>>>http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>>The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
>>any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
>>impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
>>offence.
>
>
>Yes, the notion of impartial person is absurd - ask any experienced lawyer.
>
>>
>>>>I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching President 
>>>>George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>>>are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their
>>>>shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>>>>is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but interested 
>>>>person.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
>>>it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold its 
>>>soul to that devil.
>>
>>
>>I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.
>
>
>You're not aware of how the impeachment process works?
>
>>
>>>All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm afraid, 
>>>given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow anything up 
>>>myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a character flaw or 
>>>not.)
>>
>>
>>I am not a citizen of the United States.
>
>
>Then this is none of your freekin' business.  Go away foreigner, go fix 
>your own country.
>
>>
>>Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
>>like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
>>of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
>>political content make you an activist of sorts.
>
>
>You'd no doubt enjoy my saturday-afternoon peace parties :)
>
>>
>>But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
>>you are a nutter or not yet.
>
>By who's standards?  I know lots of people who think I'm a nutter and lots 
>of people who don't.  I find that when I say I prefer JR Lucas to Roger 
>Penrose people think I'm crazy, well, I just like Lucas better, what can I 
>say?
>
>>
>>Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
>>alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
>>they can be worse.
>
>Well, if you're looking for a job, I could use the help.  Perhaps someone 
>to organize the site better for people who are extremely lazy and don't 
>like having to actually use the search engine to find what they want?  Know 
>php?
>
>>
>>You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
>>first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, the
>>first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
>>about.
>
>
>See www.thetip.org.
>
>>
>>>>The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>>>Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>>>of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>>
>>
>>I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't doubt
>>that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is available
>>somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then you'd
>>have shown that your archive is useful.
>
>
>Please take 5 seconds out of your day to inform yourself about these things 
>that you think you have something sufficiently important to say to make it 
>worth listening to you debate it publicly.  See www.thetip.org for 
>starters.  Also, GW said it several times on the radio.  Also nicely 
>documented online at, you know where...
>
>>
>>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought 
>>>Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans 
>>>to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with 
>>>citations from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, 
>>>just to the right time....).
>>
>>
>>I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.
>
>
>Well, if you want to INFORM YOURSELF about a matter as important as this so 
>that you'd have something useful to say about it, I suggest starting at 
>thetip.org and then moving on to moveon.org and then just check the 
>standard archives to make sure the references are valid.
>
>>
>>Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time.
>
>
>Then look it up yourself.  I OBVIOUSLY already did.
>
>>Only
>>some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
>>and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
>>likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>>
>>However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
>>to people to see for themselves.
>
>
>Yes, please see www.thetip.org.  I agree this is a great goal.
>
>>
>>Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough if they
>>have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
>>site.
>
>
>If you're offering design help, send me your resume.
>
>>
>>>>If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
>>>>there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
>>>gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
>>>publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org :)
>>
>>
>>Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
>>thing.
>
>
>There's a nice search engine.  And google has a nice feature where you can 
>search within a site, it's really cool, it's kind of the modern way of 
>researching news items quickly.  I suggest starting there if you can't get 
>the search engine on my site to work for you.
>
>>
>>>>Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>>>enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
>>>point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard the 
>>>statement before:
>>>
>>>"The Buck Stops Here"
>>
>>
>>Yes. Harry Truman.
>
>
>So you don't see how this applies today?
>
>>
>>>It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>>
>>>>Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>>>the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
>>>suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>>
>>
>>This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.
>
>
>It's relevant to whether or not he keeps his oaths, counselor.
>
>>>
>>>Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
>>>media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>>
>>I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
>>statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
>>doubt.
>
>Well, is the congress controlled by republicans?
>
>Is the media controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>
>>
>>>>>Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>>>inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
>>>>>weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>>>his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>>
>>
>>1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.
>
>
>What quote?   What are you ranting about now?  I'm telling you that David 
>Kelly died -mysteriously- and that an MI5 lawyer admitted that he was 
>killed on the radio.  This information is publicly available in many places 
>including from the AP.  If you want to have something relevant to say about 
>it, look it up.    Thankfully, you can start at thetip.org if you just 
>don't have any idea about how to go about researching this matter.  Next, 
>try the guardian online, it has the best David Kelly news archive available 
>online.  You could also try writing to their editorial staff as well as to 
>MI5 to ask them about the progress of their investigation.   Although they 
>have yet to answer my letter on the matter.  Maybe you'll have better luck.
>
>>
>>2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just raising
>>a red herring issue.
>
>
>No, he was a whistle-blower who was actively involved on the ground in Iraq 
>in UN weapons inspections who pointed out that there weren't any such 
>things going on there.
>
>>
>>3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
>>know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
>>from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
>>same post.
>
>
>I -genuinely- don't care what you think about me.  I mean what kind of 
>person asks for links when the internet is FULL of links.  It's freekin' 
>link christmas out there.  Here a link, there a link, everywhere a link, 
>link.
>
>>>>If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>>>to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>>>concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>>>>the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record 
>>>of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>>
>>
>>Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over Iraq?
>
>
>Yes.  Read the sources, educate yourself.
>
>>
>>>>>Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
>>>>>said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>>>they did it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>>
>>
>>No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
>>you can find stuff in it yourself.
>
>
>I have no need to PROVE that I can find things in the site that I MADE.  
>I've enjoyed debating wacko-s over time on the internet.  You're not a very 
>good wacko though.  My favorite wacko isn't available for public debate any 
>more.
>
>>
>>>I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for no 
>>>good reason :)
>>
>>
>>Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
>>agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?
>
>
>No, so that if someone with an open mind wanted to know what the details of 
>these and other matters were, they could find the record there online 
>quickly and easily.  Although recently I've decided that the ideological 
>problem is more severe than the information problem.  People KNOW that Bush 
>is a war-mongering liar or they know that if they managed to look into the 
>matter objectively they'd become convinced of it, they're just okay with 
>it.  That's the problem I'd like to address now.  It appears to be your 
>problem.  I once debated a "radio evangelist" about whether or not it was 
>useful to ridicule homosexuals into becoming Christians (I didn't think so, 
>he did.)  I am now testing the theory in an area with which I am familiar, 
>seeing if ridiculing the populace of dumbfuckistan helps them in their 
>quest for truth, justice and peace.
>
>>I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
>>I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be relevent at
>>the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am only
>>interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
>>in relation to specific questions.
>
>
>Well, you know, sometimes when you're researching a matter that's important 
>to you, you've got to actually DO a little research for yourself.  Normally 
>this is a skill they teach in American High Schools (although it's a little 
>sketchy in some places).  It's certainly something you -should- have 
>learned in college no matter which country you're from.
>
>>
>>If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be different
>>but you haven't. Not with me.
>
>
>Actually, you're not the target, here, you're just a foil.  I've enjoyed 
>our conversation :)
>
>>
>>>>>Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
>>>>>material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that 
>>>>he was
>>>>not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
>>>speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>>
>>
>>Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
>>doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.
>
>
>Which I've made over and over for years, as have many other people more 
>"respectable" than me.  At this point, in general, I'm convinced that if 
>someone WANTED to know, they'd have been able to find out for themselves in 
>many, many ways.
>
>>
>>>Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
>>>see past their own bile.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
>>>>>was flatly false.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
>>>>>trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
>>>>>the sources of which are not in question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
>>>>now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
>>>>in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to am
>>>>impartial person?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>>
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not sure is 
>>that
>>nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So 
>>perhaps
>>there is something, some memo I missed.
>
>
>No doubt.  But you never know until you know, do you.  It's sad living in 
>the dark like that, huh?
>
>>
>>>Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>>
>>
>>I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.
>
>
>Now THAT's suprising!  If you have design or topical input to make, you can 
>become a member and be on our email list, and if you have editorial you'd 
>like to share with the world and if it's well-researched, moderately 
>well-written and substantiated, I'll even put it on the site.
>
>>
>>>>>Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
>>>>>close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
>>>>>effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing 
>>>>>well..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Quite right.  No mystery.
>>
>>
>>I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
>>facts.
>
>
>Are you unaware of how Haliburton is just RAKING IN THE DOUGH over there?  
>Or how UDI's orders are just UP-UP-UP?  Well, you should check out 
>thetip.org!
>
>>>>If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the 
>>>>facts
>>>>then you have already lost.
>>>
>>>
>>>Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>>
>>
>>I am not your apprentice.
>
>
>I know.  You've turned to the dark side.  "From my point of view, you're 
>the evil one." etc.
>
>>
>>>>Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
>>>>am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
>>>>facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>>>>how to bring him to account.
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots large-scale 
>>>impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats alike that 
>>>we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies and then make 
>>>sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so we'll have to 
>>>revamp the way people get and accept news because the major news services 
>>>in the United States are uninterested in this story.  We'd have to make 
>>>something internetty actually work.  If it's impossible at least we can 
>>>have said we'd tried and we didn't blow anything up.
>>>
>>>Start here:
>>>
>>>http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>>
>>>It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>>
>>
>>I started with the bloody question I asked you.
>
>
>And you didn't like my answers.  You wanted references.  Thankfully, I've 
>compiled a near encyclopedic source of references on specifically this 
>matter for the last few years which is available for your perusal online 
>-oh so convenient-.  Now that you've got your references you're refusing to 
>do the work of actually READING THEM.   This is typical of today's willful 
>ignorance of the attrocities committed daily by the US in Iraq and 
>Afghanistan.
>
>>Robbie Lindauer
>>
>>>www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>>
>>
>>I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
>>to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
>>It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.
>
>I have answered this question so many times, I'm tired of talking to people 
>straight about it.  If you ACTUALLY want to find out, you can, it's neatly 
>prepared for you and you know where.  It's telling that you don't actually 
>want to do this work for yourself.  If, however, you decide you DO want to 
>do the work and DO actually want to have something interesting to 
>contribute to this debate, you can start, thankfully, at thetip.org which 
>in addition to concentrating on specifically these (and closely related) 
>issues over the last few years manages to have them nicely categorized for 
>easy research and reference.
>
>Robbie Lindauer
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 20:23:49 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:23:49 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050712192730.53351.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712192730.53351.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D426D5.1020305@aol.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my
>>own.  I suggest a 
>>baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old
>>you are. 
>>    
>>
>
>For Pete's sake, Rob. Quit insulting Brett. 
>

Why, turnabout is fair play?

>Brett has
>very little stake in this debate.
>

Obviously, otherwise he'd have taken the time to inform himself about it.

> He is not some
>Republican defending Bush's actions, he is a complete
>outsider (in Australia) that is trying to form an
>unbiased opinion on the war.
>

Obviously not "unbiased".

> By your pointless
>name-calling, you are only serving to justify the low
>opinion that other nations have of us right now and
>furthermore you are making the OTHER side of the
>political spectrum more appealing to him by
>comparison.
>

Oh pleeze, grow up.  Have you ever watched parliament?  Poltics is 
UGLY.  The world has a low opinion of America BECAUSE of our 
administration not because there are lots of us complaining about it.  
That part they barely get to hear.

> Nobody has ever convinced anyone of
>anything by insulting them.
>  
>
I agree, but then I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone anymore.  
I'm just not willing to let the self-satisfied smugness of right-wing 
statist appologists (paid or unpaid) go unnoticed.

The rhetoric of the right BEGINS with ridicule, when people who aren't 
on the right fight back they complain - I say f-em.  And if you're as 
far off the left-right scale as me, nothing you say has much chance of 
-convincing- very many people at all.  But that's not why you say it.

Robbie



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 20:26:58 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:26:58 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F32736CB286541BACBAF843B4DF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F32736CB286541BACBAF843B4DF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42D42792.6060104@aol.com>

I'm just old enough to know that it started out useless.

But really, I did nicely categorize and cross reference the factual 
evidence in the case on thetip.org under the category "president george 
bush" which is easily found on the front page.  If you want a complete 
history of the matter (with most sources directly from the NY times, AP 
or other reputable internationally recognize news source, for the most 
part) it is available there for perusal with special emphasis ON THIS 
TOPIC.  I stated the broad-strokes.  For details, see the references.  
The fact that someone doesn't want to look up the references themselves 
only leads to a pointless conversation.

Robbie

Brian Lee wrote:

> I think it's really difficult to try to convince someone if you make 
> statements without linking to a source. A high level domain name 
> doesn't count (especially if it is your own site). That's like making 
> crazy statements and then backing it up by saying visit wikipedia.org 
> or nytimes.com or something else useless.
>
> Since this thread has lowered down to calling each other dumb-asses 
> and babies, perhaps it's utility is too low to deal with.
>
> BAL
>
>> From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied overIraq?  
>> Onwhatbasis?
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:55:45 -1000
>>
>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Check:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thetip.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain 
>>> name.
>>>
>>> But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
>>> wmd's in Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my own.  I suggest a 
>> baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old you are.
>>
>>>
>>> The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I 
>>> don't
>>> want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to 
>>> back up
>>> your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to 
>>> back up
>>> your assertion to be able to be persuasive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your point appears to be that I need to do your homework for you. But 
>> of course, anything I might say you'd want to see the sources for it, 
>> so there's thetip.org.  Do enjoy yourself while investigating the 
>> matter for yourself with an open mind.
>>
>>>>> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a 
>>>>> link o a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact what ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do, check thetip.org.
>>
>>>
>>>>> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>>>>> opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>>>> opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>>>> to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the 
>>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
>>>> http://www.thetip.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
>>> any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
>>> impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
>>> offence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the notion of impartial person is absurd - ask any experienced 
>> lawyer.
>>
>>>
>>>>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching 
>>>>> President George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>>>> are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get 
>>>>> their
>>>>> shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>>>>> is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but 
>>>>> interested person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to 
>>>> happen so it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole 
>>>> senate has sold its soul to that devil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're not aware of how the impeachment process works?
>>
>>>
>>>> All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm 
>>>> afraid, given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow 
>>>> anything up myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a 
>>>> character flaw or not.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not a citizen of the United States.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then this is none of your freekin' business.  Go away foreigner, go 
>> fix your own country.
>>
>>>
>>> Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
>>> like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
>>> of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
>>> political content make you an activist of sorts.
>>
>>
>>
>> You'd no doubt enjoy my saturday-afternoon peace parties :)
>>
>>>
>>> But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
>>> you are a nutter or not yet.
>>
>>
>> By who's standards?  I know lots of people who think I'm a nutter and 
>> lots of people who don't.  I find that when I say I prefer JR Lucas 
>> to Roger Penrose people think I'm crazy, well, I just like Lucas 
>> better, what can I say?
>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
>>> alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
>>> they can be worse.
>>
>>
>> Well, if you're looking for a job, I could use the help.  Perhaps 
>> someone to organize the site better for people who are extremely lazy 
>> and don't like having to actually use the search engine to find what 
>> they want?  Know php?
>>
>>>
>>> You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
>>> first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, 
>>> the
>>> first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
>>> about.
>>
>>
>>
>> See www.thetip.org.
>>
>>>
>>>>> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>>>> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>>>> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't 
>>> doubt
>>> that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is 
>>> available
>>> somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then 
>>> you'd
>>> have shown that your archive is useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please take 5 seconds out of your day to inform yourself about these 
>> things that you think you have something sufficiently important to 
>> say to make it worth listening to you debate it publicly.  See 
>> www.thetip.org for starters.  Also, GW said it several times on the 
>> radio.  Also nicely documented online at, you know where...
>>
>>>
>>>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had 
>>>> sought Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British 
>>>> and Americans to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice 
>>>> complete record with citations from the major news publications 
>>>> tracing back, oh, I dunno, just to the right time....).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, if you want to INFORM YOURSELF about a matter as important as 
>> this so that you'd have something useful to say about it, I suggest 
>> starting at thetip.org and then moving on to moveon.org and then just 
>> check the standard archives to make sure the references are valid.
>>
>>>
>>> Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then look it up yourself.  I OBVIOUSLY already did.
>>
>>> Only
>>> some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
>>> and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
>>> likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>>>
>>> However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
>>> to people to see for themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, please see www.thetip.org.  I agree this is a great goal.
>>
>>>
>>> Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough 
>>> if they
>>> have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
>>> site.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you're offering design help, send me your resume.
>>
>>>
>>>>> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What 
>>>>> evidence is
>>>>> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he 
>>>>> said it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to 
>>>> have gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, 
>>>> said so publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see 
>>>> www.thetip.org :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
>>> thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's a nice search engine.  And google has a nice feature where 
>> you can search within a site, it's really cool, it's kind of the 
>> modern way of researching news items quickly.  I suggest starting 
>> there if you can't get the search engine on my site to work for you.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>>>> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then 
>>>> the point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've 
>>>> heard the statement before:
>>>>
>>>> "The Buck Stops Here"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Harry Truman.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you don't see how this applies today?
>>
>>>
>>>> It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>>>
>>>>> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>>>> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's 
>>>> not suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's relevant to whether or not he keeps his oaths, counselor.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and 
>>>> the media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
>>> statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
>>> doubt.
>>
>>
>> Well, is the congress controlled by republicans?
>>
>> Is the media controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>>>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have 
>>>>>> the weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>>>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.
>>
>>
>>
>> What quote?   What are you ranting about now?  I'm telling you that 
>> David Kelly died -mysteriously- and that an MI5 lawyer admitted that 
>> he was killed on the radio.  This information is publicly available 
>> in many places including from the AP.  If you want to have something 
>> relevant to say about it, look it up.    Thankfully, you can start at 
>> thetip.org if you just don't have any idea about how to go about 
>> researching this matter.  Next, try the guardian online, it has the 
>> best David Kelly news archive available online.  You could also try 
>> writing to their editorial staff as well as to MI5 to ask them about 
>> the progress of their investigation.   Although they have yet to 
>> answer my letter on the matter.  Maybe you'll have better luck.
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just 
>>> raising
>>> a red herring issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, he was a whistle-blower who was actively involved on the ground 
>> in Iraq in UN weapons inspections who pointed out that there weren't 
>> any such things going on there.
>>
>>>
>>> 3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
>>> know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
>>> from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
>>> same post.
>>
>>
>>
>> I -genuinely- don't care what you think about me.  I mean what kind 
>> of person asks for links when the internet is FULL of links.  It's 
>> freekin' link christmas out there.  Here a link, there a link, 
>> everywhere a link, link.
>>
>>>>> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>>>> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>>>> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>>>>> the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice 
>>>> record of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over 
>>> Iraq?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes.  Read the sources, educate yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president 
>>>>>> and had said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>>>> they did it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
>>> you can find stuff in it yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no need to PROVE that I can find things in the site that I 
>> MADE.  I've enjoyed debating wacko-s over time on the internet.  
>> You're not a very good wacko though.  My favorite wacko isn't 
>> available for public debate any more.
>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place 
>>>> for no good reason :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
>>> agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, so that if someone with an open mind wanted to know what the 
>> details of these and other matters were, they could find the record 
>> there online quickly and easily.  Although recently I've decided that 
>> the ideological problem is more severe than the information problem.  
>> People KNOW that Bush is a war-mongering liar or they know that if 
>> they managed to look into the matter objectively they'd become 
>> convinced of it, they're just okay with it.  That's the problem I'd 
>> like to address now.  It appears to be your problem.  I once debated 
>> a "radio evangelist" about whether or not it was useful to ridicule 
>> homosexuals into becoming Christians (I didn't think so, he did.)  I 
>> am now testing the theory in an area with which I am familiar, seeing 
>> if ridiculing the populace of dumbfuckistan helps them in their quest 
>> for truth, justice and peace.
>>
>>> I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
>>> I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be 
>>> relevent at
>>> the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am 
>>> only
>>> interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
>>> in relation to specific questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you know, sometimes when you're researching a matter that's 
>> important to you, you've got to actually DO a little research for 
>> yourself.  Normally this is a skill they teach in American High 
>> Schools (although it's a little sketchy in some places).  It's 
>> certainly something you -should- have learned in college no matter 
>> which country you're from.
>>
>>>
>>> If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be 
>>> different
>>> but you haven't. Not with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, you're not the target, here, you're just a foil.  I've 
>> enjoyed our conversation :)
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any 
>>>>>> nuclear material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in 
>>>>>> the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not 
>>>>> that he was
>>>>> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person 
>>>> I speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
>>> doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which I've made over and over for years, as have many other people 
>> more "respectable" than me.  At this point, in general, I'm convinced 
>> that if someone WANTED to know, they'd have been able to find out for 
>> themselves in many, many ways.
>>
>>>
>>>> Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't 
>>>> manage to see past their own bile.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the 
>>>>>> matter was flatly false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort 
>>>>>> as a trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing 
>>>>>> Street Minutes the sources of which are not in question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street 
>>>>> Memo" by
>>>>> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is 
>>>>> important
>>>>> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove 
>>>>> to am
>>>>> impartial person?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not 
>>> sure is that
>>> nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So 
>>> perhaps
>>> there is something, some memo I missed.
>>
>>
>>
>> No doubt.  But you never know until you know, do you.  It's sad 
>> living in the dark like that, huh?
>>
>>>
>>>> Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now THAT's suprising!  If you have design or topical input to make, 
>> you can become a member and be on our email list, and if you have 
>> editorial you'd like to share with the world and if it's 
>> well-researched, moderately well-written and substantiated, I'll even 
>> put it on the site.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's 
>>>>>> very close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money 
>>>>>> in this effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through 
>>>>>> UDI) are doing well..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite right.  No mystery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
>>> facts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you unaware of how Haliburton is just RAKING IN THE DOUGH over 
>> there?  Or how UDI's orders are just UP-UP-UP?  Well, you should 
>> check out thetip.org!
>>
>>>>> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on 
>>>>> the facts
>>>>> then you have already lost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not your apprentice.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know.  You've turned to the dark side.  "From my point of view, 
>> you're the evil one." etc.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President 
>>>>> (and I
>>>>> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn 
>>>>> on the
>>>>> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>>>>> how to bring him to account.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots 
>>>> large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and 
>>>> democrats alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration 
>>>> and it's lies and then make sure that they don't get elected and in 
>>>> order to do so we'll have to revamp the way people get and accept 
>>>> news because the major news services in the United States are 
>>>> uninterested in this story.  We'd have to make something internetty 
>>>> actually work.  If it's impossible at least we can have said we'd 
>>>> tried and we didn't blow anything up.
>>>>
>>>> Start here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>>>
>>>> It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I started with the bloody question I asked you.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you didn't like my answers.  You wanted references.  Thankfully, 
>> I've compiled a near encyclopedic source of references on 
>> specifically this matter for the last few years which is available 
>> for your perusal online -oh so convenient-.  Now that you've got your 
>> references you're refusing to do the work of actually READING THEM.   
>> This is typical of today's willful ignorance of the attrocities 
>> committed daily by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>
>>> Robbie Lindauer
>>>
>>>> www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
>>> to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
>>> It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.
>>
>>
>> I have answered this question so many times, I'm tired of talking to 
>> people straight about it.  If you ACTUALLY want to find out, you can, 
>> it's neatly prepared for you and you know where.  It's telling that 
>> you don't actually want to do this work for yourself.  If, however, 
>> you decide you DO want to do the work and DO actually want to have 
>> something interesting to contribute to this debate, you can start, 
>> thankfully, at thetip.org which in addition to concentrating on 
>> specifically these (and closely related) issues over the last few 
>> years manages to have them nicely categorized for easy research and 
>> reference.
>>
>> Robbie Lindauer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Jul 12 20:30:10 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:30:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <20050712185636.61324.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712185636.61324.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D42852.6000606@jefallbright.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>When plastic surgery becomes as commonplace as fast food, ubiquitous
>surveillance is meaningless. Both will occur about the same time.
>  
>
And then, agents who wished to interact within population centers or 
other relevant real-world locations would be expected to voluntarily 
cooperate with identification processes in return for the shared benefits.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net





From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 12 20:48:01 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:48:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050712192242.6258.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712192242.6258.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D42C81.6080906@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>don't really need a byzantine hodgepodge of republics,
>>>democracies, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies,
>>>theocracies, and dictatorships on our planet to
>>>maintain cultural diversity. We just need universal
>>>freedom. The Muslims in the U.S. are just as Islamic
>>>as the ones in the Middle East, they just happen to be
>>>free and tolerant.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I beg to differ.
>>Most people, let alone Moslems, are not 'free and tolerant'.
>>    
>>
>
>That is mighty intolerant and unenlightened of you.
>  
>
Well, BooHooo

>>>     If you REALLY believe that we should suffer the
>>>existence of archaic forms of government in far flung
>>>corners of the world, then we should go all the way
>>>set them up as "historical anthropological preserves"
>>>and forbid the transfer of technology beyond that of
>>>agrarian societies into their borders.
>>>    I don't trust caliphs and sheiks to wield germs
>>>and nukes responsibly, not with what they have shown
>>>me so far.   
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So in your future there is really only One Culture - The American
>>Way.
>>In the end we all need to control the bit of turf we stand upon,
>>whether metaphorical or literal. Territoriality is not going to
>>disappear in the future. Or at least, not in my future, which
>>obvious differs from yours.
>>That two Transhumanists should be in such conflict is less an irony
>>and more a prophecy.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, if we are going to chat about 'diversity', shall we ask what the
>point is of diversity? The only positive value of diversity, beyond
>  
>
Er... freedom.
Most especially so when we transcend our biology.
I would have thought a libertarian might have spotted that one - I was 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Jul 12 20:52:21 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:52:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>
	<057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <A748A309-C1F8-4D0F-931F-DE89F45924A5@bonfireproductions.com>


Here, let me try.

Not that it matters at this point, because opinions solidified long  
before this 'discussion'.


Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. As we all know, and he  
used them on his own people. [1]

A sparse amount of sarin and mustard gas, was found scattered about  
in 2004. [2]

Iraq had an existing infrastructure for the construction and  
deployment of said weapons. [3]

Saddam liked to bury stuff out in fields. [4]


Those are a few facts, each cited below, with varying degrees of  
credibility.


Someone can no more prove that Bush 'knew he was lying' about WMDs  
than I can prove that Saddam moved his weapons over the Syrian border  
in the long buildup to the invasion. Or that Russian technicians were  
still installing electronic countermeasures in Baghdad when the US  
attacked. Or that those Russian technicians preferred boxers over  
briefs.

I can infer with the above points. No more, no less.

I can guess boxers.



]3


-----

[1] scholar.google.com:

Experiencing chemical warfare: Two physicians tell their story of  
Halabja in Northern Iraq
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_jrn_of_rural_medicine/2004/ 
cjrm_9-3/0178.htm

Historical Security Council Topic A: The need for UN intervention as  
a result of Iraq?s invasion...
http://www.immuns.org/2004BackgroundPapers/English/Historical% 
2520Security%2520Council/hsc_a.pdf


[2] various news outlets, May 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.duelfer/index.html


[3] Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/photos/3.htm


[4] The Mig Dig:
http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.09relcontinfo/ 
09.37.NwsfmIrq.htm



On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Robbie Lindauer wrote:
>
>
>>>> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is  
>>>> what Mr. Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American  
>>>> Public.  He (powell) is later quoted as having said in a  
>>>> briefing "I'm not reading this bulshit".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the  
>>> American
>>> Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I  
>>> suspect that I could find that evidence but why should I try to  
>>> if you won't get it for me?  What's your responsibility as a  
>>> citizen in your political system? And if I won't make the effort  
>>> and you won't make the effort what does that mean?
>>>
>>
>> Check:
>>
>> http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>
> I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain  
> name.
>
> But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there  
> are
> wmd's in Iraq.
>
> The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.   
> I don't
> want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to  
> back up
> your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to  
> back up
> your assertion to be able to be persuasive.
>
>
>> Don't forget to check with your local nameservice provider too.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. I checked that you, Robert Lindauer,
> own the domain name THETIP.ORG.
>
>
>>> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a  
>>> link o a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact...
>>
>
> As a matter of fact what ?
>
>
>>> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of  
>>> opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>> opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>> to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on  
>>> the facts.
>>>
>>
>> The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try http:// 
>> www.thetip.org/
>>
>
> The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
> any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
> impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
> offence.
>
>
>>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching  
>>> President George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>> are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get  
>>> their
>>> shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive  
>>> case
>>> is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but  
>>> interested person.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to  
>> happen so it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole  
>> senate has sold its soul to that devil.
>>
>
> I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.
>
>
>> All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm  
>> afraid, given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow  
>> anything up myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's  
>> a character flaw or not.)
>>
>
> I am not a citizen of the United States.
>
> Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
> like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
> of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site  
> with
> political content make you an activist of sorts.
>
> But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
> you are a nutter or not yet.
>
> Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they  
> act
> alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
> they can be worse.
>
>
>>>> The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on  
>>>> reading given that we obviously didn't know that there were  
>>>> weapons of the relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there,  
>>>> right?)  Or did he have further intelligence revealed to him.   
>>>> If so, where is it?   I mean, if we KNEW where there were, we'd  
>>>> have found them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not a question I am asking that's a diversion you are  
>>> throwing up.
>>>
>>
>> No, it's a fact in evidence.
>>
>
> You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
> first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to  
> pose, the
> first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually  
> talking
> about.
>
>
>>> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>>
>>
>> Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>>
>
> I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't  
> doubt
> that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is  
> available
> somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then  
> you'd
> have shown that your archive is useful.
>
>
>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had  
>> sought Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British  
>> and Americans to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice  
>> complete record with citations from the major news publications  
>> tracing back, oh, I dunno, just to the right time....).
>>
>
> I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.
>
> Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time. Only
> some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
> and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
> likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>
> However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
> to people to see for themselves.
>
> Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough  
> if they
> have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
> site.
>
>
>>> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What  
>>> evidence is
>>> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he  
>>> said it.
>>>
>>
>> Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to  
>> have gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again,  
>> said so publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see  
>> www.thetip.org :)
>>
>
> Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the  
> whole
> thing.
>
>
>>> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but  
>> then the point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure  
>> you've heard the statement before:
>>
>> "The Buck Stops Here"
>>
>
> Yes. Harry Truman.
>
>
>> It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>
>>
>>> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>>
>>
>> He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too,  
>> it's not suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>>
>
> This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.
>
>
>>>  Its already clear that
>>> international law duly ratified by congress (which includes the UN
>>> Charter) is also US law and that that US Supreme Court has
>>> jurisidiction over US law.
>>>
>>> It is already clear that there is nothing within the UN Charter  
>>> which
>>> permits a pre-emptive war without a Security Council Resolution
>>> and therefore also within US law. Its already clear that the  
>>> Security
>>> Council did not authorise the Invasion of Iraq. Even if they (the
>>> Security Council) did it retrospectively that would not change that
>>> it was illegal under US law at the time for the US President to
>>> break the UN Charter which is part of US law and a part of the
>>> hardwon birthright of all US citizens, not just the one that happens
>>> to be President.
>>>
>>> Seems to me that all that remains to be proven is that George W
>>> Bush was acting in active bad faith rather than mere run of the mill
>>> incompetence for the clearest possible case for impeachment to
>>> be made.
>>>
>>> If President George W Bush deliberately took the US to war on
>>> a lie or a misrepresentation AND THAT CAN BE SHOWN then
>>> you will have grounds for impeachment and as a US citizen you
>>> should expect impeachment to happen.
>>>
>>
>> Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones  
>> and the media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>
> I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
> statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
> doubt.
>
>
>>>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't  
>>>> have the weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>>
>
> 1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.
>
> 2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just  
> raising
> a red herring issue.
>
> 3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
> know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
> from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
> same post.
>
>
>>> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to  
>>> succeed,
>>> the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>>
>>
>> Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice  
>> record of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>>
>
> Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over  
> Iraq?
>
>
>>>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president  
>>>> and had said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>> they did it?
>>>
>>
>> Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>>
>
> No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me  
> that
> you can find stuff in it yourself.
>
>
>> I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place  
>> for no good reason :)
>>
>
> Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
> agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?
>
> I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
> I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be  
> relevent at
> the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am  
> only
> interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
> in relation to specific questions.
>
> If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be  
> different
> but you haven't. Not with me.
>
>
>>>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any  
>>>> nuclear material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in  
>>>> the matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not  
>>> that he was
>>> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial  
>> person I speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>>
>
> Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
> doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.
>
>
>> Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't  
>> manage to see past their own bile.
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the  
>>>> matter was flatly false.
>>>>
>>>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort  
>>>> as a trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing  
>>>> Street Minutes the sources of which are not in question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street  
>>> Memo" by
>>> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is  
>>> important
>>> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes  
>>> prove to am
>>> impartial person?
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not  
> sure is that
> nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested.  
> So perhaps
> there is something, some memo I missed.
>
>
>> Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>>
>
> I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.
>
>
>>>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's  
>>>> very close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money  
>>>> in this effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through  
>>>> UDI) are doing well..
>>>>
>>>
>>> "mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>>
>>
>> Quite right.  No mystery.
>>
>
> I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked  
> for
> facts.
>
>
>>>> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy- 
>>>> theory bullshit because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes  
>>>> the administration's position in the matter is a nutso-commie- 
>>>> conspiracy-theorist OR you could say "well, there appears to be  
>>>> a significant amount of evidence that Bush really wanted to go  
>>>> to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this wouldn't  
>>>> be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If you  
>>>> like this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.   
>>>> It's normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for  
>>>> $30,000 cash.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You miss the point. There is a perfectly good mechanism for  
>>> impeaching
>>> a President in the Constitution. *If* there is grounds for doing it.
>>>
>>
>> Not if the congress is controlled by the President's party along  
>> with the Supreme Court, you idiot.
>>
>>
>>> But a million flapping traps don't add up to a case. Some *one*  
>>> or some
>>> *ones* have to put the case together. Once the case is put  
>>> together the
>>> million flapping traps can help create the political will to make  
>>> sure that it is
>>> considered but it will not and should not succeed in impeaching a  
>>> President
>>> unless the case is made.
>>>
>>
>> Well, as I recall during the last Republican Impeachment Effort,  
>> no evidence was required to start the proceeding at all, just the  
>> political will.
>>
>>
>>> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds  
>>> on the facts
>>> then you have already lost.
>>>
>>
>> Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>>
>
> I am not your apprentice.
>
>
>>> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President  
>>> (and I
>>> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn  
>>> on the
>>> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue  
>>> about
>>> how to bring him to account.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots  
>> large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and  
>> democrats alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration  
>> and it's lies and then make sure that they don't get elected and  
>> in order to do so we'll have to revamp the way people get and  
>> accept news because the major news services in the United States  
>> are uninterested in this story.  We'd have to make something  
>> internetty actually work.  If it's impossible at least we can have  
>> said we'd tried and we didn't blow anything up.
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>
>> It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>>
>
> I started with the bloody question I asked you.
>
>
>>
>> Robbie Lindauer
>> www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>>
>
> I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
> to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
> It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.
>
> 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  Tue Jul 12 21:09:34 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D426D5.1020305@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050712210934.66204.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> >
> >For Pete's sake, Rob. Quit insulting Brett. 
> >
> 
> Why, turnabout is fair play?
> 
I was unaware that Brett started it. That seems to be
rather uncharacteristic of Brett.


> >Brett has
> >very little stake in this debate.
> >
> Obviously, otherwise he'd have taken the time to
> inform himself about it.

I don't know about that. He seems to be better
informed than the average American voter. And that's a
sad sorry shame.

> 
> > He is not some
> >Republican defending Bush's actions, he is a
> complete
> >outsider (in Australia) that is trying to form an
> >unbiased opinion on the war.
> >
> 
> Obviously not "unbiased".

No sentient being is completely unbiased about
anything. That is WHY they call it self-interest. For
what it's worth, however, I think it is critical for
America to realize that alleged crimes by a President
and a major land war, justified or not, trumps
politics in general any distinction of left or right
is mute. If Bush were a Democrat, I would still be
outraged by his actions. It is time to start thinking
about how WE THE PEOPLE are going to survive this
mess.



> 
> > By your pointless
> >name-calling, you are only serving to justify the
> low
> >opinion that other nations have of us right now and
> >furthermore you are making the OTHER side of the
> >political spectrum more appealing to him by
> >comparison.
> >
> 
> Oh pleeze, grow up.  Have you ever watched
> parliament?  Poltics is 
> UGLY.  The world has a low opinion of America
> BECAUSE of our 
> administration not because there are lots of us
> complaining about it.  
> That part they barely get to hear.

Politics is ugly. But nowhere near as ugly as war.
Insulting the other side in a debate is great
rhetorical trick on a playground. Intelligent adults,
however, just realize it means you don't have anything
more substantive to say.

> > Nobody has ever convinced anyone of
> >anything by insulting them.
> >  
> >
> I agree, but then I said, I'm not trying to convince
> anyone anymore.  
> I'm just not willing to let the self-satisfied
> smugness of right-wing 
> statist appologists (paid or unpaid) go unnoticed.

Then your cause is already lost. And in as much as I
want a speedy peaceful resolution to this mess and
oath-breakers to be brought to justice, I suppose mine
is too.

> 
> The rhetoric of the right BEGINS with ridicule, when
> people who aren't 
> on the right fight back they complain - I say f-em. 
> And if you're as 
> far off the left-right scale as me, nothing you say
> has much chance of 
> -convincing- very many people at all.  But that's
> not why you say it.

It's not the one who begins a conflict that wins but
the one who ends it. If your cake of "truth" is
frosted with insults, nobody will eat it. There were a
great many undecideds before the last election, if the
right is telling everyone you are a conspiracy nutter
and you begin your sales pitch with "Hey, Stupid . .
." you are doing more harm to your cause then 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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Tue Jul 12 21:15:07 2005
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:15:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42D432DB.2070504@mail.tele.dk>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
> back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
> constant monitoring of everybody.


35000 GB or 35 Terabytes can record everything you experience 24/7 for a 
year in DV quality. Compress that a bit more to DIV-X quality and you 
need only 4400 GB per year. Cut out your sleeping time, and you need 
about 2900 GB.

So with current harddisk prices, it will cost $1800 a year to record 
everything you experince in near DVD quality.

With the current development of wireless, storage etc. it is not even 
far out. It can be done right now, and will only get simpler and cheaper 
in the future!

The only things missing are lightweight allways-on video cameras, and 
automation of the storage compression process ... and a bit of money.

-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 21:10:42 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:10:42 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <A748A309-C1F8-4D0F-931F-DE89F45924A5@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>	<057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<A748A309-C1F8-4D0F-931F-DE89F45924A5@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <42D431D2.2040007@aol.com>

Good!

So let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical and 
biological weapons arsenal (prrovided him for the most part by Americans 
during the long-time Iraqi-American Alliance against Russia and Iran 
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm and 
other places, including, of course, thetip.org... ) that was virtually 
eradicated by the long-term UN inspections regime and/or then removed 
from the country when we threatened to invade, the potential danger to 
the US of such weapons was negligible OR at best was something that was 
solvable through the political process (and would have been solved had 
the US simply continued to press its case in the UN and required 
expanded UN inspection regimes, for instance).  Still the question is 
the case for war.  If Iraq moved the weapons out of the country as a 
result of the US attack, (instead of USING THEM, DUH!, like they did 
last time, DUH!) then our threat level was intensified by the 
dissemination of the weapons into even less stable hands (people who 
smuggle biological and chemical weapons out of Iraq and into Syria, fo 
instance).  Then we still killed lots of civilians without achieving our 
goal of reducing the threat, in fact, increasing the threat because now 
all those WMD's are in the hands of the devil we don't know instead of 
the one we knew.

So, again, given that we had other options than killing lots of people 
and launching us into an occupation quagmire, we should not have gone to 
war but instead continued the intensified political action.

But we still have the problem of "we KNOW that they have weapons" - not 
we think or we have some good guesses, but "we KNOW", is still a lie, 
used to gather support for the war.  Especially the part about aquiring 
nuclear material in Niger.  This aspect of the administration's position 
remains inexplicable.  What happened to the evidence we had?  Where are 
the weapons they said they knew where they were? 

Meanwhile we lose a coupla billion dollars to Haliburton in the process 
while Cheney continues to recieve his million-dollar-a-year pension.

Hmmm, I buy it.

Robbie



Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> Here, let me try.
>
> Not that it matters at this point, because opinions solidified long  
> before this 'discussion'.
>
>
> Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. As we all know, and he  
> used them on his own people. [1]
>
> A sparse amount of sarin and mustard gas, was found scattered about  
> in 2004. [2]
>
> Iraq had an existing infrastructure for the construction and  
> deployment of said weapons. [3]
>
> Saddam liked to bury stuff out in fields. [4]
>
>
> Those are a few facts, each cited below, with varying degrees of  
> credibility.
>
>
> Someone can no more prove that Bush 'knew he was lying' about WMDs  
> than I can prove that Saddam moved his weapons over the Syrian border  
> in the long buildup to the invasion. Or that Russian technicians were  
> still installing electronic countermeasures in Baghdad when the US  
> attacked. Or that those Russian technicians preferred boxers over  
> briefs.
>
> I can infer with the above points. No more, no less.
>
> I can guess boxers.
>
>
>
> ]3
>
>



From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 12 21:16:58 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:16:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050712205536.88159.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712205536.88159.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D4334A.5080104@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>>Well, if we are going to chat about 'diversity', shall we ask what
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>point is of diversity? The only positive value of diversity, beyond
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Er... freedom.
>>Most especially so when we transcend our biology.
>>I would have thought a libertarian might have spotted that one - I
>>was wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>Diversity does not equal freedom. Forced protection of diversity is
>decidely anti-freedom, as the denizens of any American university
>campus can confirm. Diversity either exists freely because of the
>market, or it is not freedom enhancing. Government mandated diversity
>is little more than some thug holding multi-colored sock puppets up to
>the camera (with a gun in their backs, generally) for propaganda value.
>Stop conflating turds with sausages.
>
>  
>
So in your view there should only be *one* Trans/PostHumanity?
You aren't in favour of allowing a speciation ie diversification, to 
take place prompted by people like me?

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 21:19:54 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:19:54 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050712210934.66204.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050712210934.66204.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D433FA.1080602@aol.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>I was unaware that Brett started it. That seems to be
>rather uncharacteristic of Brett.
>  
>

The mere existence of someone who would continue to even try to make the 
case for the Bush administration at this point is an insult to free 
people everywhere.

>  
>
>>>Brett has
>>>very little stake in this debate.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Obviously, otherwise he'd have taken the time to
>>inform himself about it.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know about that. He seems to be better
>informed than the average American voter. And that's a
>sad sorry shame.
>  
>

Maybe, but then why ask for references when he knows (a) that they're 
available with a 30-second google search and (b) that I've got a website 
chock full of them (mostly clips from the AP!).

>  
>
>>>He is not some
>>>Republican defending Bush's actions, he is a
>>>      
>>>
>>complete
>>    
>>
>>>outsider (in Australia) that is trying to form an
>>>unbiased opinion on the war.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Obviously not "unbiased".
>>    
>>
>
>No sentient being is completely unbiased about
>anything. That is WHY they call it self-interest. For
>what it's worth, however, I think it is critical for
>America to realize that alleged crimes by a President
>and a major land war, justified or not, trumps
>politics in general any distinction of left or right
>is mute. If Bush were a Democrat, I would still be
>outraged by his actions. It is time to start thinking
>about how WE THE PEOPLE are going to survive this
>mess.
>  
>
Me too.  I can't stand those democrats, the wimpiest opposition party in 
the history of opposition parties. 

And I agree, who cares about the politics, what about the stacks of 
shocked-and-awed to death Iraqis?

>
>
>  
>
>>>By your pointless
>>>name-calling, you are only serving to justify the
>>>      
>>>
>>low
>>    
>>
>>>opinion that other nations have of us right now and
>>>furthermore you are making the OTHER side of the
>>>political spectrum more appealing to him by
>>>comparison.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Oh pleeze, grow up.  Have you ever watched
>>parliament?  Poltics is 
>>UGLY.  The world has a low opinion of America
>>BECAUSE of our 
>>administration not because there are lots of us
>>complaining about it.  
>>That part they barely get to hear.
>>    
>>
>
>Politics is ugly. But nowhere near as ugly as war.
>Insulting the other side in a debate is great
>rhetorical trick on a playground. Intelligent adults,
>however, just realize it means you don't have anything
>more substantive to say.
>  
>

No.  At some point all of the relevant facts are laid on the table and 
you still have a disagreement.  At that point, producing more facts in 
evidence is useless, the only thing to do is start slinging mudd.  In 
general, the republicans start slinging first, I was just switching it 
up a little - figured I'd start slinging first this time, I've done the 
whole produce facts thing.  The point is that THEY don't give a crap 
about the facts.  THEY like the bloodshed and false sense of security 
that our administration has provided.

>>>Nobody has ever convinced anyone of
>>>anything by insulting them.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I agree, but then I said, I'm not trying to convince
>>anyone anymore.  
>>I'm just not willing to let the self-satisfied
>>smugness of right-wing 
>>statist appologists (paid or unpaid) go unnoticed.
>>    
>>
>
>Then your cause is already lost. And in as much as I
>want a speedy peaceful resolution to this mess and
>oath-breakers to be brought to justice, I suppose mine
>is too.
>  
>

Pretty much.  But maybe I'm just not playing that game.  Maybe I'm 
playing a different game.

>>The rhetoric of the right BEGINS with ridicule, when
>>people who aren't 
>>on the right fight back they complain - I say f-em. 
>>And if you're as 
>>far off the left-right scale as me, nothing you say
>>has much chance of 
>>-convincing- very many people at all.  But that's
>>not why you say it.
>>    
>>
>
>It's not the one who begins a conflict that wins but
>the one who ends it. If your cake of "truth" is
>frosted with insults, nobody will eat it. There were a
>great many undecideds before the last election, if the
>right is telling everyone you are a conspiracy nutter
>and you begin your sales pitch with "Hey, Stupid . .
>." you are doing more harm to your cause then good.
>  
>

Well, as I see it, the Democrats/Opposition have calmly and patiently 
made this case sufficiently well for two years and at this point the 
only relevant opening salvo for those unwilling to throw 
punches/missiles/bullets is "jane you ignorant slut".

I mean, it's not like I'm trying to get Republicans to LIKE ME!

Robbie


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 21:32:23 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:32:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceDev Microsat to Travel InterPlanetary
	Superhighway to The Moon
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071214322024fc92@mail.gmail.com>

<http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050712005435&newsLang=en>

POWAY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 12, 2005--SpaceDev (OTCBB: SPDV)
has been awarded a contract by Andrews Space of Seattle to design a
small spacecraft that will be the first ever to travel to the vicinity
of the Moon through a gravity tunnel that is part of the
InterPlanetary Superhighway (IPS), a route which requires
significantly less fuel than conventional trajectories. The overall
program is to design, develop, launch, and operate a small low-cost
spacecraft, called SmallTug, on a mission to the Lunar L1 point to
demonstrate key technologies and advanced orbital mechanics in support
of NASA's human and robotic exploration of the Moon and Mars.

etc.....

For more info on the InterPlanetary Superhighway, see:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Superhighway>

The Interplanetary Superhighway has come to denote a set of transfer
orbits between various planets and moons in the solar system. These
transfers have particularly low delta-v requirements, and appear to be
the lowest energy transfers, even lower than the common Hohmann
transfer orbit that has dominated orbital dynamics in the past.

etc.......


BillK


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jul 12 22:16:48 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology 
In-Reply-To: <380-22005721219464784@M2W054.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050712221648.75707.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> ExI is not involved in this event

One of the problems of publically leading ExI, is that even personal
public appearances on policy issues can be seen as lending the
legitimacy of the organization.  I understand that this is not what you
meant to convey, but please be aware of this.

> and there is no connection to any
> sort of
> endorsement of the Precautionary Principle.

Most global regulatory frameworks, in practice, are implicitly based on
the Precautionary Principle.  This was perhaps the core of the
disconnect.

> Adrian, there are several extremely important reasons for being
> involved in
> the event's webcast.  First and foremost and of *immediate
> importance* is
> to introduce and promote the "Proactionary Principle".

If that really is what you intend, then I salute you, and wish you good
luck.  The way the announcement was phrased, in particular the word
choices that coincided with the word choices of Precautionary Principle
advocates, strongly implied the exact opposite.  Since this is not what
you meant to convey, it is something you may wish to consider when
crafting such announcements in the future.


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jul 12 23:23:07 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:23:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Many eyes
In-Reply-To: <42D432DB.2070504@mail.tele.dk>
References: <20050710234319.68842.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D1C092.5010307@cox.net>	<42D1C428.1020602@humanenhancement.com>	<874D26A4-40BC-4167-9BDC-231297EC1717@mac.com>	<5d74f9c7050711112171e75620@mail.gmail.com>	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507111456550.-210905@pentium.mb.willtown.net>	<42D31D80.3040009@cox.net>
	<42D432DB.2070504@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <42D450DB.4020206@cox.net>

Max M wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
>> back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
>> constant monitoring of everybody.
>
>
>
> 35000 GB or 35 Terabytes can record everything you experience 24/7 for 
> a year in DV quality. Compress that a bit more to DIV-X quality and 
> you need only 4400 GB per year. Cut out your sleeping time, and you 
> need about 2900 GB.
>
> So with current harddisk prices, it will cost $1800 a year to record 
> everything you experince in near DVD quality.

Actually, storage costs are decreasing as about 50% per year, so the 
total lifetime cost will be $3600 if you start this year. 
($1800+$900+$450+....)

>
> With the current development of wireless, storage etc. it is not even 
> far out. It can be done right now, and will only get simpler and 
> cheaper in the future!

Yes, but I'm not sure I understand your system model. Storage lets you 
monitor your (past) self. I assume that you are thinking of these other 
technologies as part of the pervasive monitoring infrastructure. We can 
monitor each human for $3600 for storage, plus the actual cost of the 
monitoring infrastructure. the monitoring infrastructure comprises the 
ubiquitous stealthy data network and the actual monitors.

>
> The only things missing are lightweight allways-on video cameras, and 
> automation of the storage compression process ... and a bit of money.
>
Automation of the compression process is ongoing. Cheap, low-cost tiny 
video cam technology is being driven by cell phones. This adds up to 
pervasive surveillance at the point when the damn things are so cheap 
that they can be scattered by the millions. Assume we need on average 
1000 cameras per human (say 800 unique to the human and 200 for that 
human's contribution to monitoring of public spaces.) If we drive the 
unit cost down to $10, we are in range of a pervasive monitoring 
infrastructure. An individual monitor is a robot with a camera and 
microphone that can act as a node of the stealth network. It hides like 
a cockroach, and gets energy from organic matter like a cockroach. It 
talks to all its little friends using the stealthiest means at its 
disposal. Its size is constrained primarily by its optical lens. It 
would cost about $1000/unit to build today, and it would be too big to 
be useful. It will cost about $100 in 5ive years and might be feasible. 
It will coat $10 in ten years and will be small enough to hide.

Can you find and destroy these devices faster than I can deploy them? I 
don't know.




From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jul 13 00:10:34 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:10:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <20050712221648.75707.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <380-22005721219464784@M2W054.mail2web.com>
	<20050712221648.75707.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712190732.03c05000@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/41026502/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 13 00:14:14 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712190732.03c05000@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050713001414.53708.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Adrian, I appreciate your expressing your perceptions of the
> announcement. I do want to note that *we* didn't craft the
announcement
> at all. I merely forwarded the information provided by the organizer.
> With hindsight, I see that perhaps I should have added acomment.

In that case - and I'm 90% certain you know this already, but it bears
repeating ;) - watch out, in case that perception really was what the
organizer meant to imply, and what the organizer intends to convey.

Good luck.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 00:47:37 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues
In-Reply-To: <42D3E6A8.3060104@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20050713004737.90726.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- David <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote: 
> c c wrote:
> > Of all the posters here, the one I have the least in common with is
> Mike Lorrey yet he is
>    the easiest to communicate with because he is so direct.
> > Samantha on the other hand is far too slippery i.e. a few weeks ago
> >she said she would join the resistance in Iraq if she knew what was
> >occurring there on the ground. However she has no intention of
> >joining in any part of any resistance in Iraq, and if she did she
> > would be captured, taken to a tent, and violated. How can you take
> > someone's posts seriously when they are so evasive?
> > 
> 
> What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in
> the resistance and consider those cops turncoats to their own
people."
> 
> Try re-reading the first four words. Especially the first one.

This is still slippery as c c says, for the simple reason that Samantha
doesn't detail *what sort of Iraqi* she would be that would consider
those cops turncoats to their own people. Did she consider the Baathist
cops who participated in the gassing, kidnapping, rape, and murder of
their own people under Saddam "turncoats". Since the native insurgents
are almost entirely such baathists, who are now permanently barred from
holding office or other positions in government, what made them
turncoats before the invasion, but patriotic heroes afterward?
Samantha, would a Kurd consider a baathist sunni arab a hero and his
fellow kurdish police 'turncoats'? Would a shiite who fought against
Saddam in 1991 consider the baathist police who murdered his family
heroes while his fellow shiite police are now 'turncoats'?
 
Please, Samantha, these are important questions that inquiring minds
want to know....

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 dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jul 13 00:57:54 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:57:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nam
In-Reply-To: <20050713001009.69637.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713001009.69637.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D46712.9080506@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Well, if we are going to chat about 'diversity', shall we ask what
>>>>>the point is of diversity? 
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Er... freedom.
>>>>Most especially so when we transcend our biology.
>>>>I would have thought a libertarian might have spotted that one - I
>>>>was wrong.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Diversity does not equal freedom. Forced protection of diversity is
>>>decidely anti-freedom, as the denizens of any American university
>>>campus can confirm. Diversity either exists freely because of the
>>>market, or it is not freedom enhancing. Government mandated
>>>diversity is little more than some thug holding multi-colored sock
>>>puppets up to the camera (with a gun in their backs, generally)
>>>for propaganda value.
>>>Stop conflating turds with sausages.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So in your view there should only be *one* Trans/PostHumanity?
>>You aren't in favour of allowing a speciation ie diversification, to 
>>take place prompted by people like me?
>>    
>>
>
>I have no problem at all with what you propose. I have a problem with
>wasting stolen resources on uncompetitive species or cultures that
>consume more value than they produce, and regress more than they
>progress. Earn your way or evolve to do so.
>
>The only trans/post-humanity I have a problem with are involuntary
>borg-like types. As such entities do not recognise the right of others
>to transcend as they wish, borgs do not have such a right (particularly
>as they are communities, not individuals).
>
>  
>
I have no such proiblems with hive minds.
I think that is what all groupings within a few light seconds will 
evolve into.
The future is of Earth and all planetary bodies is deep Red.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 13 00:56:40 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:56:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues
In-Reply-To: <20050713004737.90726.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713004737.90726.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <757E35F0-218D-4FEF-A5ED-406D59424DE0@mac.com>

I clarified at the time the purpose and the intent of my statements.   
This latter day second guessing is loathsome and not worth my time to  
respond to further.

- samantha

On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- David <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> c c wrote:
>>
>>> Of all the posters here, the one I have the least in common with is
>>>
>> Mike Lorrey yet he is
>>    the easiest to communicate with because he is so direct.
>>
>>> Samantha on the other hand is far too slippery i.e. a few weeks ago
>>> she said she would join the resistance in Iraq if she knew what was
>>> occurring there on the ground. However she has no intention of
>>> joining in any part of any resistance in Iraq, and if she did she
>>> would be captured, taken to a tent, and violated. How can you take
>>> someone's posts seriously when they are so evasive?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in
>> the resistance and consider those cops turncoats to their own
>>
> people."
>
>>
>> Try re-reading the first four words. Especially the first one.
>>
>
> This is still slippery as c c says, for the simple reason that  
> Samantha
> doesn't detail *what sort of Iraqi* she would be that would consider
> those cops turncoats to their own people. Did she consider the  
> Baathist
> cops who participated in the gassing, kidnapping, rape, and murder of
> their own people under Saddam "turncoats". Since the native insurgents
> are almost entirely such baathists, who are now permanently barred  
> from
> holding office or other positions in government, what made them
> turncoats before the invasion, but patriotic heroes afterward?
> Samantha, would a Kurd consider a baathist sunni arab a hero and his
> fellow kurdish police 'turncoats'? Would a shiite who fought against
> Saddam in 1991 consider the baathist police who murdered his family
> heroes while his fellow shiite police are now 'turncoats'?
>
> Please, Samantha, these are important questions that inquiring minds
> want to know....
>
> 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jul 13 01:05:10 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:05:10 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?	Onwhatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com><057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D41231.4060901@aol.com>
Message-ID: <05d701c58746$eac3ad00$0d98e03c@homepc>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Check:
>>>
>>> http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>> I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain name.
>>
>> But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
>> wmd's in Iraq.
>
>
> Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my own.  I suggest a 
> baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old you are.
>>
>> The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I 
>> don't
>> want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to back up
>> your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to back up
>> your assertion to be able to be persuasive.
>
>
> Your point appears to be that I need to do your homework for you.

No that wasn't my point.  My point was that to persuade me you have
to do the work of substantiating your specific claims. I am not going to
scramble around in something you've called thetip.  There is a further point
that I didn't mention because I shouldn't have to. In speaking to you I
was evaluating you. Your style, your effectiveness, your potential as an
ally.

The questions that I ask I can usually answer for myself. But I have enough
personal political experience to know that that is not the point. The
information has to be able to get to the people that will decide on it in a
form that will faciliate the desired decision.

> But of course, anything I might say you'd want to see the sources for it, 
> so there's thetip.org.  Do enjoy yourself while investigating the matter 
> for yourself with an open mind.
>>>> Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link 
>>>> o a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact...
>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact what ?
>
>
> Do, check thetip.org.

No.  It is irrelevant to me now.  It's yours and I don't trust it.

>>>> What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>>>> opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>>> opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>>> to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the 
>>>> facts.
>>>
>>>
>>> The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
>>> http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>> The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
>> any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
>> impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
>> offence.
>
>
> Yes, the notion of impartial person is absurd - ask any experienced 
> lawyer.
>
>>
>>>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching 
>>>> President George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>>> are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their
>>>> shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>>>> is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but interested 
>>>> person.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
>>> it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold its 
>>> soul to that devil.
>>
>>
>> I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.
>
>
> You're not aware of how the impeachment process works?
>
>>
>>> All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm afraid, 
>>> given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow anything up 
>>> myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a character flaw 
>>> or not.)
>>
>>
>> I am not a citizen of the United States.
>
>
> Then this is none of your freekin' business.  Go away foreigner, go fix 
> your own country.

I am posting from my own country. I am evaluating you from my home
country.

>> Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
>> like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
>> of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
>> political content make you an activist of sorts.
>
>
> You'd no doubt enjoy my saturday-afternoon peace parties :)
>
>>
>> But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
>> you are a nutter or not yet.
>
> By who's standards?

Mine.

>I know lots of people who think I'm a nutter and lots of people who don't. 
>I find that when I say I prefer JR Lucas to Roger Penrose people think I'm 
>crazy, well, I just like Lucas better, what can I say?

When I am talking to you I am spending my time in doing so. When I am
judging whether it is worth while to continue to do so its is with my
standards.

>>
>> Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
>> alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
>> they can be worse.
>
> Well, if you're looking for a job, I could use the help.  Perhaps someone 
> to organize the site better for people who are extremely lazy and don't 
> like having to actually use the search engine to find what they want? 
> Know php?

I am not looking for a job.  I was interested to see if you and I might
work together towards a common goal. I am no longer interested in
working with you. I think you would be a hindrance.  If you come
across someone with an open mind you will not be able to talk to
them without insulting them.

>>
>> You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
>> first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, the
>> first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
>> about.
>
>
> See www.thetip.org.
>
>>
>>>> The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>>> Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>>> of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>>
>>
>> I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't doubt
>> that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is 
>> available
>> somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then you'd
>> have shown that your archive is useful.
>
>
> Please take 5 seconds out of your day to inform yourself about these 
> things that you think you have something sufficiently important to say to 
> make it worth listening to you debate it publicly.  See www.thetip.org for 
> starters.  Also, GW said it several times on the radio.  Also nicely 
> documented online at, you know where...

I no longer care whether you Robert Lindauer personally listen to me or
not. You have absolutely nothing I need and I cannot cooperate with you
without wasting my time.

>>
>>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought 
>>> Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans 
>>> to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with 
>>> citations from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, 
>>> just to the right time....).
>>
>>
>> I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.
>
>
> Well, if you want to INFORM YOURSELF about a matter as important as this 
> so that you'd have something useful to say about it, I suggest starting at 
> thetip.org and then moving on to moveon.org and then just check the 
> standard archives to make sure the references are valid.
>
>>
>> Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time.
>
>
> Then look it up yourself.  I OBVIOUSLY already did.
>
>> Only
>> some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
>> and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
>> likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>>
>> However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
>> to people to see for themselves.
>
>
> Yes, please see www.thetip.org.  I agree this is a great goal.
>>
>> Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough if 
>> they
>> have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
>> site.
>
>
> If you're offering design help, send me your resume.
>
>>>> If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
>>>> there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said 
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
>>> gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
>>> publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org :)
>>
>>
>> Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
>> thing.
>
>
> There's a nice search engine.  And google has a nice feature where you can 
> search within a site, it's really cool, it's kind of the modern way of 
> researching news items quickly.  I suggest starting there if you can't get 
> the search engine on my site to work for you.
>
>>
>>>> Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>>> enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
>>> point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard 
>>> the statement before:
>>>
>>> "The Buck Stops Here"
>>
>>
>> Yes. Harry Truman.
>
>
> So you don't see how this applies today?
>
>>
>>> It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>>
>>>> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>>> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>> He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
>>> suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>>
>>
>> This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.
>
>
> It's relevant to whether or not he keeps his oaths, counselor.
>
>>>
>>> Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
>>> media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>>
>> I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
>> statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
>> doubt.
>
> Well, is the congress controlled by republicans?
>
> Is the media controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>
>>
>>>>> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>>> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
>>>>> weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>>> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>>
>>
>> 1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.
>
>
> What quote?   What are you ranting about now?  I'm telling you that David 
> Kelly died -mysteriously- and that an MI5 lawyer admitted that he was 
> killed on the radio.  This information is publicly available in many 
> places including from the AP.  If you want to have something relevant to 
> say about it, look it up.    Thankfully, you can start at thetip.org if 
> you just don't have any idea about how to go about researching this 
> matter.  Next, try the guardian online, it has the best David Kelly news 
> archive available online.  You could also try writing to their editorial 
> staff as well as to MI5 to ask them about the progress of their 
> investigation.   Although they have yet to answer my letter on the matter. 
> Maybe you'll have better luck.
>
>>
>> 2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just raising
>> a red herring issue.
>
>
> No, he was a whistle-blower who was actively involved on the ground in 
> Iraq in UN weapons inspections who pointed out that there weren't any such 
> things going on there.
>
>>
>> 3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
>> know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
>> from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
>> same post.
>
>
> I -genuinely- don't care what you think about me.  I mean what kind of 
> person asks for links when the internet is FULL of links.  It's freekin' 
> link christmas out there.  Here a link, there a link, everywhere a link, 
> link.
>
>>>> If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>>> to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>>> concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>>>> the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record 
>>> of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>>
>>
>> Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over Iraq?
>
>
> Yes.  Read the sources, educate yourself.
>
>>
>>>>> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
>>>>> said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>>> they did it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>>
>>
>> No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
>> you can find stuff in it yourself.
>
>
> I have no need to PROVE that I can find things in the site that I MADE. 
> I've enjoyed debating wacko-s over time on the internet.  You're not a 
> very good wacko though.  My favorite wacko isn't available for public 
> debate any more.
>
>>
>>> I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for 
>>> no good reason :)
>>
>>
>> Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
>> agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?
>
>
> No, so that if someone with an open mind wanted to know what the details 
> of these and other matters were, they could find the record there online 
> quickly and easily.  Although recently I've decided that the ideological 
> problem is more severe than the information problem.  People KNOW that 
> Bush is a war-mongering liar or they know that if they managed to look 
> into the matter objectively they'd become convinced of it, they're just 
> okay with it.  That's the problem I'd like to address now.  It appears to 
> be your problem.  I once debated a "radio evangelist" about whether or not 
> it was useful to ridicule homosexuals into becoming Christians (I didn't 
> think so, he did.)  I am now testing the theory in an area with which I am 
> familiar, seeing if ridiculing the populace of dumbfuckistan helps them in 
> their quest for truth, justice and peace.
>
>> I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
>> I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be relevent at
>> the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am only
>> interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
>> in relation to specific questions.
>
>
> Well, you know, sometimes when you're researching a matter that's 
> important to you, you've got to actually DO a little research for 
> yourself.  Normally this is a skill they teach in American High Schools 
> (although it's a little sketchy in some places).  It's certainly something 
> you -should- have learned in college no matter which country you're from.
>
>>
>> If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be different
>> but you haven't. Not with me.
>
>
> Actually, you're not the target, here, you're just a foil.  I've enjoyed 
> our conversation :)
>
>>
>>>>> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any 
>>>>> nuclear material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the 
>>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that 
>>>> he was
>>>> not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
>>> speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>>
>>
>> Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
>> doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.
>
>
> Which I've made over and over for years, as have many other people more 
> "respectable" than me.  At this point, in general, I'm convinced that if 
> someone WANTED to know, they'd have been able to find out for themselves 
> in many, many ways.
>
>>
>>> Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
>>> see past their own bile.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the 
>>>>> matter was flatly false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
>>>>> trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street 
>>>>> Minutes the sources of which are not in question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
>>>> now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
>>>> in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to 
>>>> am
>>>> impartial person?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not sure 
>> is that
>> nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So 
>> perhaps
>> there is something, some memo I missed.
>
>
> No doubt.  But you never know until you know, do you.  It's sad living in 
> the dark like that, huh?
>
>>
>>> Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>>
>>
>> I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.
>
>
> Now THAT's suprising!  If you have design or topical input to make, you 
> can become a member and be on our email list, and if you have editorial 
> you'd like to share with the world and if it's well-researched, moderately 
> well-written and substantiated, I'll even put it on the site.
>
>>
>>>>> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
>>>>> close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
>>>>> effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing 
>>>>> well..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite right.  No mystery.
>>
>>
>> I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
>> facts.
>
>
> Are you unaware of how Haliburton is just RAKING IN THE DOUGH over there? 
> Or how UDI's orders are just UP-UP-UP?  Well, you should check out 
> thetip.org!
>
>>>> If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the 
>>>> facts
>>>> then you have already lost.
>>>
>>>
>>> Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>>
>>
>> I am not your apprentice.
>
>
> I know.  You've turned to the dark side.  "From my point of view, you're 
> the evil one." etc.
>
>>
>>>> Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
>>>> am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
>>>> facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>>>> how to bring him to account.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots 
>>> large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats 
>>> alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies 
>>> and then make sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so 
>>> we'll have to revamp the way people get and accept news because the 
>>> major news services in the United States are uninterested in this story. 
>>> We'd have to make something internetty actually work.  If it's 
>>> impossible at least we can have said we'd tried and we didn't blow 
>>> anything up.
>>>
>>> Start here:
>>>
>>> http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>>
>>> It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>>
>>
>> I started with the bloody question I asked you.
>
>
> And you didn't like my answers.  You wanted references.  Thankfully, I've 
> compiled a near encyclopedic source of references on specifically this 
> matter for the last few years which is available for your perusal 
> online -oh so convenient-.  Now that you've got your references you're 
> refusing to do the work of actually READING THEM.   This is typical of 
> today's willful ignorance of the attrocities committed daily by the US in 
> Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>> Robbie Lindauer
>>
>>> www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>>
>>
>> I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
>> to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
>> It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.
>
> I have answered this question so many times, I'm tired of talking to 
> people straight about it.  If you ACTUALLY want to find out, you can, it's 
> neatly prepared for you and you know where.  It's telling that you don't 
> actually want to do this work for yourself.  If, however, you decide you 
> DO want to do the work and DO actually want to have something interesting 
> to contribute to this debate, you can start, thankfully, at thetip.org 
> which in addition to concentrating on specifically these (and closely 
> related) issues over the last few years manages to have them nicely 
> categorized for easy research and reference.
>
> Robbie Lindauer

I'm done with you.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jul 13 01:58:48 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:58:48 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <05fc01c5874e$6898cb50$0d98e03c@homepc>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
>> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
>> misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And 
>> yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? 
>> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters 
>> might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big 
>> chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed 
>> far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>
> The term "lie" only applies to social systems or individuals whose 
> (collective) minds are sufficiently directed to finding truth that there 
> exists knowledge inverted to create a lie.

                                                                If you're 
mired down in a
> political system devoted to finding evidence for particular theories, 
> selectively passing on arguments for particular theories, not 
> contradicting the boss, etc., the boundary between dishonest lies and 
> honest mistakes
> is too fuzzy to be worth pursuing.

The political systems we (you, me, all of us) are mired down in are the
systems that we must work with as facts.

The United States, the United Nations, existant systems of laws, these
are constructs that human beings have made. They are natural things.

In the broad sweep of evolutionary time and then historical time these
constructs mark points of human progress and delineate challenges
not yet overcome.

There are reasons, evolutionary and historical, why perjury and
oathbreaking became important to people and became dealt with
in our (in human) laws. There was a reason why the constitution was
written with impeachment procedures placed in it.

It was not so that President's would be pestered by people that didn't
like some part of their personal politics it was because the President
is a role that has enormous power and trust in it.

President's of any political persuasion that break their oaths emperil
their own people and jeopardise the progress that is encapsulated
in the best constructs of government that humans have so far
managed to build.

>  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on WMD we'd call it a lie. 
> But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq had WMD.

Whether he had a good faith belief or not is now it seems to me the
only question that remains to be answered.

> Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all, 
> including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for
> which Bush was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we believed it 
> at the time.

I didn't believe it. I didn't form a belief either for or against, I 
reserved
judgement.

But what I believed or thought or what you believed or thought isn't
the point.  The point is was President Bush's belief a *good faith*
one or not. Did he *knowingly* break his oath as President? That is
something that evidence can be collected on.  That is a matter
intellectually no harder to determine that for a jury to determine
whether a person who has committed what appears to be a crime
did so intentionally or acted without intent to do harm.

To make such judgements we look at facts.

Brett Paatsch 




From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 02:15:01 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:15:01 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	On	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <05fc01c5874e$6898cb50$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D33457.9030203@pobox.com>
	<05fc01c5874e$6898cb50$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D47925.3020000@aol.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> The political systems we (you, me, all of us) are mired down in are the
> systems that we must work with as facts.


No, we must dilligently work to change them and when they don't work for 
us anymore, we must destroy them.

>
> The United States, the United Nations, existant systems of laws, these
> are constructs that human beings have made. They are natural things.


You have a deranged sense of "natural thing", these things aren't even 
concrete things, much less natural.

>
> In the broad sweep of evolutionary time and then historical time these
> constructs mark points of human progress and delineate challenges
> not yet overcome.

Reasonable.

>
> There are reasons, evolutionary and historical, why perjury and
> oathbreaking became important to people and became dealt with
> in our (in human) laws. There was a reason why the constitution was
> written with impeachment procedures placed in it.
>
> It was not so that President's would be pestered by people that didn't
> like some part of their personal politics it was because the President
> is a role that has enormous power and trust in it.


Yes, it was to control their political power, that includes pestering if 
that's the only recourse that someone has. 

>
> President's of any political persuasion that break their oaths emperil
> their own people and jeopardise the progress that is encapsulated
> in the best constructs of government that humans have so far
> managed to build.



>>  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on WMD we'd call it a 
>> lie. But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq had WMD.
>
>
> Whether he had a good faith belief or not is now it seems to me the
> only question that remains to be answered.


Why does it matter.  Either he deliberately lied or is a complete 
idiot.  Either way, time to go.

>> Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all, 
>> including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for
>> which Bush was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we 
>> believed it at the time.
>
>
> I didn't believe it. I didn't form a belief either for or against, I 
> reserved
> judgement.
>
> But what I believed or thought or what you believed or thought isn't
> the point.  The point is was President Bush's belief a *good faith*
> one or not. Did he *knowingly* break his oath as President? That is
> something that evidence can be collected on.  That is a matter
> intellectually no harder to determine that for a jury to determine
> whether a person who has committed what appears to be a crime
> did so intentionally or acted without intent to do harm.


Again irrelevant.  The conscious thoughts of a mass murderer are not 
essential to the comission of a crime.

> To make such judgements we look at facts.
>
> Brett Paatsch
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 02:15:51 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:15:51 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	overIraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <05d701c58746$eac3ad00$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com><057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D41231.4060901@aol.com>
	<05d701c58746$eac3ad00$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42D47957.6070506@aol.com>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>
> I'm done with you.


Maybe I'm not done with you.

R


From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jul 13 02:37:58 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/8b94aec0/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 03:22:42 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:22:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Australians will never be prosperous
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070802234390fcfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200507130323.j6D3NAR02950@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> 
> They say that there are many more factors than money in giving people
> life satisfaction. In general, within a country more money will make
> people happier, but not that much. Double your income doesn't come
> near twice as happy!...
> BillK


Ja, we need to fix that.  I propose that happiness shall
be measured in dollars.  Or Euros.

spike







From artillo at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 03:34:46 2005
From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:34:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat]Music with a message about war and genocide
Message-ID: <000001c5875b$d4199ff0$650fa8c0@bjsmain2>

Even if you don't like their music... System Of A Down
(www.systemofadown.com) has some amazingly brilliant and poignant lyrics on
the subject of war and WMD's... Even if you don't read that which is below
(or preferably LISTEN to the songs), check out what the band has to say on
their website, especially about genocide.. watch the EPK if its available in
the media section.
Best,
-Arti
 
Lyrics below:
 
"B.Y.O.B."
Why do they always send the poor


Barbarisms by Barbaras
With pointed heels
Victorious victories kneel
For brand new spankin' deals



Marching forward hypocritic and
Hypnotic computers
You depend on our protection
Yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth



Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine



Kneeling roses disappearing into
Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox stealing
Our intentions



Hangers sitting dripped in oil
Crying freedom
Handed to obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth



Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine



Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine



Blast off
It's party time
And we don't live in a fascist nation



Blast off
It's party time
And where the fuck are you?



Where the fuck are you?
Where the fuck are you?



Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?



Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?



Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?



Kneeling roses disappearing into
Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox stealing
Our intentions



Hangers sitting dripped in oil
Crying freedom
Handed to obsoletion,
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth



Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine



Everybody's going to the party have a real good time
Dancing in the desert blowing up the sun



Where the fuck are you?
Where the fuck are you?



Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?



Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?



Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
They always send the poor
They always send the poor

"SAD STATUE"
Conquest to the lover
And your love to the fire
Permanence unfolding in the absolute
Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice
Eloquence belongs to the conqueror


The pictures of time and space are rearranged
In this little piece of typical tragedy
Justified candy
Brandy for the nerves
Eloquence belongs to the conqueror



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree



I forgot to
I forgot to let you know that
Justified candy
Brandy for the nerves
Eloquence belongs to the conqueror



Conquest to the lover
And your love to the fire
Permanence unfolding in the absolute
Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice
Eloquence belongs to the conqueror



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree
Generation



What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering
Suffering, suffering now



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree



You and me
We'll all go down in history
With a sad Statue of Liberty
And a generation that didn't agree
Generation



Belonging
Belonging to


 
"BOOM!"
I've been walking through your streets,
Where all your money's earning,
Where all your building's crying,
And clueless neckties working,
Revolving fake lawn houses,
Housing all your fears,
Desensitized by TV,
Overbearing advertising,
God of consumerism,
And all your crooked pictures,
Looking good, mirrorism,
Filtering information,
For the public eye,
Designed for profiteering,
Your neighbor, what a guy. 
BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM,
Every time you drop the bomb,
You kill the god your child has born.
BOOM, BOOM,BOOM, BOOM 
Modern globalization,
Coupled with condemnations,
Unnecessary death,
Matador corporations,
Puppeting your frustrations,
With the blinded flag,
Manufacturing consent 
Is the name of the game,
The bottom line is money,
Nobody gives a fuck f***.
4000 hungry children die per hour,
from starvation,
while billions spent on BOMBS,
create death showers. BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM,
Every time you drop the bomb,
You kill the god your child has born.
BOOM, BOOM,BOOM, BOOM
BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM 
Why,why,why,why must we kill,kill,kill,kill, our own,own,own,own kind??
BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM,
Every time you drop the bomb,
You kill the god your child has born.
BOOM, BOOM,BOOM, BOOM
BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM/BOOM
Every time you drop the bomb.
 
"A.D.D. (American Dream Denial)"
We fought your wars with all our hearts,
You sent us back in body parts,
You took our wills with the truth you stole,
We offer prayers for your long lost soul, 
The remainder is, 
An unjustifiable, egotistical, power struggle,
At the expense of the American Dream,
Of the American dream, of the American,
Of the American, 
We don't give a damn about your world, 
With all your global profits and all your jeweled pearls, 
We don't give a damn about your world, Right now, right now, 
We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
With all your global profits, and all your jeweled pearls,
We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
Right now, right now. 
There is no flag that is large enough,
To hide the shame of a man in cuffs,
You switched the signs then you closed our blinds,
You changed the channel then you changed our minds. 
You bring about the stick,
We bring about the confusion,
Bring about the solution,
Bring about the fusion,
Bring about the collusion,
Bring about revolution,
Bring about revolution,
Bring it about, We don't give a damn about your world,
With all your global profits and all your jeweled pearls,
We don't give a damn about your world,
Right now, right now, We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
With all your global profits, and all your jeweled pearls,
We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
Right now, right now, right now, right now. No flag large enough,
Shame on a man in cuffs,
You closed our blinds. The remainder is, 
An unjustifiable, egotistical, power struggle,
At the expense of the American Dream,
Of the American dream, of the American,
Of the American, We don't give a damn about your world,
With all your global profits and all your jeweled pearls,
We don't give a damn about your world,
Right now, right now, We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
With all your global profits, and all your jeweled pearls,
We don't give a fuck f*** about your world,
Right now, right now, right now, right now,
Right now, right now, right now, pararara'.
 
"War?"
Dark is the light,
The man you fight,
With all your prayers, incantations,
Running away, a trivial day,
Of judgment and deliverance,
To whom was sold, this bounty soul,
A gentile or a priest ?
Who victored over, the Seljuks,
When the holy land was taken

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens

Was it the riches, of the land,
Powers of bright darkness,
That lead the noble, to the East,
To fight the heathens

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens

We must call upon our bright darkness,
Beliefs, they're the bullets of the wicked,
One was written on the sword,
For you must enter a room to destroy it,
International security,
Call of the righteous man,
Needs a reason to kill man,
History teaches us so,
The reason he must attain,
Must be approved by his God, 
His child, partisan brother of war,

Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
 
"P.L.U.C.K."
Elimination, Elimination, Elimination

Die, Why, Walk Down, Walk Down

A whole race Genocide,
Taken away all of our pride, 
A whole race Genocide,
Taken away, watch them all fall down.

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Watch them all fall down.

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

The plan was mastered and called Genocide (Never want to see you around)
Took all the children and then we died, (Never want to see you around)
The few that remained were never found, (Never want to see you around)
All in a system of Down......Down.....Down.......Down........Walk
Down...........

Know
Cursed Earth, Cursed Earth, Cursed Earth, Cursed Earth.

I will never feed off the evergreen luster of your heart all because we all
live in the valley of the walls when we speak we can peak from the windows
of their mouths to see the land the women chant as they fly up to the sun.

You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, Ever think you know why,
Know.

Books all say different things while people flap their yellow wings trying 
to soar by being a whore of life and almost everything the sheep that ran 
off from the herd may be dead but now's a bird able to fly able to die able 
to break your cursed earth


You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, Ever think you know why,
Know.

On the other side, on the other side, the other side,
Do you ever try to fly, Do you ever try to fly?
Have you ever wanted to die, you ever want to die?

Don't ever try to fly, don't ever try to fly,
Don't ever try to fly, unless you leave your body on the other side,
Never try to die, you ever try to die.

Know, You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, You never think you know why,
Know, Ever think you know why, Know.

Watch them all fall down,
Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

The plan was mastered and called Genocide (Never want to see you around)
Took all the children and then we died, (Never want to see you around)
The few that remained were never found, (Never want to see you around)
All in a system , Down~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/d99f411d/attachment.html>

From artillo at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 03:58:11 2005
From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:58:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <05fc01c5874e$6898cb50$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <000001c5875f$19b43310$650fa8c0@bjsmain2>

For me, the simple fact that someone could DIE or be KILLED by someone's
WORDS, be it truth or not, be it "because of the system" or not, leaves me
with enough reasons to be baffled by so many people's support of the current
administration. Even after such cunfusion over their position and EXPECIALLY
with regard to lack of EVIDENCE to back up what they say, it still goes on
virtually unimpeded. America has lost their backbone to Reality TV, NASCAR,
and manufactured scandal, that they have neglected what is truly
important... The preservation and extension of LIFE itself! It is truly
appaling.

Even if that weren't a factor at all in forming my opinion of the
administration, 200 billion dollars (...and counting) is a LOT of money to
be spending on something that is killing a LOT of people, and all begun
because of someone's WORD (i.e. GWB's decision to invade Iraq). I can think
of a couple hundred thousand TEACHERS and SCHOOLS and HOMELESS, STARVING, or
JOBLESS people (not only in the US but in the entire World)who could benefit
from even just a fraction of that 200 billion! Greater Good My Ass!

Are we REALLY supposed to just sit back and TRUST that the WORD given by
some politician is the Truth? I am sorry but I can't place my trust in such
a man as GW Bush, or any part of the current government for that matter
(Except the Delaware D.M.V., they are pretty darn good). They have all
failed to meet my expectations; or come across as not even remotely
reasonable when dealing with opposition to their ideas. 

They have weaved their way into the fabric of this country so tightly that
they are controlling the DESIGN of the fabric, and that worries me. We as
citizens need to be ever vigilant when it comes to the government
overstepping its bounds ethically, financially, and with regards to the
rights of the civillians. We need to put up one hell of a stink anymore for
even a small article of dissent comes to the forefront. Americans have
become drama queens... Engrossed in the artificial drama of reality shows so
much so that they can't see or are desensitized to such drama unfolding in
our real world!

I certainly do NOT support any idea from any person that involves needless
loss of life. I don't think I can make my position any clearer here :D

Peace,

Artillo 

PS:(Yes I've been reading, just lurking a LOT LOL)

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:59 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
Onwhatbasis?


Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that
>> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
>> misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And

>> yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? 
>> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters 
>> might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big

>> chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed 
>> far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>
> The term "lie" only applies to social systems or individuals whose
> (collective) minds are sufficiently directed to finding truth that there 
> exists knowledge inverted to create a lie.

                                                                If you're 
mired down in a
> political system devoted to finding evidence for particular theories,
> selectively passing on arguments for particular theories, not 
> contradicting the boss, etc., the boundary between dishonest lies and 
> honest mistakes
> is too fuzzy to be worth pursuing.

The political systems we (you, me, all of us) are mired down in are the
systems that we must work with as facts.

The United States, the United Nations, existant systems of laws, these are
constructs that human beings have made. They are natural things.

In the broad sweep of evolutionary time and then historical time these
constructs mark points of human progress and delineate challenges not yet
overcome.

There are reasons, evolutionary and historical, why perjury and oathbreaking
became important to people and became dealt with in our (in human) laws.
There was a reason why the constitution was written with impeachment
procedures placed in it.

It was not so that President's would be pestered by people that didn't like
some part of their personal politics it was because the President is a role
that has enormous power and trust in it.

President's of any political persuasion that break their oaths emperil their
own people and jeopardise the progress that is encapsulated in the best
constructs of government that humans have so far managed to build.

>  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on WMD we'd call it a 
> lie.
> But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq had WMD.

Whether he had a good faith belief or not is now it seems to me the only
question that remains to be answered.

> Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all,
> including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for
> which Bush was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we believed it

> at the time.

I didn't believe it. I didn't form a belief either for or against, I 
reserved
judgement.

But what I believed or thought or what you believed or thought isn't the
point.  The point is was President Bush's belief a *good faith* one or not.
Did he *knowingly* break his oath as President? That is something that
evidence can be collected on.  That is a matter intellectually no harder to
determine that for a jury to determine whether a person who has committed
what appears to be a crime did so intentionally or acted without intent to
do harm.

To make such judgements we look at facts.

Brett Paatsch 


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



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Jul 13 04:01:00 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:01:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60507122101236c4fc8@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> You don't have to like my (rather modest) change in views, but it is
> important to me to resolve these conflicting perceptions.

### Max, I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on the differences
between your current views and libertarianism. I greatly admire your
work, and it is possible I could yet again learn something new from
you. I am an anarcho-capitalist now, thanks in part to discussions on
this list.

I can commiserate with the exasperation you might feel when accused of
betraying your ideals. Only a couple days ago I was upbraided at TCS
for "asking for government handouts" when I said I am applying for NIH
research grants. As it is, I don't see a disconnect between my
anarcho-capitalist views and the need to work with the current system,
despite its obvious flaws.

Is your disavowal of libertarianism due to a fundamental change of
your personal philosophy, an elaboration of it, or perhaps an
adaptation of methods to existing circumstances?

Rafal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 04:24:52 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:24:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <42D47925.3020000@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200507130424.j6D4OmR10248@tick.javien.com>

Extropes,

I saw some overposting both yesterday and today, and it
wasn't from just the usual suspects.  Please let us keep
it to 8 a day maximum and do refrain from abusing each
other.

Cool, check this:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-cycle-usa
t_x.htm

spike



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 13 04:42:57 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:12:57 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <200507130424.j6D4OmR10248@tick.javien.com>
References: <42D47925.3020000@aol.com>
	<200507130424.j6D4OmR10248@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>

omg I want one now. Guess I have to wait 'till next year. If it was
only used for city travel (commuting), that 100 miles on a tank would
mean pretty infrequent refilling for me.

So in Australia, and as a ridiculously early adopter, does anyone know
how I would get hydrogen, given no explicit hydrogen refueling
stations? Does someone sell hydrogen in an accessible way for, for
example, some kind of  industrial use?

Emlyn

On 13/07/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Extropes,
> 
> I saw some overposting both yesterday and today, and it
> wasn't from just the usual suspects.  Please let us keep
> it to 8 a day maximum and do refrain from abusing each
> other.
> 
> Cool, check this:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-cycle-usa
> t_x.htm
> 
> spike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 artillo at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 04:52:28 2005
From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:52:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000901c58766$aed9a400$650fa8c0@bjsmain2>

Maybe a welding supply shop?

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike


omg I want one now. Guess I have to wait 'till next year. If it was only
used for city travel (commuting), that 100 miles on a tank would mean pretty
infrequent refilling for me.

So in Australia, and as a ridiculously early adopter, does anyone know how I
would get hydrogen, given no explicit hydrogen refueling stations? Does
someone sell hydrogen in an accessible way for, for example, some kind of
industrial use?

Emlyn

On 13/07/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Extropes,
> 
> I saw some overposting both yesterday and today, and it wasn't from 
> just the usual suspects.  Please let us keep it to 8 a day maximum and 
> do refrain from abusing each other.
> 
> Cool, check this:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-cyc
> le-usa
> t_x.htm
> 
> spike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 *
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 13 04:55:18 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:55:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] on Bush..
Message-ID: <47FA6A03-A84D-4962-8B12-31ECDA2EB663@mac.com>

"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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050712/2d213201/attachment.html>

From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 06:30:42 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:30:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] game theory and decisions
In-Reply-To: <42D3E3CD.4080904@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net> <42D3DC9E.7070501@neopax.com>
	<42D3E3CD.4080904@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050713063042.GA3764@ofb.net>

This is longer than I expected when I started.  The first half is about game
theory and some of what Axelrod says about the Prisoner's Dilemma, with some
crude implied applications to real life.  The second half is about how we make
decisions, and how that might challenge ideas of minimally restricted freedom.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:37:49AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote:
> Dirk Bruere wrote:

> >I suggest simple game theory indicates otherwise.
> >Namely, that a group A acting consistently in concert will win every 
> >time over either individuals or a looser group B that sometimes act 
> >for their own group and sometimes for A depending on circumstance.
> >

> I'm glad to see that you and I are now apparently in agreement on the 
> big-picture benefits of cooperation, however, game theory has often been 
> used to demonstrate the opposite point--that at least in the short-term, 
> narrowly defined domain of the game, rational behavior means ruthless 
> identification with the local self and immediate goals.  This leads, as 
> most on this list are well aware, to the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma 
> paradox, where the paradox appears to arise precisely because of the 
> limited scope of the game compared to our real-world experience of an 
> open-ended and not fully knowable web of possible future interactions.

Game theory can be used to show a bunch of things, depending on the
conditions.

The paradox doesn't 'appear' to rise; it rises.  Limited scope describes some
situations: single anonymous interactions, first-strike winner-take-all, being
able to kill your interactee, being able to choose to break relations and run
away.  I read Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_ recently, and he talks
about a possibility of bacteria being sensitive to the health of their host,
so that they play nice while it is healthy (taking a long-term strategy of
commensalism or mild parasitism, shedding bacteria over a long time), but
multiply all out and grab resources when the host gets sick or badly injured,
figuring the host is going to die soon, it's time to grab what you can and
run.

Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma of course leads to Tit for Tat as one robust
stable strategy, though not the only one.  (BTW, Pinker in _The blank slate_
mapped Tit for Tat into cultures of machismo and respect and reputation, as in
gangs or the Mafia or Southern feuds or international politics.  Which made me
think that multiple private protection agencies might not be such a great
thing.)

And humans go beyond the IPD to having things such as reputation, and labels.
Axelrod discusses other stable strategies.  One is a pair, bully and meek.
The bully alternates cooperation and defection, unless the other defects, in
which case the bully will always defect with that partner.  The meek strategy
cooperates unless it gets defected on twice, in which case it switches to
defecting.

As a pair, this is almost but not quite as productive as a pair of
cooperators.  Most of the benefit goes to the bully.  But it's not to the
benefit of the individual meek strategy to switch to tit for tat.

Analogies to human interactions where an actor may vary being exploitative and
playing nice, but punish retaliation very severely, are left to the reader.

Given labels, Axelrod describes populations of agents A and B.  A's
tit-for-tat with each other but always defect with Bs.  Bs t-f-t with each
other and defect with A's.  Any individual A trying to switch to playing fair
with everyone won't get far, as the Bs will just keep defecting.  In real life
of course, the other A's may add their own punishment to the deviant.  He also
mentions status hierarchies being stable, if agents bully those beneath them
and act meekly to those above them; I think this is just an elaborate version
of the earlier example.

Pernicious effects are easy to find in these two examples: if Bs are a
minority they'll suffer defections more often from running into the more
numerous A's, unless they can congregate.  And in the status hierarchy those
at the bottom will make much less profit than those on top.  No news there,
but at least it's a concrete mathematical example.

What's my point?  Not sure I have a specific one, other than to elaborate a
lot on game theory.  Tit-for-tat (or, nice reciprocal cooperation in general)
is cool, but it's not the end of the story.

> (slight) issue with another poster's statement that "if survival is the 
> goal, then you get there by rational behavior", and pointing out that 
> this is true only in the limited set of those cases where one has 
> sufficient contextual information and sufficient processing power and 
> time to come to a "rational" decision.  Very often, in a situation where 

Indeed.  Quite often you get to survival by instinctive or habitual behavior,
because that behavior is fast.  Conscious look-ahead deliberation, modelling
different futures and picking the best one, can be powerful, but it's also
slow.

Which I think sheds light on failures of "willpower", or "free will", which I
think is best cashed out in everyday speech as the ability to override
short-term desire for the sake of long-term goals.  It's not willpower after
all, but speed: presented with an attractive stimulus the fast reflexive
pathways can command action and attention before the slow rational ones
finish processing.  (Worse, the rational pathways need attention to run with
any speed, but attention may be hijacked.)

Which has been leading me toward ideas about practical limits on individual
freedom.  One pragmatic justification for liberalism/libertarianism is the
idea that the individual will most reliably have the most information about
her needs and abilities on the spot, and thus will make the best decisions for
herself, more so than anyone else.  But, sometimes, it maybe that someone may
make better decisions for you precisely because they are not on the spot, not
subject to the short-term-desire stimulus which is distracting you from the
rational goals you'd normally prefer to follow.

Toy example: someone wants to diet.  That is, they say they want to diet, they
make visible efforts to diet, they feel regret when they break their diet.
But they do often break their diet, typically when some attractive food is in
sight or smell.  The fast habit of eating the food on perception trumps the
slow memory of being on a diet.  Success depends not on willpower -- if you
get that far, you've already lost -- but on cultivating better habits and
inhibitions ahead of time.  Or on avoiding the food.

Or on letting someone else block your behavior when you go for the food.

I note that an economist might say that you have a revealed preference for not
dieting, especially if you buy the food.  But this seems flawed to me.  Yes,
some processes are revealed which prefer the food.  But the stated desires to
diet, and the regret after failure, reveal other processes which prefer to
diet.  Identifying the process which can make impulse purchases with the whole
person seems dubious to me.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 06:50:45 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:50:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:37:58PM -0500, Max More wrote:

> me from further comments, but I went ahead. My political views have NEVER
> earned me any points throughout my years in an academia thoroughly
> dominated by ?liberals?, i.e. heavy duty statists. When I was 15 or 16, I

I just wanted to note that I've been having a growing sense of the diversity
of meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.  In particular, outside the US
'liberal' seems to mean 'markets', and something like a safety-net
libertarianism.  E.g. the Lib Dems of the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)

or much of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 From a minarchist POV, "heavy duty statist" covers a wide range, from basic
safety nets or collective health or old age insurance to nationalization and
hate crime laws.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jul 13 06:54:25 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:54:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60507122101236c4fc8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60507122101236c4fc8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071223542f4fafd3@mail.gmail.com>

I think what Max says makes a lot of sense.
When we are younger we fall in love with ideologies which offer a
simple worldview and a simple chinese cookie formula to heal the
world. When we grow up we find out that the world is too complex to be
healed by a simple chinese cookie formula.
Same for the "other camp" of course. It has been said (W. Churchill I
believe) that one who is not a communist at 20 has no heart, and one
who is still a communist at 40 has no brain. This is of course an
oversimplification, but like many cliches it contains some truth.
G.

On 7/13/05, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> 
> > You don't have to like my (rather modest) change in views, but it is
> > important to me to resolve these conflicting perceptions.
> 
> ### Max, I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on the differences
> between your current views and libertarianism. I greatly admire your
> work, and it is possible I could yet again learn something new from
> you. I am an anarcho-capitalist now, thanks in part to discussions on
> this list.
> 
> I can commiserate with the exasperation you might feel when accused of
> betraying your ideals. Only a couple days ago I was upbraided at TCS
> for "asking for government handouts" when I said I am applying for NIH
> research grants. As it is, I don't see a disconnect between my
> anarcho-capitalist views and the need to work with the current system,
> despite its obvious flaws.
> 
> Is your disavowal of libertarianism due to a fundamental change of
> your personal philosophy, an elaboration of it, or perhaps an
> adaptation of methods to existing circumstances?
> 
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 07:18:10 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:18:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050713071810.GA16623@ofb.net>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:50:45PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> I just wanted to note that I've been having a growing sense of the diversity
> of meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.  In particular, outside the US
> 'liberal' seems to mean 'markets', and something like a safety-net

Also
http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=537

   6. The challenge of lean government.

   The age-old misconception that it is government's business to organise
   people's happiness is heading for crisis, if not collapse, all over the
   world. In most industrialised countries, exaggerated and ill-targeted
   systems of social security and redistribution threaten to break down, and
   state budgets to impose ever-increasing debt burdens on future
   generations. In developing countries, attempts to promote development
   exclusively or predominantly by government action are bound to fail,
   through overloading government and stifling private initiative, the only
   factor that can produce really sustainable development. Liberals recognise
   that the capacity of government is limited, that 'big government' and the
   growth of state expenditure are themselves serious threats to a free
   society, and that limiting the scope of government and retrenchment of
   government spending must therefore be given priority.

which is frankly more anti-big-spending than I expected.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 07:30:44 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050713073044.35772.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>



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


> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for
> impeaching President
> George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if
> there are good
> grounds if those that would want it to happen do not
> get their shit together
> enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive
> case is a case that
> would be able to convince an impartial but
> interested person.

Many people, I think, have a misconception about
impeachment.  Because it bears some similarity to a
legal proceeding, that is a trial, some folks may
think of it as such.  But that's not the case.  In a
trial the facts are considered, and the judge or jury
is obliged by tradition, duty, and/or legal
requirement to decide the case based on those facts. 
An impeachment however is far more likely to be
decided --the facts notwithstanding--on the basis of
purely political considerations, that is, on the basis
of pure partisanship.  If one party owns the house,
the senate, the judiciary, a majority of the states,
and a majority of the people, then the president, as
long as he is a member of that party, is safe, no
matter how damning the evidence.

Jeff Davis


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


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jul 13 08:57:38 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:57:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205071223542f4fafd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<7641ddc60507122101236c4fc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<470a3c5205071223542f4fafd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050713015754279918@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> I think what Max says makes a lot of sense.
> When we are younger we fall in love with ideologies which offer a
> simple worldview and a simple chinese cookie formula to heal the
> world. When we grow up we find out that the world is too complex to be
> healed by a simple chinese cookie formula.
> Same for the "other camp" of course. It has been said (W. Churchill I
> believe) that one who is not a communist at 20 has no heart, and one
> who is still a communist at 40 has no brain. This is of course an
> oversimplification, but like many cliches it contains some truth.
> G.
> 

No, it wasn't originated by Winston Churchill, although it is often
attributed to him.
Winston said, along with many other pithy sayings,
"Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality."

Now, the original saying is so good that many people have quoted it.
It is almost a cliche now, with many people editing it slightly, e.g.
changing socialist to communist or liberal.

Someone has already done the research and put up a web page. 
Quote:
The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to 
mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman Fran?ois Guizot:
   Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
   to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
Variations on this theme were later attributed to Disraeli, Shaw, 
Churchill, and Bertrand Russell.
See: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html>

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 13 10:29:11 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:29:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <144A6D52-7E1F-431B-8C23-64CD6797CC8A@mac.com>


On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:37:58PM -0500, Max More wrote:
>
>
>> me from further comments, but I went ahead. My political views  
>> have NEVER
>> earned me any points throughout my years in an academia thoroughly
>> dominated by ?liberals?, i.e. heavy duty statists. When I was 15  
>> or 16, I
>>
>
> I just wanted to note that I've been having a growing sense of the  
> diversity
> of meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.  In particular,  
> outside the US
> 'liberal' seems to mean 'markets', and something like a safety-net
> libertarianism.  E.g. the Lib Dems of the UK
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)

These don't resemble libertarians at all as far as I can see.   
Libertarians are not the same as liberals.

>
> or much of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
>
>  From a minarchist POV, "heavy duty statist" covers a wide range,  
> from basic
> safety nets or collective health or old age insurance to  
> nationalization and
> hate crime laws.
>

Yep.  Personally I am a libertarian looking forward to true abundance  
where most necessities are free but NOT handed out by some government.

- samantha


From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jul 13 12:01:15 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:01:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <144A6D52-7E1F-431B-8C23-64CD6797CC8A@mac.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
	<144A6D52-7E1F-431B-8C23-64CD6797CC8A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713065742.03c1cf48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050713/1e541268/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jul 13 12:08:47 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:08:47 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050713073044.35772.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <06d101c587a3$9fe4fb10$0d98e03c@homepc>


Jeff Davis wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for
>> impeaching President
>> George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if
>> there are good
>> grounds if those that would want it to happen do not
>> get their shit together
>> enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive
>> case is a case that
>> would be able to convince an impartial but
>> interested person.
> 
> Many people, I think, have a misconception about
> impeachment.  Because it bears some similarity to a
> legal proceeding, that is a trial, some folks may
> think of it as such.  But that's not the case. 

I put the words "cases of presidential impeachment" into
Google and get these links. 

Presidential Impeachment : The Legal Standard and Procedure
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/130987.html
Its an article from 2000, that starts out "an involuntary removal
of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in
our history". This article points at the relevant clause is the 
Constitution. 

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577202/Impeachment.html
says:  "Two United States presidents have been impeached. The U.S. 
House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson in 1868 
and President Bill Clinton in 1998. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974
as impeachment proceedings were under way."

Victims or rogues? The impeachment of Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin in comparative perspective 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_3_4/ai_n11843453


I don't doubt that many people *do* have a misconception about 
impeachment. I would like to know more about the details of it
myself.  

If we could get to a stage where there were multiple extropian list
posters that knew how impeachment works then we'd be in
a position to have intelligent conversations about it.  I think that 
would be a healthy thing.  I think, the lack of understanding about
how governments works both feeds into the sort of unrealistic 
predictions about the future that flash up from time to time and
it encourages future Presidents to treat the public like mugs. 


> In a
> trial the facts are considered, and the judge or jury
> is obliged by tradition, duty, and/or legal
> requirement to decide the case based on those facts. 
> An impeachment however is far more likely to be
> decided --the facts notwithstanding--on the basis of
> purely political considerations, that is, on the basis
> of pure partisanship.  

Your words "far more likely" suggest that you are weighting
probabilities. But how can you do be doing that?

Are you just concluding that the whole exercise is pointless
because you don't want to look into it. Because it seems
like a dead end and a waste of time? 

I suspect that that is likely to be the reason why most people
will not look at or consider it. They don't care enough. They
cant see that it will affect them.  

If they don't care enough though that message eventually gets
integrated into the thinking of the sorts of people that run for
office and may find themselves in the role of President in 
future. 

> If one party owns the house,
> the senate, the judiciary, a majority of the states,
> and a majority of the people, then the president, as
> long as he is a member of that party, is safe, no
> matter how damning the evidence.

If that is so then it is so. If it isn't and you and enough think
it is then perhaps it will become so. 

I can't think why any President following George W Bush would
worry about being impeached if he sees what George W Bush has
managed to ride out. 

The President appoints a lot of his own staff and senior officials.
The President has enormous control over resources including the
emerging technological resources. 

I am concerned that the US which has been a leading construct
for progress may become a leading construct for regress because
the sort of people who understand how to manipulate people and
power will be attracted to the unaccountable power that exists
in the Presidency.  Unless the people are willing to hold their
Presidents to account it seems to me that they are making the 
role of the President be just the sort of one that an aspiring
totalitarian dictator would want to claim for him or herself. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050713/19c4b744/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jul 13 14:46:51 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:46:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200507131446.j6DEknR26268@tick.javien.com>

Ja, I read the specs and decided it wouldn't work *as a 
motorcycle* but would still carry a lot of cool factor.  It 
would be wicked cool, but not fast or cheap.  Gasoline
will be difficult to replace that way.  The good news is, 
if all the peak oil jeremiahs are right, we can still run 
some wicked fast and still highly fuel efficient motorcycles 
on alcohol.  That would be a new day, if you go to work and 
half the traffic on the road is on two wheels.  {8-]  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:43 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
> 
> omg I want one now. Guess I have to wait 'till next year. If it was
> only used for city travel (commuting), that 100 miles on a tank would
> mean pretty infrequent refilling for me...
> 
> Emlyn
> 
> On 13/07/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:


> > Cool, check this:
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-
> cycle-usa
> > t_x.htm
> >
> > spike



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jul 13 15:04:06 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] London bombings and toxic memes
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050713100102.01d31a88@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

A British friend writes:
=======================

"The British police have just announced within the past hour that
the four London bombings of last week were indeed suicide attacks.
Four 'suspects' died at the scenes of the bombs, they say.

"Moreover, it seems the four men concerned were from Leeds, West
Yorkshire (where I lived in the 1970s). They've raided a number of
houses there, including one in the Burley district (where I lived
for nearly ten years).

"I think these are the first-ever suicide bombings in Britain, or
indeed in Western Europe."

Further thoughts...

I lived in Hessle Terrace, just off Brudenell Road in the Hyde Park
area of Leeds, in 1972-1975. Then I moved about half a mile away, to
The Village Street, Burley, where I lived for the next seven years,
1975-1982.

Obviously the area has changed since I left Leeds in 1982, but it
was already getting pretty multi-ethnic in the 1970s.

The fact that these London suicide bombers were all young men from
Leeds, British born and raised, and who no doubt spoke with
Yorkshire accents, puts a weird slant on the whole event. They were
also, so I gather from news reports, all of Pakistani ethnicity.

This means that in all likelihood these first-ever suicide bombers
in Western Europe were not...

A) Foreigners
B) Arabs
C) Iraqis or Palestinians
D) People who had suffered injustices in far-off places
E) Relatives of people who had suffered in far-off places
F) Connected in any way, other than in their own minds, with the
problems of Palestine, Iraq or any other Arab country...

Nope -- they were young Brits of South Asian ancestry who had grown
up all their lives in England and spoke with Yorkshire accents. (Or
so it seems on the evidence so far.)

They did what they did out of ideological conviction, not because of
any personal experience of suffering, not because of any family
connections with the trouble spots of the Middle East, and not
because of any real "ethnic" identification they might have claimed
with the Arab world.

They did what they did not because they had any personal reasons,
but quite simply because their minds had been infected with a set of
very bad ideas.

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jul 13 15:12:13 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:12:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <200507131446.j6DEknR26268@tick.javien.com>
References: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
	<200507131446.j6DEknR26268@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071308126d865d24@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/05, spike wrote:
> Ja, I read the specs and decided it wouldn't work *as a
> motorcycle* but would still carry a lot of cool factor.  It
> would be wicked cool, but not fast or cheap.  Gasoline
> will be difficult to replace that way.  The good news is,
> if all the peak oil jeremiahs are right, we can still run
> some wicked fast and still highly fuel efficient motorcycles
> on alcohol.  That would be a new day, if you go to work and
> half the traffic on the road is on two wheels.  {8-]  spike
> 

You might like to go have a look at Zapworld, 501 Fourth Street, Santa
Rosa, CA 95401

They' ve got electric scooters, electric pedal bikes and trikes and
electric ATVs.
They've got an electric folding pedal bike for your trunk on offer for 499 USD.
<http://www.zapworld.com/products/BK_clearance.asp>

Nothing for zooming down the freeway yet, though.

BillK


From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Jul 13 15:28:10 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:28:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <42D5330A.30006@jefallbright.net>

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>I suppose I'd like my label back.  I have a bunch of friends who used
>to enjoy using the label and would like to use it again -- we're very
>tired of having labels taken out from under us (we liked "Liberal"
>before the Fabians corrupted it, for example). I know Natasha doesn't
>like labels -- labeling being, in her opinion (expressed above)
>contrary to individuality -- and so perhaps you folks aren't
>sufficiently attached to it to want to make further use of it.  I'm
>sure we won't mind if the label arrives somewhat soiled -- we can have
>it cleaned and repainted ourselves.
>  
>
I find this statement particularly interesting because I feel the same, 
but from the opposite direction!

My history with the list doesn't go back as far, having joined only 
about ten years ago, and my activity is not nearly as high as some 
others, although I read and consider almost every post.  But since I 
found this group, and through many ups and downs in signal to noise, 
conflict and controversy, for me it has been a shining star of free 
thought on the Net.

I have always seen the concept of extropy as being more abstract and 
universal than any specific implementation of a set of political/social 
beliefs.  Indeed, embracing "spontaneous order" and rejection of "static 
utopia" logically lead one to a transpolitical stance, in my opinion.  
Therefore, while I have appreciated the energy, creativity, and growth 
contributed by those with strong or "absolute" libertarian beliefs, I 
have long felt dissapointed that this subset of extropian thinkers act 
as if they hold the golden key.

I also see the concept of extropy encompassing that of transhumanism, 
rather than the other way around, but that's a topic of other, past debate.

So, if I were to have my way (I really don't know if my thoughts are 
representative of many others') I would ask that the label "extropy" be 
returned, if in fact it has been away, as a central organizing principle 
of Growth, unattached to any specific social/political model.

And since I'm making wishes, give us back the active participation of 
passionate, rational, and constructive thinkers such as Max, Anders, and 
others.  ;-)

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 13 16:02:30 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:02:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology 
Message-ID: <380-22005731316230198@M2W070.mail2web.com>

Adrian wrote:

"Most global regulatory frameworks, in practice, are implicitly based on
the Precautionary Principle.  This was perhaps the core of the
disconnect."

This could very well be correct, but this should not derail those of us who
are opponents of the misuse of the Precautionary Principle in these types
of formats.  Rather than turn our backs on the possibilty for success, it
is essential to be active in pursuing alternatives to the Precautionary
Principle's use.

As someone who thinks about global frameworks, I am not derailed by what
"most" people or organizations do.

> Adrian, there are several extremely important reasons for being
> involved in
> the event's webcast.  First and foremost and of *immediate
> importance* is
> to introduce and promote the "Proactionary Principle".

"If that really is what you intend, then I salute you, and wish you good
luck.  The way the announcement was phrased, in particular the word
choices that coincided with the word choices of Precautionary Principle
advocates, strongly implied the exact opposite."  

Did you go to the website of the webcast? 
http://www.terasemfoundation.org/workshop.htm


"Since this is not what
you meant to convey, it is something you may wish to consider when
crafting such announcements in the future."

Well yes, of course and thank you.  I wish you and others would frequent
the announcements and read the Exponent newsletter to keep up with the
proactive efforts of ExI and its Board.  

We worked on proactive plans back in 1997 with the release of ProAct but
had to slow down for some unforeseen circumstances. You can read this at
http://www.extropy.org/events.htm

"Overcoming Resistance from Bioconservatives and Technophobes" Ronald
Bailey (The Journalistic Critic); Greg Bear (the Myth Maker); Natasha
Vita-More (Cultural Catalyst); Dr. Michael Rose (The GeneMaster); Greg
Burch, J.D. (Luddite Tracker)"

The Vital Progress Summit in 2004 actively drew transhumanist advocates of
the proactivity into an extropic think tank. The result was the formulation
of the Proactionary Principle. 

Best,

Natasha



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




From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Jul 13 16:11:23 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:11:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] game theory and decisions
In-Reply-To: <20050713063042.GA3764@ofb.net>
References: <20050711215617.62102.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com>	<42D3D859.1010908@jefallbright.net>
	<42D3DC9E.7070501@neopax.com>	<42D3E3CD.4080904@jefallbright.net>
	<20050713063042.GA3764@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <42D53D2B.8050002@jefallbright.net>

Damien Sullivan wrote:

>
>The paradox doesn't 'appear' to rise; it rises.  Limited scope describes some
>situations: single anonymous interactions, first-strike winner-take-all, being
>able to kill your interactee, being able to choose to break relations and run
>away.  I read Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_ recently, and he talks
>about a possibility of bacteria being sensitive to the health of their host,
>so that they play nice while it is healthy (taking a long-term strategy of
>commensalism or mild parasitism, shedding bacteria over a long time), but
>multiply all out and grab resources when the host gets sick or badly injured,
>figuring the host is going to die soon, it's time to grab what you can and
>run.
>
>  
>
Assuming a coherent universe (bounded or not), there is no true paradox, 
but only situations where a model has insufficient context to encompass 
the problem at hand.  I point this out occasionally because it is hugely 
relevant to the so-called paradoxes involved in discussion of the nature 
of 'self", "free will" and "moral" decision-making.  All scare-quoted 
because typical usage does not correspond with a more encompassing view.

<snip>

>What's my point?  Not sure I have a specific one, other than to elaborate a
>lot on game theory.  Tit-for-tat (or, nice reciprocal cooperation in general)
>is cool, but it's not the end of the story.
>  
>
Yes, an easy supporting example is the way competition at one level is 
seen as cooperation at a higher level of organization.  Similarly, 
diversity is necessary for robust growth of a system--while top-down 
coordination also enhances effectiveness, thus growth within a 
competitive environment (which is every environment if we look at the 
bigger picture.) 

Complementarity, and expanding scope of context, everywhere we 
(subjectively) look.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net






From jonkc at att.net  Wed Jul 13 16:50:15 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:50:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues.
References: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D3E6A8.3060104@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <017b01c587ca$fbcb85d0$94ef4d0c@MyComputer>

"David" <deimtee at optusnet.com.au>

> What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in the
> resistance and  consider those cops  turncoats to their own people."

Wow, did she actually say that? I somehow missed that new gem from Samantha,
and just when I was starting to think I'd too hard on her in the past. After
that howler it sort of makes you wonder why we should listen to her words of
wisdom on any subject now doesn't it.

  John K Clark







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 17:44:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ENEERGY: fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <200507130424.j6D4OmR10248@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050713174408.11579.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"With fewer moving parts than in a conventional motorcycle, the
hydrogen-powered motorcycle gains simplicity and quiet. The rider hears
little more than the sound of tires spinning over the road or trail."

The lawyers are going to have fun with this. Who wants to bet on how
long it takes for a driver who sideswipes one of these to use the "its
too quiet" defense? I'll note that Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks
Through Walls" featured an advanced car propulsion (built into a Model
T body) with a sound system that produced internal combustion noises...
while ostensibly for sentimental reasons, according to RAH, safety
could be another, to produce a noise that drivers could hear even when
nearby vehicles are in the drivers blind spot.

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

> Extropes,
> 
> I saw some overposting both yesterday and today, and it
> wasn't from just the usual suspects.  Please let us keep
> it to 8 a day maximum and do refrain from abusing each
> other.
> 
> Cool, check this:
> 
>
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-cycle-usa
> t_x.htm
> 
> 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 Jul 13 17:58:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050713175821.90321.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

There is a design for a device that produces hydrogen by using a low
current to oxidize aluminum wire in water, producing hydrogen. The
amount of energy required is significantly less than electrolysis. The
energy consumed in refining the aluminum is generally power plant
energy, ergo most efficiently generated, and the smelter generally buys
it at a cost far below anybody else, because the smelter uses so much
of it. Recycling the spent aluminum oxide is as simple as collecting it
and shipping it back to the smelter, who will enjoy it as it takes less
energy to refine this material than raw bauxite.

For this reason, I believe that this is an excellent means of supplying
hydrogen to remote areas.

This being said, there is another way to get hydrogen: from natural gas
lines. Piped natural gas contains anywhere from 5% up to 40% free H2
molecules. Given the significantly different molecular weight of H2 vs
natural gas, CH4 (2 vs 16) and the very different boiling points (-252
vs -164) it should be possible to either distill or centrifuge natural
gas to separate these two quite easily.

There are also reformers on the market that can be used to convert
common hydrocarbons to hydrogen. Some fuel cell car designs have
featured built in reformers. IMHO owning the only fuel reformer in your
neighborhood will be a big money maker in the coming years.

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> omg I want one now. Guess I have to wait 'till next year. If it was
> only used for city travel (commuting), that 100 miles on a tank would
> mean pretty infrequent refilling for me.
> 
> So in Australia, and as a ridiculously early adopter, does anyone
> know
> how I would get hydrogen, given no explicit hydrogen refueling
> stations? Does someone sell hydrogen in an accessible way for, for
> example, some kind of  industrial use?
> 
> Emlyn
> 
> On 13/07/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Extropes,
> > 
> > I saw some overposting both yesterday and today, and it
> > wasn't from just the usual suspects.  Please let us keep
> > it to 8 a day maximum and do refrain from abusing each
> > other.
> > 
> > Cool, check this:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-06-14-hydro-cycle-usa
> > t_x.htm
> > 
> > spike
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 *
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 13 18:12:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] London bombings and toxic memes
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050713100102.01d31a88@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050713181238.74747.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> A British friend writes:
> =======================
> 
> "The British police have just announced within the past hour that
> the four London bombings of last week were indeed suicide attacks.
> Four 'suspects' died at the scenes of the bombs, they say.
> 
> "Moreover, it seems the four men concerned were from Leeds, West
> Yorkshire (where I lived in the 1970s). They've raided a number of
> houses there, including one in the Burley district (where I lived
> for nearly ten years).
> 
> "I think these are the first-ever suicide bombings in Britain, or
> indeed in Western Europe."

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was certainly intent on suiciding if he
had succeeded, and a compatriot of his who was to do a duplicate
attempt, decided against it and hide his shoe at home until the cops
came for him. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the 9-11 hijackers
either held european passports, had spent many years living in european
nations. Zaccharias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was a
French citizen who was a disciple (as was Reid and his partner) of that
one-eyed mullah that British authorities have so far refused to arrest
or even investigate.

> 
> Further thoughts...
> 
> I lived in Hessle Terrace, just off Brudenell Road in the Hyde Park
> area of Leeds, in 1972-1975. Then I moved about half a mile away, to
> The Village Street, Burley, where I lived for the next seven years,
> 1975-1982.
> 
> Obviously the area has changed since I left Leeds in 1982, but it
> was already getting pretty multi-ethnic in the 1970s.

Ah, the benefits of diversity, eh Dirk?

> 
> The fact that these London suicide bombers were all young men from
> Leeds, British born and raised, and who no doubt spoke with
> Yorkshire accents, puts a weird slant on the whole event. They were
> also, so I gather from news reports, all of Pakistani ethnicity.
> 
> This means that in all likelihood these first-ever suicide bombers
> in Western Europe were not...
> 
> A) Foreigners
> B) Arabs
> C) Iraqis or Palestinians
> D) People who had suffered injustices in far-off places
> E) Relatives of people who had suffered in far-off places

This is debatable, you don't know the family histories of those four.

> F) Connected in any way, other than in their own minds, with the
> problems of Palestine, Iraq or any other Arab country...
> 
> Nope -- they were young Brits of South Asian ancestry who had grown
> up all their lives in England and spoke with Yorkshire accents. (Or
> so it seems on the evidence so far.)

Not necessarily. It is estimated that approximately 3,000 British
citizens have attended al Qaeda terrorism camps in Afghanistan in the
past. Britain is heavily infiltrated.

> 
> They did what they did out of ideological conviction, not because of
> any personal experience of suffering, not because of any family
> connections with the trouble spots of the Middle East, and not
> because of any real "ethnic" identification they might have claimed
> with the Arab world.

Another debatable statement. That they were all muslim pakistanis, born
of pakistani immigrants, should be a clear enough ethnic
identification. Speaking with a yorkshire accent does not make one
assimilated.


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 dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jul 13 18:23:32 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:23:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] London bombings and toxic memes
In-Reply-To: <20050713181238.74747.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713181238.74747.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D55C24.1070206@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>A British friend writes:
>>=======================
>>
>>"The British police have just announced within the past hour that
>>the four London bombings of last week were indeed suicide attacks.
>>Four 'suspects' died at the scenes of the bombs, they say.
>>
>>"Moreover, it seems the four men concerned were from Leeds, West
>>Yorkshire (where I lived in the 1970s). They've raided a number of
>>houses there, including one in the Burley district (where I lived
>>for nearly ten years).
>>
>>"I think these are the first-ever suicide bombings in Britain, or
>>indeed in Western Europe."
>>    
>>
>
>Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was certainly intent on suiciding if he
>had succeeded, and a compatriot of his who was to do a duplicate
>attempt, decided against it and hide his shoe at home until the cops
>came for him. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the 9-11 hijackers
>either held european passports, had spent many years living in european
>nations. Zaccharias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was a
>French citizen who was a disciple (as was Reid and his partner) of that
>one-eyed mullah that British authorities have so far refused to arrest
>or even investigate.
>
>  
>
He's definately been investigated.
Strange how Americans are so keen on free speech, except in other countries.

>>Further thoughts...
>>
>>I lived in Hessle Terrace, just off Brudenell Road in the Hyde Park
>>area of Leeds, in 1972-1975. Then I moved about half a mile away, to
>>The Village Street, Burley, where I lived for the next seven years,
>>1975-1982.
>>
>>Obviously the area has changed since I left Leeds in 1982, but it
>>was already getting pretty multi-ethnic in the 1970s.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, the benefits of diversity, eh Dirk?
>  
>
As you will have read, I am all in favour of diversity.
But not of multicultural societies.
Every culture to its own nation.
String fences make good neighbours
It's all here:
http://theconsensus.org/uk/principia/global/index.html

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 18:35:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <42D5330A.30006@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> >I suppose I'd like my label back. I have a bunch of friends who used
> >to enjoy using the label and would like to use it again, we're very
> >tired of having labels taken out from under us (we liked "Liberal"
> >before the Fabians corrupted it, for example). 

In the case of the Fabians, they were authoritarian socialists intent
on incrementalism and entryist campaigns. What the Fabians did is
distinctly different from what many libertarians insist upon, that the
label "Libertarian" does not apply only to people who score 100%x100%
on the Worlds Shortest Political Quiz, as Perry and his ilk would
prefer, but to anyone who scores 70%x50% or 50%x70% or higher.
"Libertarianism" is as big a tent as conservatism or modern liberalism.

> >I know Natasha doesn't
> >like labels -- labeling being, in her opinion (expressed above)
> >contrary to individuality -- and so perhaps you folks aren't
> >sufficiently attached to it to want to make further use of it.  I'm
> >sure we won't mind if the label arrives somewhat soiled -- we can
> >have it cleaned and repainted ourselves.

Not if you are going to stick it in a jar and hold Star Chamber purity
inquisitions against anyone who uses it.

> I find this statement particularly interesting because I feel the
> same, but from the opposite direction!
> 
> My history with the list doesn't go back as far, having joined only 
> about ten years ago, and my activity is not nearly as high as some 
> others, although I read and consider almost every post.  But since I 
> found this group, and through many ups and downs in signal to noise, 
> conflict and controversy, for me it has been a shining star of free 
> thought on the Net.
> 
> I have always seen the concept of extropy as being more abstract and 
> universal than any specific implementation of a set of political/ 
> social beliefs. Indeed, embracing "spontaneous order" and rejection
of
> "static utopia" logically lead one to a transpolitical stance, in my
> opinion.

static utopia != libertarian utopia

Libertarian utopias are generally quite dynamic, which is their point,
because stasis requires regulation to acheive and maintain. It
therefore follows that without regulation, you get dynamism.

And, no, extropy can't be transpolitical, as the principles clearly
exclude political memes that conflict with them, such as those opposing
technological progress and self determination of individuals, promoting
ignorance and superstition, etc.

Thus, a Borg may be transhuman, but it is not extropic. Nor can
luddites be extropic.

Thus, the principles clearly place extropy in one quadrant of a
political landscape, with technological progress being one axis, and
degree of centralization being the other. Borganists are the
neighboring pro-tech quadrant, while Green/Georgist luddites tend to be
on the neighboring pro-individualist quadrant, and
primitivist/theocratic collectivists are in the opposing quadrant.



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 dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jul 13 18:39:31 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:39:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D55FE3.4080001@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>label "Libertarian" does not apply only to people who score 100%x100%
>on the Worlds Shortest Political Quiz, as Perry and his ilk would
>prefer, but to anyone who scores 70%x50% or 50%x70% or higher.
>"Libertarianism" is as big a tent as conservatism or modern liberalism.
>  
>
Seems I'm a libertarian according to the quiz.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 18:52:12 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:52:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713065742.03c1cf48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
	<144A6D52-7E1F-431B-8C23-64CD6797CC8A@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050713065742.03c1cf48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050713185212.GA18353@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:01:15AM -0500, Max More wrote:

> often called themselves &quot;classical liberals&quot;. It used to be
> simply &quot;liberals&quot; but the Liberal Party muddied the original
> meaning over the course of the 20th century. In the original sense, Adam
> Smith was certainly a liberal.<br><br>

Heck, Milton Friedman, in the introduction to his 1963 _Capitalism and
Freedom_, called himself liberal, refusing to surrender the term to creeping
socialists, or to retreat to new senses of 'conservative'[1] or 'libertarian'.

I remember one days where I read something in the Nation, using 'liberal' in
some fairly leftist sense, perhaps protectionist, and then I read Business
Week, taking about liberalization of world trade, meaning the opposite from
waht the Nation did.

Heck, I suspect people at the Economist consider themselves liberal, again in
this sense of being market-friendly, not wanting a Big State, but not being
hostile to a state providing real public goods and providing good regulation
of markets.  Which to me seems compatible with a moderate libertarian.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 13 18:52:43 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:52:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history 
Message-ID: <380-220057313185243794@M2W053.mail2web.com>

I think one of the problems in communication is not everyone is on the same
timeline and while one person may think that his email should be priority,
the other person may have other priorities to tend to.  We need to be
careful about our demands of others and careful not to over impose our own
needs just because we want our answers now and in the manner we want them.  

Civility is essential and getting to the facts of a situation is more aptly
arrived at through consideration, tact, and deference.

Perry stated:

>I will state, unequivocally, that your own message on this has not 
>been ambiguous and uninformative in the same way, and perhaps reflects 
>a genuine viewpoint about the history of the term "Extropian", albeit 
>one which I and many others do not share.

I did not think I had to defend Max, as I knew that he would respond to you
himself when he was able to.  

Further, it is not a matter of being what you call indirect or as you say -
?coy?, it is a matter of not wanting to be in the middle of your
battlefield, one which I sensed would only get more fueled by anything I
would say because in the end, it was not me you addressed, it was Max.  No
matter how I would have answered you, the volume of your posts would
increase until I would finally unplug. One thing that strikes me as
conflicting is that you stated that you don?t read the newsletter, go to
the events, and know about what goes on at ExI, etc. et al; yet feel
justified in making accusations.  

I think that the issue is an important one, and one which take more time
and thought that a number of erratic emails full of accusations and blame
going back and forth.  I believe that you are wrong in the way you
approached me by attacking me, wrong in you assessment of my involvement
with the Webcast, and wrong about why I did not respond to you (accusing me
of claiming liable ? something that is not mediation and quite
off-putting.) 

One thing I am sure of is that in all cases no one is perfectly correct and
no one is entirely wrong. We all need better communication with civility in
hopes of finding resolve.

If anyone would like to discuss this with me, I am available for a
conference call with the Board of ExI.  But it's probably best to do this
over the weekend or after August 1st.  The number is 512.263.2749; but
email me first so that I can calendar a teleconference with others.

My best to all,

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More


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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 13 18:54:59 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:54:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
Message-ID: <380-220057313185459822@M2W058.mail2web.com>

Mike wrote:

>And, no, extropy can't be transpolitical, as the principles clearly
>exclude political memes that conflict with them, such as those opposing
>technological progress and self determination of individuals, promoting
>ignorance and superstition, etc.

Interesting point.  Let's discuss.

What does transpolitical mean to you?

Thanks

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More

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




From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 18:59:04 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:59:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713185212.GA18353@ofb.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713065045.GB3764@ofb.net>
	<144A6D52-7E1F-431B-8C23-64CD6797CC8A@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050713065742.03c1cf48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050713185212.GA18353@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050713185904.GB18353@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:52:12AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> Heck, Milton Friedman, in the introduction to his 1963 _Capitalism and
> Freedom_, called himself liberal, refusing to surrender the term to creeping
> socialists, or to retreat to new senses of 'conservative'[1] or 'libertarian'.

Dang, forgot my footnote.

[1] Conservative seems to alternately mean "not wanting to change things,
especially working traditions"; "being supportive of aristocracy, monarchy, or
power hierarchy in general" (probably from the first application of the first
meaning); or, especially in the US (only in the US?), "small government,
individual freedom, rights of property", presumably from an application of the
first meaning to the US of many decades ago, and a position which would be
called liberal in US history and the rest of the world today.

And that's for starters, not even touching family or religious issues, which I
think can blend the second and third meanings, e.g. small government plus
husband's authority over the family, or church authority.

One of the reasons I liked libertarian, back in the day, was that it seemed
much more specific than the other labels, though even libertarian has conflict
with its original meaning ("property is theft!" anarchists such as Bakunin.)

-xx- Damien X-) 


From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jul 13 19:01:08 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:01:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <380-220057313185459822@M2W058.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220057313185459822@M2W058.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <42D564F4.5070005@neopax.com>

nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>Mike wrote:
>
>  
>
>>And, no, extropy can't be transpolitical, as the principles clearly
>>exclude political memes that conflict with them, such as those opposing
>>technological progress and self determination of individuals, promoting
>>ignorance and superstition, etc.
>>    
>>
>
>Interesting point.  Let's discuss.
>
>What does transpolitical mean to you?
>
>  
>
Well, the most logicalk interpretation is that the 'trans' means the 
same as in Transhumanism ie 'transitional'.
That strongly implies it *is* a political statement in the sense that it 
is offering a political system suitable for the transition to PostHumanity.

-- 
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: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 12/07/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 19:08:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <380-220057313185459822@M2W058.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050713190816.24751.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
> 
> >And, no, extropy can't be transpolitical, as the principles clearly
> >exclude political memes that conflict with them, such as those
> >opposing technological progress and self determination of
> > individuals, promoting ignorance and superstition, etc.
> 
> Interesting point.  Let's discuss.
> 
> What does transpolitical mean to you?

"Transpolitical" means several things to me. Firstly, it implys that
one who is transpolitical sees all political positions as equally
valid. In this way, the stance clearly conflicts with value judgements
that the Principles mandate about certain political policies and
agendas.

The term might also mean the individual feels that they are beyond
politics, which is a pollyannish fantasy. Politics is a science/art of
human interaction. Only a sociopath can be 'transpolitical' in this
sense. The self described transpolitical individual may state that
they, or their ideas, are beyond current day politics, and this may be
so, but it is ignoring the fact that it is the politics of today that
make tomorrow what it will be. In this sense, an extropian cannot
afford to be transpolitical, but even if they do, they cannot
realistically claim that the politics of tommorrow will be unimportant
to them. 

In this sense, my prior post describing a new political landscape with
centralization and technological progress as the axes, clearly
describes the political landscape of tomorrow (and to those of us
debating this same subject in past years, today IS tomorrow).

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 Jul 13 19:13:20 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:13:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D431D2.2040007@aol.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><049f01c586a1$142cbca0$0d98e03c@homepc>	<3df066583190a121d7b062721263406e@aol.com>	<057701c58707$9447ee30$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<A748A309-C1F8-4D0F-931F-DE89F45924A5@bonfireproductions.com>
	<42D431D2.2040007@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4E93E36E-DC97-4D6A-A987-56FBEC591629@bonfireproductions.com>


You raise some very good points in return.

I will offer a cautionary, almost concessional point on your remarks  
to start with. Although we can say

> Let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical and  
> biological weapons arsenal

The 'possible' isn't possible, it was a fact. He did actually have  
them at least at some point.

Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -  
what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people (names  
were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is that  
amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a small  
amount? or 10%? See what I mean?


> that was virtually eradicated by the long-term UN inspections  
> regime and/or then removed from the country when we threatened to  
> invade,

With this point, I share the notion for even bringing it up, but as I  
said - I cannot prove that he moved them. At the same time, we cannot  
prove that they were 'virtually eradicated' either.


> OR at best was something that was solvable through the political  
> process

This is true, in as much we can say that something in the future  
could have been true. Many people will argue that it could have been  
solved with less violence. Others will argue we should have attacked  
sooner.


The rest of your post makes a lot of sense. There was a lot of  
probable outcomes branching at that point in our history. Who knows  
if there were WMDs evacuated to other sites? Could we have found a  
political solution? It is daunting in the face of such heavy decisions.


I would like to ask you some questions about one of the figures  
you've used. I did go to thetip, and to be as helpful as possible, I  
think your links need some stronger or more obvious names*

You keep referencing hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I am  
not sure where this is coming from. Is it that report in the British  
health journal? I think cnn or the bbc mentioned it a while back.

As for Cheney and Haliburton, well I don't think anyone on either  
side of the fence (fences, whatever) will argue that.


One counter-point I'd like to introduce. Is there any benefit to  
causing an opponent to expend their limited resources in a manner  
that reduces their capacity to do you harm? I know there is an  
argument out there that says the battle in Iraq keeps material  
support from reaching the United States. If that was the reason the  
Bush administration gave in the first place, would you feel any  
better about what is going on because of the honesty?


]3



(* for instance instead of just "impeach" make it "the case for  
impeaching George W. Bush" - a search engine would never find  
'impeach' if someone really wanted to know. Until you mentioned it in  
a previous posting in this forum, I didn't think to look there.)


On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Good!
>
> So let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical  
> and biological weapons arsenal (prrovided him for the most part by  
> Americans during the long-time Iraqi-American Alliance against  
> Russia and Iran (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq- 
> ushelp_x.htm and other places, including, of course,  
> thetip.org... ) that was virtually eradicated by the long-term UN  
> inspections regime and/or then removed from the country when we  
> threatened to invade, the potential danger to the US of such  
> weapons was negligible OR at best was something that was solvable  
> through the political process (and would have been solved had the  
> US simply continued to press its case in the UN and required  
> expanded UN inspection regimes, for instance).  Still the question  
> is the case for war.  If Iraq moved the weapons out of the country  
> as a result of the US attack, (instead of USING THEM, DUH!, like  
> they did last time, DUH!) then our threat level was intensified by  
> the dissemination of the weapons into even less stable hands  
> (people who smuggle biological and chemical weapons out of Iraq and  
> into Syria, fo instance).  Then we still killed lots of civilians  
> without achieving our goal of reducing the threat, in fact,  
> increasing the threat because now all those WMD's are in the hands  
> of the devil we don't know instead of the one we knew.
>
> So, again, given that we had other options than killing lots of  
> people and launching us into an occupation quagmire, we should not  
> have gone to war but instead continued the intensified political  
> action.
>
> But we still have the problem of "we KNOW that they have weapons" -  
> not we think or we have some good guesses, but "we KNOW", is still  
> a lie, used to gather support for the war.  Especially the part  
> about aquiring nuclear material in Niger.  This aspect of the  
> administration's position remains inexplicable.  What happened to  
> the evidence we had?  Where are the weapons they said they knew  
> where they were?
> Meanwhile we lose a coupla billion dollars to Haliburton in the  
> process while Cheney continues to recieve his million-dollar-a-year  
> pension.
>
> Hmmm, I buy it.
>
> Robbie
>
>
>
> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Here, let me try.
>>
>> Not that it matters at this point, because opinions solidified  
>> long  before this 'discussion'.
>>
>>
>> Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. As we all know, and  
>> he  used them on his own people. [1]
>>
>> A sparse amount of sarin and mustard gas, was found scattered  
>> about  in 2004. [2]
>>
>> Iraq had an existing infrastructure for the construction and   
>> deployment of said weapons. [3]
>>
>> Saddam liked to bury stuff out in fields. [4]
>>
>>
>> Those are a few facts, each cited below, with varying degrees of   
>> credibility.
>>
>>
>> Someone can no more prove that Bush 'knew he was lying' about  
>> WMDs  than I can prove that Saddam moved his weapons over the  
>> Syrian border  in the long buildup to the invasion. Or that  
>> Russian technicians were  still installing electronic  
>> countermeasures in Baghdad when the US  attacked. Or that those  
>> Russian technicians preferred boxers over  briefs.
>>
>> I can infer with the above points. No more, no less.
>>
>> I can guess boxers.
>>
>>
>>
>> ]3
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 19:35:17 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:35:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues.
In-Reply-To: <017b01c587ca$fbcb85d0$94ef4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D3E6A8.3060104@optusnet.com.au>
	<017b01c587ca$fbcb85d0$94ef4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <20050713193517.GC18353@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> "David" <deimtee at optusnet.com.au>
> 
> >What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be in the
> >resistance and  consider those cops  turncoats to their own people."
> 
> Wow, did she actually say that? I somehow missed that new gem from Samantha,
> and just when I was starting to think I'd too hard on her in the past. After

Right, because no one here would join the resistance to a power which had
managed to conquer and occupy (or try to occupy) the USA in the name of
bringing us better government.  And I'm sure we all think Robert E. Lee was
a crazy person for choosing to defend his state even though he allegedly
didn't approve of slavery.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From amara at amara.com  Wed Jul 13 19:40:23 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:40:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
 and history (economics diversion)
Message-ID: <p06210200befb1c7c0160@[23.237.66.13]>

I wrote this to my family/friends last monthl and after seeing
Max's posts and the follow ups, it occurred to me some of the newer
extro readers may not know some of the terms that are used, and
which was a kind of common knowledge in discussions on this list
14 years ago. Here is some economic theory...

Amara


For those of you who don't know what is Austrian economics, I'm not
an expert, however, the following summary from the delightful book:
_Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School_
might be helpful.

The Austrian School of economic ideas is a laissez-faire economic
policy that rests on individual actors competing in a market process
(stategic, self-interested behavior in a decentralized whole),
driven by disequlibrium and stressing the informational role of
prices. The main points of the Austrian school can be demonstrated
by the ideas of four men: Ludwig Lachmann, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von
Mises, and Murray Rothbard, who, together, form a spectrum. (My
preferences in the spectrum are the Rothbardian views)

Lachmann: holds "Government intervention for stability", which is
the idea that the government has a role to play in stabilizing the
economic system and increasing the coordination of entrepreneurial
plans".

Von Mises: He reconstructed economics upon the solid foundation of a
general theory of human action (which he called "praxeology"). He
stressed that human action always involved the employment of means
toward some end, and he asked whether particular interventions were
the suitable means to attain the ends sought. He held that, by
destroying the price mechanism and interfering with peaceful
cooperation, all economic interventions eventually would have
repercussions that were undesirable, even to those initially favored
by the intervention. Mises concluded, however, that the state was
necessary to establish the rule of law and property rights that the
market needed as its foundation. Mises' ideal state is minarchist:
it is the "night watchman" state that acts only to prevent violence
and theft. Mises's position might be characterized as "intervention
to create the necessary condition - the rule of law - for a market
society.

F.A. Hayek: invoked "Traditionalist interventionism", meaning that
he found no reason to think that governments could outperform
profit-seeking entrepreneurs at achieving plan coordination.

Rothbard: Developed a system in which the state was seen to have no
legitimate role at all. All necessary social institutions, including
police, courts, military, could be established without coercion,
through peaceful cooperation. The Rothbardian view is market
anarchist, or "anarcho-capitalist": no intervention, and no state
that could consider intervening.

Lachmann, Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard all recognized that the main
problem facing economics is not to describe what the market would be
like in equilibrium - an impossible state of affairs -- but to
examine the interplay of forces that generate the market process. To
a great extent, their political economy reflects their opinion about
the robustness of that process. Lachmann, the most interventionist
of the four, also was the most doubtful that the market was
self-stabilizing. Rothbard, the least interventionist, felt that the
market could provide even law and defense better than the state.

The common idea in Austrian political economy is to use the minimum
of coercion necessary to create a functioning society. The above
Austrians' opinions on what that minimum might be range from "not too
much" through "very little" to "none at all." But all of them saw
the value of freeing the individual human mind to set its own
course, and preferred that freedom as far as their theoretical
musings led them to believe it was feasible. Even Lachmann, the most
interventionist of the four, recognized the tremendous power of
voluntary cooperation and the profound limitations of central
planning.

(A little economics lesson diversion)
-- 

***********************************************************************
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/
***********************************************************************
"Living on earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip
around the sun."   --Ashleigh Brilliant


From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Jul 13 20:03:12 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:03:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D57380.60503@jefallbright.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:>

>  --- Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> > I have always seen the concept of extropy as being more abstract
> > and universal than any specific implementation of a set of
> > political/ social beliefs. Indeed, embracing "spontaneous order"
> > and rejection of "static utopia" logically lead one to a
> > transpolitical stance, in my opinion.

>static utopia != libertarian utopia
>
>Libertarian utopias are generally quite dynamic, which is their point,
>because stasis requires regulation to acheive and maintain. It
>therefore follows that without regulation, you get dynamism.
>  
>
I would be very hard-pressed to argue libertarian theory with one with 
as much practice at it as you, but it seems to me that dynamical systems 
without regulation tend to reach their limits and expire prematurely, 
before they're able to evolve to a higher level of organization.

>And, no, extropy can't be transpolitical, as the principles clearly
>exclude political memes that conflict with them, such as those opposing
>technological progress and self determination of individuals, promoting
>ignorance and superstition, etc.
>  
>
It appears you may be conflating "transpolitical" with "apolitical".  We 
all live in a political environment and it would be counter-productive 
to act as if we were beyond political concerns. But just as we talk 
about transhumans transcending the current limitations of our human 
experience, we can talk of being transpolitical in the sense of 
transcending the current limitations of our political systems. 

It seems to me that capital-L Libertarian policies do have limitations 
and will eventually evolve or die. A difficulty here is the seductive 
notion of a "free" system that seems to be the answer to its own 
problems.  The error, in my opinion, is that no system is context-free.  
We each must deal with our environment on its terms.

>Thus, a Borg may be transhuman, but it is not extropic. Nor can
>luddites be extropic.
>  
>
The Borg of Star Trek are anti-extropic because they are a caricature of 
conformity, leading to stagnation.  [By the way, that is a good example 
of why I say that extropy encompasses transhumanism, rather than the 
other way around.]  However, there are theories of "hive-mind" which may 
be very effective both at the subjective level of the individual cells 
and at the higher level of the superorganism.

>Thus, the principles clearly place extropy in one quadrant of a
>political landscape, with technological progress being one axis, and
>degree of centralization being the other. 
>
I generally agree with you here, within the limits of the given context, 
but again, I never suggested extropian thinking was apolitical, but 
rather transpolitical.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 13 20:39:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:39:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues.
In-Reply-To: <017b01c587ca$fbcb85d0$94ef4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050711211512.50561.qmail@web34403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D3E6A8.3060104@optusnet.com.au>
	<017b01c587ca$fbcb85d0$94ef4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <FADA4422-9509-4388-9792-C1B577A63F43@mac.com>

Not unless one is a complete idiot unable to grasp context and  
intent.  But I am always surprised by the number of person (including  
self) who occasionally act indistinguishably from complete idiots.

- s

On Jul 13, 2005, at 9:50 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> "David" <deimtee at optusnet.com.au>
>
>
>> What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be  
>> in the
>> resistance and  consider those cops  turncoats to their own people."
>>
>
> Wow, did she actually say that? I somehow missed that new gem from  
> Samantha,
> and just when I was starting to think I'd too hard on her in the  
> past. After
> that howler it sort of makes you wonder why we should listen to her  
> words of
> wisdom on any subject now doesn't it.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 21:15:37 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:37 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <4E93E36E-DC97-4D6A-A987-56FBEC591629@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
Message-ID: <42D58479.5000000@aol.com>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> You raise some very good points in return.
>
> I will offer a cautionary, almost concessional point on your remarks  
> to start with. Although we can say
>
>> Let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical and  
>> biological weapons arsenal
>
>
> The 'possible' isn't possible, it was a fact. He did actually have  
> them at least at some point.


I gave a reference in the last message to some damning proof that he did 
in fact have the ones that we (the us) provided to him during the 80's 
under the supervision of the Reagan/Bush administration and, I might 
add, without congressional consent.

>
> Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -  
> what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people (names  
> were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is that  
> amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a small  
> amount? or 10%? See what I mean?


Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were helping 
them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing Iranians for 
us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid him to do.  
Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant that he CONTINUED 
after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small (apparently 
invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons inspectors of the 
UN were unable to detect either before or after they were ejected (and 
returned) AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to us since he obviously 
didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they (Bush and Powell and 
Cheney and Rumsfeld) said.  We can also fault them/him for making a 
very, very bad decision in starting a war with someone who had such an 
arsenal and was capable of disseminating to other even less stable 
elements (as is the current top republican theory) and with not apparent 
exit plan other than that the Iraqi's will welcome us.  Well guess what, 
they didn't put out some pie and coffee when we got there. 

If there weren't such obvious profits involved in going to war for Bush 
and Cheney and Rumsfeld, one would think that the case for going to war 
was simply irrational ("they almost killed my dad") or stupidity ("We 
look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will 
make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not 
being denied information you shouldn't see." George Bush, Washington, 
D.C., April 14, 2005).  However, in light of the tremendous profit 
potential, we have to regard their actions as rational but unfortunately 
evil.  The risk of the American Public becoming sufficiently outraged 
before the damage could be done and profit made was too small because of 
the natural tendency of the new-deal-educated-sheep to swallow whatever 
codswallop is secreted from the Rovian press room. 

>
> that was virtually eradicated by the long-term UN inspections  regime 
> and/or then removed from the country when we threatened to  invade,
>
> With this point, I share the notion for even bringing it up, but as I  
> said - I cannot prove that he moved them. At the same time, we cannot  
> prove that they were 'virtually eradicated' either.


What we seem to agree on is that 1)  they weren't there when we got 
there and 2) we didn't -actually- have any good reason to suspect that 
they would be.  I think that's all that's needed to make the case.


>> OR at best was something that was solvable through the political  
>> process
>
>
> This is true, in as much we can say that something in the future  
> could have been true. Many people will argue that it could have been  
> solved with less violence. Others will argue we should have attacked  
> sooner.


As I argued here before, war is a last resort - REALLY.  This means that 
war should be used only when all other options have been exhausted. This 
is because war is dangerous and unpredictable and leads to exponential 
complications usually of a bad sort.  I assume you agree that its 
obvious that we didn't exhaust ALL OTHER OPTIONS.  As I recall, the 
weapons inspectors of the UN were again ejected from Iraq after our 
declaration of our intention to invade, and that our threats had managed 
to get them back into the country.  Our threats and existing sanctions 
were enough.  If threatening is enough, there's no need to fight.

> The rest of your post makes a lot of sense. There was a lot of  
> probable outcomes branching at that point in our history. Who knows  
> if there were WMDs evacuated to other sites? Could we have found a  
> political solution? It is daunting in the face of such heavy decisions.
>
>
> I would like to ask you some questions about one of the figures  
> you've used. I did go to thetip, and to be as helpful as possible, I  
> think your links need some stronger or more obvious names*


Thanks, you're quite right - although I still manage to get #3-#10 on 
google for "impeach george bush" on any given day.  I haven't had time 
to keep up on that aspect of the site.  There are LOTS of problems with 
it.  For instance, the design was thrown together in about 10 minutes, 
the "content management system" is bastardized from something originally 
written for another platform altogether (including another database) and 
consequently does lots of stupid things (like break paragraphs and words 
in the middle because of boundaries of database records, etc.)  There 
are entire sections of content and functionality retired simply because 
I didn't have time to promote them, even though I think they're good 
ideas (I used to have a boycotting section, my personal favorite, for 
instance).  It doesn't have a really good way of automatically filtering 
out spoof email addresses and names, etc.  And I haven't had time to 
keep up with the SEO game.  "Not everyone can carry the weight of the 
world".

But I think impeach -who- is obvious enough - I mean who else would you 
impeach right now if you're in the US and paying attention to the news 
in the last two years?  (well maybe some federal judges, but I think 
most people don't even know that you can impeach a judge).

>
> You keep referencing hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I am  
> not sure where this is coming from. Is it that report in the British  
> health journal? I think cnn or the bbc mentioned it a while back.


Well, we don't have a reliable source of numbers, obviously, since our 
government doesn't allow third-party observers to investigate such 
matters.  On the other hand, we have the Lancet Study which reports the 
total civilian dead since the beginning of the effort at around 98,000, 
when you include the military deaths you're up over a hundred.  It's a 
matter of conjecture what percentage is collateral dammage versus 
natural causes.  HOWEVER since there is a big war and we did just shock 
and awe the shit out of their biggest city and continue to be carrying 
live ammunition around in the streets there and since we won't allow 
third-party investigators to settle the matter there is an impetus to 
err on the side of more dead rather than less, at least until say, the 
Red Cross or UN is admitted to analyze the situation publicly and 
without any obvious accountability to the Bush Administration.  But even 
at 99,000 dead iraqi's the sadness of the matter remains.  Perhaps I 
should post this disclaimer on the site.

> As for Cheney and Haliburton, well I don't think anyone on either  
> side of the fence (fences, whatever) will argue that.


What about Bush and UDI?  This is a major part of the case.  Otherwise 
we'd have to regard their actions as bumbling idiocy.  Instead, there's 
a sinister money element, too.  It's really, really insidious when you 
take into consideration Haliburton, UDI/Carlyle, Bechtel and even our 
non-favorite democrat, Diane Feinstein (who along with -most- of those 
turncoats voted to give Bush the authority to war for us) and hubby 
Dicky Blum and URS, Inc.  The truth is, of course, the payoff list on 
this war was long (but not suprisingly long, it takes a lot of political 
will to make a war and that costs money).

> One counter-point I'd like to introduce. Is there any benefit to  
> causing an opponent to expend their limited resources in a manner  
> that reduces their capacity to do you harm? I know there is an  
> argument out there that says the battle in Iraq keeps material  
> support from reaching the United States. If that was the reason the  
> Bush administration gave in the first place, would you feel any  
> better about what is going on because of the honesty?

I doubt that it would have gone on at all had Bush been honest - it 
would have been much harder to explain why people were going to have to 
die because Saddam MAY have weapons and we don't know and he MAY have 
allies who MAY use them, but we don't know.  Of course he MAY.  I MAY.  
But that's not a good enough reason to hunt me down and kill me and 
certainly not enough reason to bomb downtown Hilo (where I may or may 
not be).  (Well, some people would no doubt like to hunt me down and 
kill me anyway and that would no doubt be among their excuses and if 
someone were to bomb downtown Hilo, they may like to use me and my 
potential terrorist connections to justify it but again, I'm still 
waiting for my check for the mildly war-damaged Vietnamese swampland I'm 
selling.)

Given that the rate and intensity of terrorist activity has gone up as 
well as the apparent sources of threat (since now some Baathist allies 
may have the leftover WMD's from the defunct Iraqi government giving us 
another major potential threat - ASSUMING you believe that story at all, 
which I don't).  So again, given that there were other options (and in 
fact remain other options) of course I would not support a pre-emptive 
war. I would never support a pre-emptive war, the very idea being 
against any kind of moral evaluation of warfare other than the sadistic 
imperialistic version of morality or completely relativistic morality of 
"what I want now".  Contrary to what our logico-philosophical political 
philosophers (since when is Warren Goldfarb a political philosopher?) 
may have said about it.  The policy of pre-emptive war is tantamount to 
proactive imperialism being the same effective policy (kill others 
whenever we see them as a potential threat so they don't become an 
actuall threat).

With regards,


Robbie Lindauer

(Ps - it wasn't my intention to shamelessly plug thetip.org, Paatsch 
asked for references apparently to see if I knew what I was talking 
about, so I started shoving it down his throat, I don't actually even 
like the site that much any more, it's not really accomplishing the goal 
for which it was intended, e.g. unelecting him in the last term.  I 
don't think that any impeachment effort will succeed because the 
political will in congress doesn't exist - too many people would have to 
admit they were fooled and/or wrong.  Given that he won't be impeached 
and that the international war crimes court isn't touching it, there 
doesn't appear to be much we can do but complain and wait him out - 
hopefully with the effect of making a democrat seem more plausible (even 
though I'm not a democrat - we think in an ideal world, but live in the 
real one).  Hopefully Jeb won't run next time  (and even if he does, I 
think his name is too white-trashy to really appeal broadly) and I'm 
pretty sure Cheney couldn't win against anyone who looked alive.  I 
mean, I just can't see myself voting for someone named Jeb even if they 
were a libertarian.

* I like oxymorons and footnotes in emails.



>
>
> ]3
>
>
>
> (* for instance instead of just "impeach" make it "the case for  
> impeaching George W. Bush" - a search engine would never find  
> 'impeach' if someone really wanted to know. Until you mentioned it in  
> a previous posting in this forum, I didn't think to look there.)
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> Good!
>>
>> So let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical  
>> and biological weapons arsenal (prrovided him for the most part by  
>> Americans during the long-time Iraqi-American Alliance against  
>> Russia and Iran (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq- 
>> ushelp_x.htm and other places, including, of course,  thetip.org... ) 
>> that was virtually eradicated by the long-term UN  inspections regime 
>> and/or then removed from the country when we  threatened to invade, 
>> the potential danger to the US of such  weapons was negligible OR at 
>> best was something that was solvable  through the political process 
>> (and would have been solved had the  US simply continued to press its 
>> case in the UN and required  expanded UN inspection regimes, for 
>> instance).  Still the question  is the case for war.  If Iraq moved 
>> the weapons out of the country  as a result of the US attack, 
>> (instead of USING THEM, DUH!, like  they did last time, DUH!) then 
>> our threat level was intensified by  the dissemination of the weapons 
>> into even less stable hands  (people who smuggle biological and 
>> chemical weapons out of Iraq and  into Syria, fo instance).  Then we 
>> still killed lots of civilians  without achieving our goal of 
>> reducing the threat, in fact,  increasing the threat because now all 
>> those WMD's are in the hands  of the devil we don't know instead of 
>> the one we knew.
>>
>> So, again, given that we had other options than killing lots of  
>> people and launching us into an occupation quagmire, we should not  
>> have gone to war but instead continued the intensified political  
>> action.
>>
>> But we still have the problem of "we KNOW that they have weapons" -  
>> not we think or we have some good guesses, but "we KNOW", is still  a 
>> lie, used to gather support for the war.  Especially the part  about 
>> aquiring nuclear material in Niger.  This aspect of the  
>> administration's position remains inexplicable.  What happened to  
>> the evidence we had?  Where are the weapons they said they knew  
>> where they were?
>> Meanwhile we lose a coupla billion dollars to Haliburton in the  
>> process while Cheney continues to recieve his million-dollar-a-year  
>> pension.
>>
>> Hmmm, I buy it.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>>
>> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here, let me try.
>>>
>>> Not that it matters at this point, because opinions solidified  
>>> long  before this 'discussion'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. As we all know, and  he  
>>> used them on his own people. [1]
>>>
>>> A sparse amount of sarin and mustard gas, was found scattered  
>>> about  in 2004. [2]
>>>
>>> Iraq had an existing infrastructure for the construction and   
>>> deployment of said weapons. [3]
>>>
>>> Saddam liked to bury stuff out in fields. [4]
>>>
>>>
>>> Those are a few facts, each cited below, with varying degrees of   
>>> credibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone can no more prove that Bush 'knew he was lying' about  WMDs  
>>> than I can prove that Saddam moved his weapons over the  Syrian 
>>> border  in the long buildup to the invasion. Or that  Russian 
>>> technicians were  still installing electronic  countermeasures in 
>>> Baghdad when the US  attacked. Or that those  Russian technicians 
>>> preferred boxers over  briefs.
>>>
>>> I can infer with the above points. No more, no less.
>>>
>>> I can guess boxers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ]3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Wed Jul 13 21:31:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713185904.GB18353@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050713213103.4490.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
> One of the reasons I liked libertarian, back in the day, was that it
> seemed
> much more specific than the other labels, though even libertarian has
> conflict
> with its original meaning ("property is theft!" anarchists such as
> Bakunin.)

You've got two errors in there.

Firstly, it wasn't Bakunin who said that, it was Proudhon. Secondly,
Proudhon specifically meant the phrase with respect to the inherited
absentee landlordism that was the French aristocracy. In this respect,
he was a proto-Georgist, which resides off in the left-hand side of the
Libertarian territory. 

Proudhon's idea was that, contrary to the Lockean justification for
property ownership (that by mixing one's labor with the land, one  came
to own it by making it useful and therefore valuable through labored
improvement), many of those who inherit land do not mix their labor
(not always, at least, as the landed peasantry labor, on the land they
will inherit, from childhood), and nor, generally, in the case of
aristocracy, do their parents, grandparents, etc. back in history to
some ancestor who stole the land, or bought it from someone who stole
it, etc.

It is because of this situation of ancestor of aristocracy as thief
back in the barbarian middle ages that Proudhon made his famous
declaration, as receipt of stolen goods is still theft, no matter how
ignorant or in good faith the current posessor came to posess them, by
his logic. The failure of this logic is of course the problem of
punishing the sons for the sins of the father.

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 Jul 13 21:35:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] communication issues.
In-Reply-To: <20050713193517.GC18353@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050713213558.23602.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> > "David" <deimtee at optusnet.com.au>
> > 
> > >What Samantha said was "If I was Iraqi I would almost certainly be
> in the
> > >resistance and  consider those cops  turncoats to their own
> people."
> > 
> > Wow, did she actually say that? I somehow missed that new gem from
> Samantha,
> > and just when I was starting to think I'd too hard on her in the
> past. After
> 
> Right, because no one here would join the resistance to a power which
> had managed to conquer and occupy (or try to occupy) the USA in the
> name of bringing us better government.  And I'm sure we all think
> Robert E. Lee was a crazy person for choosing to defend his state
> even though he allegedly didn't approve of slavery.

Samantha's statement is nonsensical, seeing as she claims to be a
libertarian, if we instead imagine some day in the future when a
foreign power invaded the US, deposed its government and put in place a
much more libertarian one. Would she join the
Democrat/Republican/Chiefs of Police Association resistance to oppose
the Libertarian "puppet" "turncoats"? If she would, then she is not a
libertarian, and if she wouldn't, then she contradicts the logic of her
earlier statement.

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 Jul 13 21:59:11 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D58479.5000000@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050713215912.53966.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
> >
> > Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -
> > what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people
> (names  
> > were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is
> that  
> > amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a small  
> > amount? or 10%? See what I mean?
> 
> 
> Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were
> helping 
> them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing Iranians for 
> us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid him to do.

Robbie, it is interesting how you start at fact A and hyperspace jump
to outrageous claim Z without a bit of supporting evidence.
Specifically

a) our operatives were assisting in gassing the Kurds, and
b) we paid Saddam to do it and to let us help.

The sort of reality one lives in to believe these sorts of things is
pretty far out there.
  
> Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant that he
> CONTINUED 
> after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small (apparently 
> invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons inspectors of
> the UN were unable to detect either before or after they were ejected
> (and returned) 

Actually the UN inspectors during the last return inspections found
over a dozen chemical warheads hidden in a concrete foundation slab,
and at least 20 of a whole new model of ballistic missile that nobody
even knew he had, which exceeded UN range limitations by significantly
more than a few miles, even with a full payload. After the invasion,
coalition forces found several trucks which were clearly set up to
process chemical and biological weaponry on the road, and had recently
been scrubbed clean.

> AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to us since he obviously 
> didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they (Bush and Powell and 
> Cheney and Rumsfeld) said. 

Look, claiming Bush lied is clearly BS. Everyone was convinced Saddam
had WMD, and not just based on CIA intel that was faulty. The UN,
Britain, France, Russia, etc. they all knew he had them. Moreover,
there were clearly radio transmissions from the Bagdad area prior to
the invasion that detailed some sort of loading or unloading of
chemical or biological weaponry. Given the sat photos of convoys
heading to Syria prior to the invasion, and Saddam's history of hiding
his weapons in neighboring countries (he sent his Migs in the first
gulf war to hide in Iran), we won't know for sure that Saddam didn't
have them unless we invade Syria as well.

The rest of the world "knew" Saddam had WMD just as Bush did, they just
didn't care, Saddam's money was worth more to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if France talked Saddam into hiding his WMD in
Syria in order to embarrass Bush, figuring he was dumb enough to pull
such a trick on. The fact that France signed a treaty with Syria
several months ago giving Syria the right to keep all WMD it currently
posesses is pretty revealing.


> We can also fault them/him for making a 
> very, very bad decision in starting a war with someone who had such
> an 
> arsenal and was capable of disseminating to other even less stable 
> elements (as is the current top republican theory) and with not
> apparent exit plan other than that the Iraqi's will welcome us.

This is ludicrous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. MAD still
applies. Saddam knew using them against our troops would essentially
give the US carte blanche to use its own WMD. Our troops are there to
take such risks, and are equipped with NBC suits and other equipment to
deal with WMD attacks.


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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 22:11:34 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 15
In-Reply-To: <002c01c5844d$9dc9e650$7c863040@WIGGLES>
Message-ID: <20050713221135.73945.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:

> 
> From: "J. Andrew Rogers"
> <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
> 
> > In countries where wealth is primarily self-made,
> which would include
> > the USA and probably Australia (but not most
> countries in western
> > Europe), I would *expect* declining satisfaction
> in the wealthiest
> > individuals -- it is a self-selecting population.
> >
> > One of the key characteristics of really
> successful entrepreneurs is
> > that they are "hungry" by nature i.e. they are
> never satisfied.  In
> > Silicon Valley, being "hungry" is often considered
> a non-negotiable
> > characteristic of core team members when building
> new companies.  There
> > is a strong correlation between this property and
> business success,
> > which puts a lot of the wealth in their hands as a
> group.  This is also
> > why successful entrepreneurs rarely retire, going
> on to more ventures.
> > They are driven toward stressful environments with
> hard problems to 
> > tackle.
> >
> > This may not explain all of it, but I'll bet it
> explains some of it.
> > Most successful entrepreneurs I know are as
> dissatisfied after they have
> > millions in the bank as when they were first
> starting out.  The money is
> > somewhat immaterial toward that end.  They may not
> be unhappy per se,
> > but they are hardly ever satisfied.
> 
> I've always thought that "satisfaction" is a vastly
> overrated virtue, and 
> using it to measure "happiness" or "subjective well
> being", as some 
> experimenters have, will produce skewed results.
> Divine dissatisfaction is 
> the root of human greatness.
> 
> Am I happy? Moderately to extremely so, depending on
> my mood (occasional, 
> biologically-driven depressive episodes excepted).
> Am I satisfied with my 
> life and level of being as it currently is? Hell,
> NO. Am I satisfied with 
> the progress I've been making? Yes. Perhaps it's the
> last variable that 
> explains it.
> 
> Claribel 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 22:15:27 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:15:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <42D57380.60503@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050713183515.91183.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D57380.60503@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050713221527.GA25608@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:03:12PM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote:

> >Thus, a Borg may be transhuman, but it is not extropic. Nor can
> >luddites be extropic.
> > 
> The Borg of Star Trek are anti-extropic because they are a caricature of 
> conformity, leading to stagnation.  [By the way, that is a good example 
> of why I say that extropy encompasses transhumanism, rather than the 
> other way around.]  However, there are theories of "hive-mind" which may 
> be very effective both at the subjective level of the individual cells 
> and at the higher level of the superorganism.

Has anyone else here read the books and stories of Alastair Reynolds?  I'm
thinking of the Conjoiners, whom he's allegedly described meant to be "cuddly
Borg".  And before I'd seen that, I'd noted that the physical descriptions of
them seemed pretty Borg-like.  Pale skin (I think), plain black clothes, no
wall decorations (because their implants provide enhanced reality, natch)
usually not speaking (see implants, allowing not just quiet talking but
seeing the thoughts and memories of others.)  They were cuddly because we saw
their internal viewpoint, but someone outside would see these silent no-decor
drones...

-xx- Damien X-) 


From max at maxmore.com  Wed Jul 13 22:18:44 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:18:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713171514.040100e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

[Sorry for reposting this--there's nothing different about it, except that 
last time Eudora sent it as HTML-only. That means it gets excluded from the 
list archive. I've reset the settings and given Eudora a spanking. I hope 
it doesn't retaliate by doing anything weird with this text.]


I address this message primarily to Perry Metzger, but also to Anton and 
other interested parties.

I want to explore the obvious differences in our perceptions of my past and 
present political views, and my statements about them, as well as our 
differences over what "extropy" means or implies. Most of all, I'm 
perturbed by your comments about authenticity and I want to see if we can 
resolve our differences. I know that you have strong, well-considered 
views. I respect those views and your intelligence, which is why I want us 
to work together to resolve this disagreement.

Perry, you are obviously upset that a term you were using was, as you see 
it, redefined in a way you dislike. You despise what you regard as 
inauthentic statements and attempts to rewrite the past. Perhaps you are 
also disappointed in what you see as the abandonment of a 
political-philosophical viewpoint by someone who was a public champion of 
that viewpoint. You seem to feel some outrage or disgust at what you see as 
support for coercive practices.

Let me repeat some things that you have said, Perry, some of them publicly:
    "Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote 
lovingly of anarchism"
    "I also know that Max now denies in public that Extropianism ever had 
anything to do with libertarianism, let alone anarchocapitalism"
    "you and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means"
    "denying that he's changed position is disingenuous"
    "I don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with when I was 
in college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim that, in fact, 
they were something else entirely, and that our gatherings and publications 
and such were something other than they were."
    "pretending you are something you aren't"
    You also used the terms "tricky" "coy" and "deception"

Before I address the specifics I want to say that your statements perturb 
me because I hold authenticity as a core value. I have always strived to 
act and speak authentically, even when it made me very unpopular. To be 
accused of pretending to be other than who I am, to be called coy, 
deceptive, disingenuous, and so on, is shocking to me. It is certainly not 
something I take lightly, especially when the accusation comes not from 
some random ignoramus, but from someone such as yourself.

When I was just a young lad and stood up in front of most of my school to 
tell the local campaigning MP (Paddy Ashdown) that his government salary 
and his job amounted to theft, I had no support and no approval. My 
politics teacher, who was moderating the questions, tried to discourage me 
from further comments, but I went ahead. My political views have NEVER 
earned me any points throughout my years in an academia thoroughly 
dominated by "liberals", i.e. heavy duty statists. When I was 15 or 16, I 
knew that my advocacy of nuclear power would be extremely unpopular with 
fellow members of Friends of the Earth, but didn't let that quiet me. (It 
did soon lead me to realize that F.O.E. was not an organization I could 
support.)

At Oxford, when I stood up during debates in the Junior Common Room 
(biweekly meeting of all undergraduates in the college to vote on various 
proposals), I was often the ONLY person taking a stand on one side of an 
issue. On the occasional issue, I might be joined by an ultraconservative 
fellow, which probably only made me more unpopular. I vividly remember 
being derided for stating my views that socialism was bad for Tanzania and 
that what it needed were markets. Each meeting was an exercise in standing 
in isolation, enduring heckling and ridicule. I never allowed that to cause 
me to mask my views.

When I went as a graduate student to USC in Los Angeles, from the start I 
was completely open about my libertarian views, as well as about my 
involvement in cryonics. My dissertation adviser referred to my "crazy" 
views on these subjects. I continued to firmly express my views even during 
the distorted news reporting on the Dora Kent suspension (in which I was 
directly involved). More recently, I disputed the popular criticism of 
cryonics and Alcor's handling of the Ted Williams case on Crossfire. I knew 
that I would be in the firing line, and wasn't at all surprised that the 
moronic hosts joined the other party in piling on. I have NEVER hidden my 
views on anything, and have gone to great trouble to live authentically. To 
be presented otherwise therefore deeply perturbs me, though not as much as 
it would if I gave those claims any credence.


My specific responses to these statements:
"You and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means."
         How do you know whether -- if those folks *do* coercive means -- 
that we hang out with them *happily*? Rather than with, say, discomfort, 
reluctance, out of a sense of responsibility for blunting their effect, 
etc.? This also seems like an unfair comment because I find it hard to 
believe that you, or anyone who shares your perception, don't "hang out 
with", i.e. work with, talk with, anyone who "favors coercive means." We 
don't have the luxury of interacting only with those who we think have the 
right approaches to everything. I find it more useful to engage, rather 
than avoid, those whose policies I regard as mistaken, dangerous, or merely 
sub-optimal.

On the specific matter of the Geoethics seminar: You don't know what I'm 
going to say about the "global regulatory framework". (Nor do I know what 
the organizer means by that.) Why assume I will favor lots of government 
regulation? Why characterize my participation in such terms?

In reality, I will be arguing as a rule *against* regulation by government 
agencies, and in favor of self-regulation and transparency. Since some form 
of state regulation is likely, regardless of what we would prefer, I will 
also be promoting use of the Proactionary Principle to replace the 
precautionary principle. Success in this would greatly reduce the likely 
harm of regulation.

"Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote 
lovingly of anarchism"
    I do not pretend that, and never have, neither to others nor to myself. 
On what basis do you suggest otherwise? Perhaps a statement by someone 
other than me has led to that impression. If what you were saying were 
true, why would I leave on my own website a reference to my 1990 "Deep 
Anarchy" article? < http://www.maxmore.com/writing.htm> Also, why would we 
leave in the history of ExI the following text: "Extropy #7 focused on 
emergent order, including Prof. Tom Bell's "Privately Produced Law", and 
Max More's "Order Without Orderers""? < http://www.extropy.org/history.htm>

The only thing I can think of that might give you that impression was part 
of what I said in the NeoFiles interview last year. I said: "Even the 
earliest version of the Principles did not, in fact, "enclose a strong 
belief in a libertarian pro-free enterprise politics." I stand by what I 
said there. You may be mixing up the views that appeared in Extropy 
magazine (including my own views) with the essential ideas that were 
expressed in the Extropian Principles.

The Principles never did require a strong belief in libertarianism as a 
particular political philosophy. They were all about removing limits and 
barriers and enhancing capabilities. Version 1.0 of the Extropian 
Principles listed the following four principles: Boundless Expansion, 
Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, and Intelligent Technology. The 
second of those principles is the relevant one:

Self-Transformation: "Self-responsibility and self-determination are 
incompatible with centralized control, with its stifling of the free 
choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons, and requires the 
fewest restrictions compatible with maintaining the conditions of freedom. 
Beyond agreement on these principles extropianism places no limits on the 
paths one takes in the pursuit of self-transformation."

Note the last clause. Now, clearly I was a libertarian when I wrote the 
above. I believe (and STILL believe) that libertarianism is highly 
compatible with that principle. At the time, I strongly doubted that any 
non-libertarian (in a strict sense) view could fully accord with the 
principle. Fortunately, I was thinking at a higher level of abstraction 
than that of a particular viewpoint in political philosophy. My primary 
concern was with removing barriers and enhancing capabilities, not with 
promoting one view of exactly how to do that. Note the non-absolutist 
nature of the clause, "the fewest restrictions compatible with maintaining 
the conditions of freedom." There is NO WAY that the principle is 
compatible with big government, but it DOES NOT specify libertarianism, 
whether anarchocapitalism or minarchism.

By version 2.0, the Principles had already further disengaged from 
appearing to endorse the specific libertarian view. The relevant new 
principle was Spontaneous Order.
"SPONTANEOUS ORDER - Promotion of decentralized, voluntaristic social 
coordination mechanisms.  Fostering of tolerance, diversity, long-term 
planning, individual incentives and personal liberties."
         The other relevant new principle was Open Society: "Supporting 
social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and 
experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the 
rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over 
battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than 
a static utopia."

Part of the disagreement may be that, in your mind, "extropy" *essentially* 
implied libertarianism, even anarchocapitalism, whereas in my mind it 
essentially embodied the freedom and ability to change, to improve, and to 
work freely with others for these goals. It implied libertarianism only 
*contingently*. A close reading of the Principles (what was said and what 
was not said) should make it clear that this was how I thought then. It's 
also how I think now.

In the NeoFiles interview, immediately after the above quote, I went on to 
say: "Granted, the early principles and the tone of our first publications 
certainly favored a strongly libertarian approach." How does this square 
with your claim that, "I also know that Max now denies in public that 
Extropianism ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let alone 
anarchocapitalism"? Both my quoted words, and my explanation of why I *no 
longer* called myself a libertarian, make it abundantly clear that I *used 
to* call myself such.

The same comments apply to statements that: "denying that he's changed 
position is disingenuous"; "pretending you are something you aren't"; "I 
don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with when I was in 
college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim that, in fact, they 
were something else entirely, and that our gatherings and publications and 
such were something other than they were."
         I would add that your inferences will seem even less plausible 
when we put out the announced book, "Best of the List." We have every 
intention of including some of the excellent discussions of economic and 
political futures from the early days of the list, including clearly 
anarchistic and libertarian discussions (quite possibly including my own 
contributions). [Inclusion in the book is subject to the permission of each 
author.]

Perry, what are your intentions in making the claims that you've made? Are 
you trying to damage my reputation? Simply set the facts straight? Express 
your feelings? Something else?

Does my account make sense to you? Does anything seem to be missing? If so, 
what would it take to convince you that I am not deceptive or inauthentic? 
You don't have to like my (rather modest) change in views, but it is 
important to me to resolve these conflicting perceptions.

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 13 22:19:07 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:19:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history (economics diversion)
In-Reply-To: <p06210200befb1c7c0160@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200befb1c7c0160@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050713221907.GB25608@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:40:23PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:

A nice post, Amara, useful even for an old-timer.  Thanks!

> Von Mises: He reconstructed economics upon the solid foundation of a
> general theory of human action (which he called "praxeology"). He

I saw that word in L. Neil Smith's _Tom Paine Maru_ when I was 13.  I never
knew he hadn't made it up.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 13 22:20:16 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 15
In-Reply-To: <002c01c5844d$9dc9e650$7c863040@WIGGLES>
Message-ID: <20050713222017.8544.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>

Whoops!  Hit the wrong key, and off it went.

Nevermind.

Jeff Davis


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


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Jul 13 22:37:24 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:37:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
	(economics diversion)
In-Reply-To: <p06210200befb1c7c0160@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210200befb1c7c0160@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507131836170.-306043@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Amara Graps wrote:

> I wrote this to my family/friends last monthl and after seeing
> Max's posts and the follow ups, it occurred to me some of the newer
> extro readers may not know some of the terms that are used, and
> which was a kind of common knowledge in discussions on this list
> 14 years ago. Here is some economic theory...
>

Thanks for this neat little summary, Amara. I've forwarded it on to my
children. They certainly are not ready to read von Mises "Human
Action"! :)))

Regards,
MB



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 22:39:18 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:39:18 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050713215912.53966.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713215912.53966.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D59816.9080902@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -
>>>what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people
>>>      
>>>
>>(names  
>>    
>>
>>>were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is
>>>      
>>>
>>that  
>>    
>>
>>>amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a small  
>>>amount? or 10%? See what I mean?
>>>      
>>>
>>Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were
>>helping 
>>them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing Iranians for 
>>us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid him to do.
>>    
>>
>
>Robbie, it is interesting how you start at fact A and hyperspace jump
>to outrageous claim Z without a bit of supporting evidence.
>Specifically
>
>a) our operatives were assisting in gassing the Kurds, and
>b) we paid Saddam to do it and to let us help.
>
>The sort of reality one lives in to believe these sorts of things is
>pretty far out there.
>  
>

I invite you to investigate the matter fully for yourself.  Nothing I 
would say would convince you one way or another.

>  
>  
>
>>Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant that he
>>CONTINUED 
>>after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small (apparently 
>>invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons inspectors of
>>the UN were unable to detect either before or after they were ejected
>>(and returned) 
>>    
>>
>
>Actually the UN inspectors during the last return inspections found
>over a dozen chemical warheads hidden in a concrete foundation slab,
>and at least 20 of a whole new model of ballistic missile that nobody
>even knew he had, which exceeded UN range limitations by significantly
>more than a few miles, even with a full payload. After the invasion,
>coalition forces found several trucks which were clearly set up to
>process chemical and biological weaponry on the road, and had recently
>been scrubbed clean.
>  
>
You seem to be claiming that Iraq did have the wmd's and we found them.  
Wow, this is a major news story, perhaps you should call the AP immediately!

 As a matter of fact each of your "cited" incidents of detection were 
debunked later by further investigation.    I invite you to investigate 
the matter fully for yourself, nothing I say would be likely to change 
your mind about it.

>  
>
>>AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to us since he obviously 
>>didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they (Bush and Powell and 
>>Cheney and Rumsfeld) said. 
>>    
>>
>
>Look, claiming Bush lied is clearly BS. Everyone was convinced Saddam
>had WMD,
>

Not the director of the CIA, not Colin Powell, not me and a coupla 
thousand of my compatriots, not Hans Blix, not the UN inspectors on the 
ground.  In fact, anyone who actually had first-hand experience there 
about it didn't think it was an issue.

> and not just based on CIA intel that was faulty.
>
The faulty intelligence was from the British and both the British and 
the CIA knew it was faulty long before it reached the president's hands, 
google "hadley".


> The UN,
>Britain, France, Russia, etc. they all knew he had them.
>

Uh, no.  Google "Hans Blix" and see 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040209-pla-daily01.htm

So you're saying that France decided not to support our war effort 
BECAUSE THEY KNEW SADDAM HAD WMD's?

Is someone paying to provide propaganda for the Republicans or something?

> Moreover,
>there were clearly radio transmissions from the Bagdad area prior to
>the invasion that detailed some sort of loading or unloading of
>chemical or biological weaponry.
>
I invite you to investigate this matter more thoroughly for yourself.  
Nothing I say will convince you.

> Given the sat photos of convoys
>heading to Syria prior to the invasion, and Saddam's history of hiding
>his weapons in neighboring countries (he sent his Migs in the first
>gulf war to hide in Iran), we won't know for sure that Saddam didn't
>have them unless we invade Syria as well.
>  
>

So the bottom line, according to you, is that we just don't know.  We 
didn't know then, we don't know now.  So what we know is that he MIGHT 
have had some WMD's somewhere.  Might is not DOES and there is a WORLD 
of difference.

>The rest of the world "knew" Saddam had WMD just as Bush did, they just
>didn't care, Saddam's money was worth more to them.
>  
>

Hilarious.


>I wouldn't be surprised if France talked Saddam into hiding his WMD in
>Syria in order to embarrass Bush, figuring he was dumb enough to pull
>such a trick on. The fact that France signed a treaty with Syria
>several months ago giving Syria the right to keep all WMD it currently
>posesses is pretty revealing.
>
>  
>

I wouldn't be suprised if your weekly psychiatry bills exceeded $200.

>>We can also fault them/him for making a 
>>very, very bad decision in starting a war with someone who had such
>>an 
>>arsenal and was capable of disseminating to other even less stable 
>>elements (as is the current top republican theory) and with not
>>apparent exit plan other than that the Iraqi's will welcome us.
>>    
>>
>
>This is ludicrous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. MAD still
>applies. Saddam knew using them against our troops would essentially
>give the US carte blanche to use its own WMD. Our troops are there to
>take such risks, and are equipped with NBC suits and other equipment to
>deal with WMD attacks.
>  
>
How does this respond to what I wrote?  I said that IF you believe the 
story about him disseminating these weapons to other less stable 
elements (for instance your fantasy about them being trucked to syria 
above) then you've got to lay the blame for that kind of thing soundly 
where it belongs, with the US administration for pulling war-time theatrics.

Plus, this would be a relevant thing to say if Saddam hadn't already 
used such things against the US in the first gulf war.  Remember, we're 
dealing with a desperate man with some big weapons looking forward to 
some inhumane torture and eventual execution if he gets 
caught/convicted.  You really think that after flaunting the UN 
resolutions he was concerned about MAD?  Puhleeze.  After the way his 
"army" folded in a few days it seems pretty clear that they didn't have 
enough oomph to put up any kind of reasonable main-force defense and 
that their plan was, likely, to just drag this out until we leave.  
Remember that that part of the world is older in its world view than 
that of the average american.  A couple of generations of occupation and 
war aren't something -new- over there and eventually they know that the 
white invaders will leave after we get sick of children walking into 
libraries with bombs attached to their chests.

Robbie Lindauer



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jul 13 23:55:42 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:55:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D58479.5000000@aol.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
Message-ID: <42D5A9FE.40501@mindspring.com>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>> You raise some very good points in return.
>>
>> I will offer a cautionary, almost concessional point on your remarks  
>> to start with. Although we can say
>>
>>> Let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical and  
>>> biological weapons arsenal
>>
>>
>>
>> The 'possible' isn't possible, it was a fact. He did actually have  
>> them at least at some point.
>
>
>
> I gave a reference in the last message to some damning proof that he 
> did in fact have the ones that we (the us) provided to him during the 
> 80's under the supervision of the Reagan/Bush administration and, I 
> might add, without congressional consent.
>
>>
>> Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -  
>> what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people (names  
>> were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is 
>> that  amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a 
>> small  amount? or 10%? See what I mean?
>
>
>
> Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were 
> helping them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing 
> Iranians for us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid 
> him to do.  Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant 
> that he CONTINUED after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small 
> (apparently invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons 
> inspectors of the UN were unable to detect either before or after they 
> were ejected (and returned) AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to 
> us since he obviously didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they 
> (Bush and Powell and Cheney and Rumsfeld) said.  We can also fault 
> them/him for making a very, very bad decision in starting a war with 
> someone who had such an arsenal and was capable of disseminating to 
> other even less stable elements (as is the current top republican 
> theory) and with not apparent exit plan other than that the Iraqi's 
> will welcome us.  Well guess what, they didn't put out some pie and 
> coffee when we got there.
> If there weren't such obvious profits involved in going to war for 
> Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, one would think that the case for going 
> to war was simply irrational ("they almost killed my dad") or 
> stupidity ("We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation 
> that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that 
> you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." George Bush, 
> Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005).  However, in light of the 
> tremendous profit potential, we have to regard their actions as 
> rational but unfortunately evil.  The risk of the American Public 
> becoming sufficiently outraged before the damage could be done and 
> profit made was too small because of the natural tendency of the 
> new-deal-educated-sheep to swallow whatever codswallop is secreted 
> from the Rovian press room.

Robert,

First, a linguistic note to salve my curiosity.  I've noticed posters on 
other lists, who I know aren't British, who use
British terms such as codswallop (bullshit?) or pinch (to steal).  Are 
you British?

Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued Islamic 
extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?

Terry


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From dgc at cox.net  Wed Jul 13 23:56:18 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:56:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] fuel cell bike & local hydrogen generation
In-Reply-To: <20050713175821.90321.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050713175821.90321.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D5AA22.5030901@cox.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>There is a design for a device that produces hydrogen by using a low
>current to oxidize aluminum wire in water, producing hydrogen. The
>amount of energy required is significantly less than electrolysis. The
>energy consumed in refining the aluminum is generally power plant
>energy, ergo most efficiently generated, and the smelter generally buys
>it at a cost far below anybody else, because the smelter uses so much
>of it. Recycling the spent aluminum oxide is as simple as collecting it
>and shipping it back to the smelter, who will enjoy it as it takes less
>energy to refine this material than raw bauxite.
>
>  
>
Assume we find a way to use scrap aluminum (e.g., soda cans.) the
soda cans could otherwise be recycled directly with a much lower cost
than the cost of converting the aluminum oxide back into aluminum.

I speculate that it's cheaper to use crude photovoltaics to generate
hydrogen by electrolysis. This avoids the usual problem of photovoltaics,
which is how to make efficient use of low voltage.

I think the main problem with any local hydrogen generation is 
pressurization
and storage. Oddly enough, this problem may end up being an advantage
at the system level. use of the pressurized hydrogen in the vehicle may 
pay for
the pressurization and storage system, which can then also be used to 
solve the
storage problem for the fixed installation "for free."


From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Jul 14 00:42:35 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:42:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history
In-Reply-To: <20050713190816.24751.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <380-220057313185459822@M2W058.mail2web.com>
	<20050713190816.24751.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050713192200.04658c90@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


I wrote the term transpolitical with no prior knowledge of its use, mean it 
to mean trans (as in transition from one form or style to another) politics 
(as in the interrelationship among people and society in regards to the 
science of politics and politics as the methods involved in managing, such 
as a state or government).  As you know, for umpteen years I have been 
looking for a more future oriented politics that takes the best of 
libertarian ideas and is democratic means for people to vote on where they 
want their own taxes to go (provided that we are taxed) and how they want 
to be governed (provided that we must be governed).  I'm not a big fan of 
government, as you all know, and I am sorely annoyed by politicians and 
political positioning, which I have brought up from time to time over the 
past years.

Regarding transpolitics, Mike could be correct that it would imply an 
inclusiveness of all politics, but that is not what I mean.  It is more 
that none of the political positions are equally valid, but that all 
political positions are inadequate for dealing with transhumanism and the 
future.

I think that as humans become transhumans there are buckets full of issues, 
changes, adjustments, alternations, acceptances, challenges, etc - that we 
have to face.  I remember when I first became a transhumanist and gave up 
all the Holidays I loved so much as a child. It was hard, but I had to do 
it because I did not want to celebrate events that did not reflect my 
philosophical view. So there went all the fun and games of traditional 
American holiday celebrations.

For those of us who love to engage in politics and may not want to give up 
waving flags for our favored political candidates, platforms, and party 
colors and parties.  But I personally am not excited by it for the 
future.  I would rather rally around voting on a new networked 
system  -  nomothetic and diplomacy-based referendums for voting on issues 
would be developed through pervasive computing environments.  The 
ubiquitous environment would produce rapid multi-cultural communications. 
Open communications produces broader understanding and cooperation through 
online politics.

The science of politics in regards to society is tightly 
interconnected.  While I think that no political agenda fits the needs of 
transhumanism and the future, it is essential to have methods for managing 
the way society works and interacts.  And I agree that for extropians, 
politics has a integral position in communicating ideas and ideals.  I'm 
just not satisfied with what we have today.

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/20050713/91c0d609/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 00:41:17 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:41:17 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] London bombings and toxic memes
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050713100102.01d31a88@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <077001c5880c$bf353ed0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Damien Broderick wrote:

>A British friend writes:
> =======================

> Nope -- they were young Brits of South Asian ancestry who
> had grown up all their lives in England and spoke with Yorkshire
> accents. (Or so it seems on the evidence so far.)
> 
> They did what they did out of ideological conviction, not because of
> any personal experience of suffering, not because of any family
> connections with the trouble spots of the Middle East, and not
> because of any real "ethnic" identification they might have claimed
> with the Arab world.
> 
> They did what they did not because they had any personal reasons,
> but quite simply because their minds had been infected with a set of
> very bad ideas.
> 
> Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Ideas like the precautionary principal or ideas like the doctrine of 
pre-emption.

The pre-cautionary principal is invoked by those that want to slow
down the rate of technological progress lest unknown unknowns 
jump out and bite us. Whilst known knowns cancer, heart disease
etc continue to kills us.

Meanwhile the same group of geniuses decide that in matters military
its not the precautionary principal that should be applied its the 
doctrine of pre-emption. 

So despite game theory, despite the US Constitution, despite the
US Security Council they decide we will just go over and do a bit
of quick and easy regime changing. We'll install a little of that
democracy that we all like so much that well do it by force.

What does it take for people to realise that after about 3.5 billion
years of life on earth the one thing that human beings are incredibly
good at is fighting other human beings. All those that were not 
were selected out long ago.  

Mortals are used to the idea of dying, most of them take it as a given,
give them sufficient emotional provocation to do it today for a cause 
and some recognition, rather than tomorrow or later for no good 
reason, and they will happily oblige you. This applies to human 
beings of all races and creeds. 

You don't need to give them thermonuclear weapons if they want
them they will just make use of yours.  You don't need to worry
about disarming them, the weapons you bring to disarm them with
work just as well for them as you.  You don't need to worry about
going overseas or down the street to look for the danger the danger
is much closer. The more you learn to fight with modern technology
the more you teach them to fight with modern technology. 

The universal soldier is not something that is yet to be produced
nature has been producing him and her forever. 

The challenge is to produce the universal peacemaker. 

Brett Paatsch



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 01:16:45 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:16:45 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] London bombings and toxic memes
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050713100102.01d31a88@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<077001c5880c$bf353ed0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <078401c58811$b36af540$0d98e03c@homepc>

I wrote:

> ... despite the US Security Council 

I should have said UN Security Council, but the way the US citizens
have taken to letting their President's either ignore or accept the UN
Security Council resolutions it might almost as well be relabelled the
US President's discretionary Security Council. 

Brett Paatsch



From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 02:27:11 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:27:11 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush
	admin	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D5A9FE.40501@mindspring.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
Message-ID: <42D5CD7F.5000708@aol.com>

Terry W. Colvin wrote:

>
> Robert,
>
> First, a linguistic note to salve my curiosity.  I've noticed posters 
> on other lists, who I know aren't British, who use
> British terms such as codswallop (bullshit?) or pinch (to steal).  Are 
> you British?


No, just a yeart at U. of Sussex at sunny Brighton by the sea and a 
coupla years in Dublin.  I also still say "sorry" when I mean "excuse 
me" or when something bad happens to someone else that isn't my fault 
and tend to have a Cockburn's or Jameson's after dinner (but seldom 
before dinner anymore, sigh).  I still fry my mushrooms and tomatoes for 
breakfast occasionally and, of course, own a copy of Queen's greatest 
hits (but have sadly stopped listening to it).  That's pretty much where 
the whole english thing ends with me.  By race I'm Jewish, Korean, 
Hungarian, Austrian, German-Irish third generation immigrants to the US 
on all sides but the German-Irish.  Most people say they can't tell I'm 
Korean by looking at me but I make a mean Kal bi, kim chi and tobuchige.

>
> Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued Islamic 
> extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?


I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement in 
the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.

How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and Afganistan?  
Now that's a question worth asking.

1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.
2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR terms 
- give it to them!
3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.
4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that they'll 
be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as quickly as 
possible and that they're invited to join in the formation of the new 
government -and mean it-.  Perhaps offer to make Iraq a shining example 
of a Libertarian utopia :)

(as long as I'm at it...)

5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy 
conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest of 
the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions to 
the middle east.

(and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your question, 
I'm sure you were looking forward to it)

 Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a 
diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and 
avoided the whole confounded incident.  But in the unimaginably unlikely 
possible world where I found myself president on 9/12 looking for 
something to do I'd probably have listened to my CIA/FBI advisors and 
gone in with the toothpick before using a hammer.  If I was interested 
in saving my political career (which would probably be the main reason 
such a world was so completely absurd) I would attempt to have a head or 
two rolling down the table within a few weeks and then some kind of 
back-office deal to appease the attackers and once again restore peace?  
Hopefully the head will have been dead for years so nobody new would 
have had to die...  Maybe...

No doubt the Taliban were upset by Unocal's insistence on pushing 
through the afgan line -on their terms- and no doubt they could have 
been sated had -someone- told Unocal just to play nice with the 
natives.  But I don't know enough about Al Quaeda's involvement with the 
Taliban and the Saudi government to really have an understanding of who 
to talk to and how to talk with them.  I'd LOVE to know, though.  I've 
read Osama Bin Laden's statement but frankly without knowing in more 
detail how Al Quaeda is organized and what their relationship is with 
their various supporting organizations, I don't have enough information 
to make an informed decision even in retrospect.  It's possible that the 
taliban was so closely aligned with Al Quaeda that 9/11 was essentially 
a first-shot act of war.  If that was the case, I don't know what I'd 
have done, but it probably wouldn't have been greeted with glee by true 
pacifists - would have had to keep it hush-hush no doubt.  It's equally 
possible, from my point of view, that Bin Laden was hired by Bush's 
people to stir things up and save his flailing presidency.  In which 
case, because I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire 
terrorists to give me something to do and so the whole event would have 
been avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so 
ridiculous after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones 
moving forward.

I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that might 
be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't be the 
first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to solve that 
problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all 
around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!)  Anyway, for that we'd 
probably have to start in India or Pakistan, "our allies".  So, 
unfortunately, the sex issue gets swept under the floor as it has been 
for the last 5000 years

.

Robbie


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Jul 14 02:50:15 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:50:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Re: Al-Qaida nukes already in
	U.S.
Message-ID: <42D5D2E7.1080505@mindspring.com>

[Although much of this article is conspiracy screed, I continue to ponder
the disposition of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons whether suitcase
(manpack), artillery, land mine, depth charge, etc.  -Terry]

Hi Mike et al! (all my dear friends here, like George said on the
Fortean list),

Anyway, I read this article yesterday and it really scared me, because I
could see the possibility of it being true, and, well, if it ever does
happen, that's the end of the world as we know it for generations to
come. Maybe that's the goal of the terrorists: to trigger World War III
(some would argue it's already started and I would have to agree) but if
there is a nuclear attack(s) I fear it will result in more nukes being
detonated and then... well, goodbye civilization. It'll be head for the
hills time, but the hills will be radioactive.

Anyway, didn't mean to be depressing, I hope everyone is enjoying
themselves tonight! And George, yes, this list is like everyone sitting
down for dinner at and enjoying a great talk! Waiter! Bring me some more
wine!

Kelly

"Wm. Michael Mott" wrote:
> 
> I recommend that everyone that is interested in learning what is
> REALLY going on in our world, read a little book called "Osama's
> Revenge."
> 
> You can get it at amazon.com, newsmax.com, etc.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> --- In fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry" <lightdancer at v...>
> wrote:
> > Mike, I've been hearing about these border incidents for many
> years now and it can't be good.  It's hard to imagine why we act so
> stupid in security matters.  I don't get it unless there is a larger
> plan afoot as some have suggested.
> > Sher
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Wm. Michael Mott<mailto:williammmott at b...>
> >   To:
> fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com<mailto:fantasticreality at yahoogroups.
> com>
> >   Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:37 PM
> >   Subject: [fantasticreality] Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
> >
> >
> >
> >   To view the entire article, visit
> >   http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
> ARTICLE_ID=45<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
> ARTICLE_ID=45>
> >   203
> >   Monday, July 11, 2005
> >   -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >   Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
> >   -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >   Posted: July 11, 2005
> >   12:22 p.m. Eastern
> >
> >   Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online,
> >   subscription intelligence news service from the creator of
> >   WorldNetDaily.com - a journalist who has been developing
> >   sources around the world for almost 30 years. The subscription
> >   price for the premium newsletter has been slashed in half and is
> >   now available for only $9.95 per month.
> >
> >   WASHINGTON - As London recovers from the latest deadly
> >   al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government
> >   officials are contemplating what they consider to be an
> inevitable
> >   and much bigger assault on America - one likely to kill
> millions,
> >   destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of
> >   history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
> >
> >   According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan
> >   is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple
> >   detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S.
> >   over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang
> >   and other organized crime groups.
> >
> >
> >   Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the
> >   former Soviet Union - including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines,
> >   artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition,
> >   documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to
> >   assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it
> >   purchased on the black market.
> >
> >   In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already
> >   planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence
> to
> >   suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces
> >   Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear
> >   weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union
> >   during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying
> >   nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its
> >   existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with
> >   the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring
> >   over a period of 10 years.
> >
> >   The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have
> >   been under development for more than a decade. It is designed
> >   as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by
> >   al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."
> >
> >   At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were
> >   obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.
> >
> >   But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials
> now
> >   believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled
> >   into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part
> of
> >   this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book,
> >   "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized
> >   Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a
> >   former FBI consultant.
> >
> >   According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet
> >   informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001,
> >   attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida
> >   operatives in the U.S.
> >
> >   "Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms
> >   (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough
> >   fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield
> >   in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore
> >   the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of
> >   1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is
> >   simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate
> >   compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can
> >   be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."
> >
> >   According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof,"
> >   prompting him to order his national security team to give
> nuclear
> >   terrorism priority over every other threat to America.
> >
> >   However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this
> policy
> >   into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear
> >   weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed
> >   with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the
> >   building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan
> >   areas for use by federal government managers following an
> >   attack.
> >
> >
> >   Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to
> >   spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained
> >   in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy
> >   production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are
> >   occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close
> >   relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the
> smuggling
> >   and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.
> >
> >   Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street
> >   gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent
> >   smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also
> >   provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula
> >   consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID,
> >   now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain
> >   driver's licenses.
> >
> >   The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the
> >   U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing
> >   number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No.
> 1
> >   security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is
> >   planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this
> >   fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it
> did
> >   in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.
> >
> >   According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper
> >   agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out
> >   their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.
> >
> >   Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4
> >   million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only
> >   then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by
> >   America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.
> >
> >   There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida
> >   has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to
> >   Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range
> >   between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an
> >   undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase
> >   bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already
> >   been smuggled into the U.S. - at least some across the
> >   U.S.-Mexico border.
> >
> >   The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and
> >   documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously
> >   in major cities throughout the country - including New York,
> >   Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los
> >   Angeles.
> >
> >   In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox,
> founder
> >   of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group
> >   demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said
> >   an immediate military presence on the borders is now
> >   imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified,
> >   potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an
> >   alarming rate."
> >
> >   "Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything
> they
> >   want across our national line at this time," he said. "As
> ordinary
> >   citizens have warned this government for years, the only
> >   surprising part about the new information reported here is that
> >   nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has
> >   yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London
> >   again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are
> >   not immune in this country. At this point, the next attempt to
> attack
> >   America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our
> >   unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat - yet
> our
> >   government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's
> margin
> >   of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress
> >   had better wake up before they have to answer for another
> >   devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."
> >
> >   ? 2005
> >   -----------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
"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 jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 03:10:19 2005
From: jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com (Jacques Mathieu)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
Message-ID: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>

A few years back I remember reading about some fruit
fly experiments that a certain individual on this list
would post every so often. I searched through the
archives, but unfortunately could only get to 2003 and
I believe these were earlier. Anyway, does anyone know
or remember of these experiments and what the ultimate
results were?

Thanks,

Jacques

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 03:19:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D5CD7F.5000708@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050714031923.68212.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued
> Islamic 
> > extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?
> 
> 
> I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement
> in the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.
> 
> How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and
> Afganistan?  Now that's a question worth asking.
> 
> 1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.

For what? 9/11?

> 2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR
> terms - give it to them!

We are giving it to them, on the Iraqis terms, not the thug coddlers at
the UN.

> 3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.
> 4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that
> they'll be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully
> as quickly as possible and that they're invited to join in the
> formation of the new government -and mean it-. Perhaps offer to
> make Iraq a shining example of a Libertarian utopia :)

Giving a blank invite to baathists will assure there is never anything
even remotely resembling anything libertarian, and basing your opinions
on nothing but stalinist manufactured propaganda does nothing to
improve your believability.

> 
> (as long as I'm at it...)
> 
> 5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy 
> conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest
> of the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions
> to the middle east.

This has been dealt with numerous times in the past: 

a) fuelling the nation with biodiesel/cornohol will require cutting
fuel needs by two thirds, oh, and every american giving up eating,
cause fuel production will take up all the currently cultivated land
and supply only 1/3 of our fuel needs.

b) fuelling the nation with photovoltaic generated hydrogen will
require, at current technology levels, that 1/3 of the arable land in
the US be covered with photovoltaic cells.

c) there is no more exploitable hydropower

d) expanding windpower will require installation of wind plants in
locations that will piss off every tree hugger and oceanfront property
owner.

e) conversely, several dozen pebble bed thorium nuke plants will solve
the problem.

> 
> (and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your
> question, I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
> 
>  Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a 
> diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and 
> avoided the whole confounded incident.  But in the unimaginably
> unlikely 
> possible world where I found myself president on 9/12 looking for 
> something to do I'd probably have listened to my CIA/FBI advisors and
> gone in with the toothpick before using a hammer. 

Are you saying you'd have sent diplomats to go kow tow and kiss bin
ladens butt? Or were you not paying any attention during the entire
1990's? Clinton tried the whole diplomacy and "terrorism is a crime to
be prosecuted" feel-good BS for eight years with both bin Laden and
Saddam. 

> If I was
> interested in saving my political career (which would probably be
> the main reason such a world was so completely absurd) I would
> attempt to have a head or two rolling down the table within a few
> weeks and then some kind of back-office deal to appease the
> attackers and once again restore peace?  
> Hopefully the head will have been dead for years so nobody new would 
> have had to die...  Maybe...

Ah, the old appeasement word comes out. Not that it was unexpected. How
long do you think they would have waited before they made more demands?
Don't you know ANYTHING about dealing with terrorism?

> 
> No doubt the Taliban were upset by Unocal's insistence on pushing 
> through the afgan line -on their terms- and no doubt they could have 
> been sated had -someone- told Unocal just to play nice with the 
> natives.  But I don't know enough about Al Quaeda's involvement with
> the Taliban and the Saudi government to really have an understanding
> of who to talk to and how to talk with them. I'd LOVE to know, 
> though. 

it is evident by everything you've said. Are you naive enough to think
that the Saudis have a right to subsidize a terrorist guerilla movement
to block a non-OPEC oil pipeline being built that would compete with
their control of world oil prices? What gives them the right to do so,
but that we don't have the right to do the opposite? Why not have a war
over oil? We need oil, the Saudis don't want us to have more than they
are willing to sell us.

> I've 
> read Osama Bin Laden's statement but frankly without knowing in more 
> detail how Al Quaeda is organized and what their relationship is with
> their various supporting organizations, I don't have enough
> information to make an informed decision even in retrospect. 

Some of us have been paying detailed attention, and not just to left
wing stalinist propaganda outlets that is naively parroted by
chiliastic wing-nuts like rense.com, among others.

> It's possible that the 
> taliban was so closely aligned with Al Quaeda that 9/11 was
> essentially a first-shot act of war.

Actually, the original bombing of the WTC back in 1993 was the first
shot act of a war that bin Laden declared upon the US in a fatwa he
released in 1992. Clinton, of course, since his policy that terrorism
was a crime, not combat, ignored the declaration of war and refused to
answer in kind until he needed some cover for his predelictions. The
second shot of the war was a second plot to bomb the WTC, Wall Street,
and the George Washington Bridge organized by the so-called blind
shiek. The third shot of the war was the twin bombings of the US
embassies in Africa. But I understand that you haven't been paying
attention to the situation all through the 1990's, like most democrats,
other than blaming the US.

> If that was the case, I don't know what I'd
> have done, but it probably wouldn't have been greeted with glee by
> true pacifists - would have had to keep it hush-hush no doubt. It's
> equally 
> possible, from my point of view, that Bin Laden was hired by Bush's 
> people to stir things up and save his flailing presidency. In which 
> case, because I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire
> terrorists to give me something to do and so the whole event would
> have been avoided. But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so 
> ridiculous after the fact. The possibilities to explore are the ones
> moving forward.

What would you have done if foreign intelligence services knew about
the attack on the US on 9/11 but refused to provide details because
they were pissed that Bush was finally telling the global community
that we weren't going to clean their messes up anymore (a first since
the Roosevelt era). If I were into wild-assed unsupported conspiracy
theories as you seem to be, I'd say that the international community
let 9/11 happen to the US because Bush refused to get involved and was
pursing a neo-isolationist foreign policy, which would have resulted in
just the sort of world that all the America haters claim we were bombed
to achieve.

> 
> I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that
> might be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban
> wouldn't be the first target if we were starting a war on sexism.

I don't recall you joining in the war on Bill Clinton.

>  Perhaps to solve that 
> problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all 
> around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!)  Anyway, for that we'd 
> probably have to start in India or Pakistan, "our allies".  So, 
> unfortunately, the sex issue gets swept under the floor as it has
> been  for the last 5000 years.

The GOP weren't the ones who bombed an african pharmaceutical plant to
deflect attention from the president's affairs.

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  Thu Jul 14 03:23:05 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:23:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
In-Reply-To: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507140323.j6E3N4R17934@tick.javien.com>

Doug Skrecky?  Ja, we miss him.  spike


http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/4380.html

http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/0046.html




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jacques Mathieu
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:10 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
> 
> A few years back I remember reading about some fruit
> fly experiments that a certain individual on this list
> would post every so often. I searched through the
> archives, but unfortunately could only get to 2003 and
> I believe these were earlier. Anyway, does anyone know
> or remember of these experiments and what the ultimate
> results were?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jacques




From bchjg at nus.edu.sg  Thu Jul 14 03:31:33 2005
From: bchjg at nus.edu.sg (Jan Gruber)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:31:33 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
Message-ID: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D5DC@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg>

His fly experiments are very much ongoing and the results are regularly posted to cryonet:
 
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=26548
 
Hope this helps,
 
Jan

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of spike 
	Sent: Thu 07/14/2005 11:23 
	To: 'ExI chat list' 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
	
	

	Doug Skrecky?  Ja, we miss him.  spike
	
	
	http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/4380.html
	
	http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/0046.html
	
	
	
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
	> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jacques Mathieu
	> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:10 PM
	> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
	> Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
	>
	> A few years back I remember reading about some fruit
	> fly experiments that a certain individual on this list
	> would post every so often. I searched through the
	> archives, but unfortunately could only get to 2003 and
	> I believe these were earlier. Anyway, does anyone know
	> or remember of these experiments and what the ultimate
	> results were?
	>
	> Thanks,
	>
	> Jacques
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	extropy-chat mailing list
	extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
	http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
	

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050714/d4a408ed/attachment.bin>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Jul 14 03:51:15 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:51:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the
	Bush	admin	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D5CD7F.5000708@aol.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
Message-ID: <42D5E133.9020300@mindspring.com>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Terry W. Colvin wrote:
>
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> First, a linguistic note to salve my curiosity.  I've noticed posters 
>> on other lists, who I know aren't British, who use
>> British terms such as codswallop (bullshit?) or pinch (to steal).  
>> Are you British?
>
>
>
> No, just a yeart at U. of Sussex at sunny Brighton by the sea and a 
> coupla years in Dublin.  I also still say "sorry" when I mean "excuse 
> me" or when something bad happens to someone else that isn't my fault 
> and tend to have a Cockburn's or Jameson's after dinner (but seldom 
> before dinner anymore, sigh).  I still fry my mushrooms and tomatoes 
> for breakfast occasionally and, of course, own a copy of Queen's 
> greatest hits (but have sadly stopped listening to it).  That's pretty 
> much where the whole english thing ends with me.  By race I'm Jewish, 
> Korean, Hungarian, Austrian, German-Irish third generation immigrants 
> to the US on all sides but the German-Irish.  Most people say they 
> can't tell I'm Korean by looking at me but I make a mean Kal bi, kim 
> chi and tobuchige.

Ah, that explains certain words.  I myself have a love of English 
literature which often confuses my use of "s" and "z" in
words Americans changed early in our history.  My ancestors come from 
Scotland.  I too like mushrooms and tomatoes
but rarely for breakfast.  Queen's greatest hits?  Leg-pull?  I'm 
curious to trace ancestry through the National Geographic
project but $125 to process a mouth swab is a bit exorbitant.  My wife 
is Thai-Chinese.  Ruk-Long (Infatuation) and I have
been married 32 years.  We have five adult children and six 
grandchildren.  Amy (age 30) and Jeremy (age 28) tend to look
either Arabic or Spanish in my opinion.  Amy married a fellow of German 
ancestry.  Their sons/our grandsons, Nicholas
(age 7.5) and Jacob (age 4.5) are 25% Thai-Chinese but the phenotypes 
common to Asians are not expressed.  It is
fascinating to watch genetics at work.

>>
>> Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued Islamic 
>> extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?
>
>
>
> I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement 
> in the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.
>
> How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and 
> Afganistan?  Now that's a question worth asking.
>
> 1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.

IMO, no evidence to impeach.

> 2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR 
> terms - give it to them!

The UN make good peacekeepers, not peacemakers.  Diplomacy and economic 
sanctions sometimes aren't enough.
Two prime examples are Somalia in 1993 and Bosnia/Kosovo before 1995.  
Somalia was a disaster where the U.S.
allowed UN bureaucrats to make military decisions.  We left.  Somalia 
continues to be a non-functional country.  The
UN couldn't talk the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims into being good guys.  
After the Srebenica massacre (10 years ago
as of 11 July) the UN handed control over to NATO.  This worked.  NATO 
(mostly American forces) put out the word
that any attacks on NATO would bring full military force on their 
heads.  The UN was run out of Iraq last year.

> 3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Yes, and the horns of a dilemma.  Too soon and the area reverts to 
tribal/religious warfare with another strongman
emerging.  Too lengthy and we do risk a long-term Baathist/Sunni/foreign 
extremist nightmare.

> 4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that 
> they'll be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as 
> quickly as possible and that they're invited to join in the formation 
> of the new government -and mean it-.  Perhaps offer to make Iraq a 
> shining example of a Libertarian utopia :)

I'm hearing that U.S. commanders and GOI (government of Iraq) officials 
are meeting with some insurgent groups.  The Shias
allied with Muqtada-al-Sadr have ceased military action and seek 
political assimilation.  The Kurdish region is relatively stable.
The Shia south is relatively stable.  Yes, I see your smiley face.  IMO, 
utopias only work in literature.

> (as long as I'm at it...)
>
> 5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy 
> conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest 
> of the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions 
> to the middle east.

The economy remains strong; however, the housing market bubble worries 
me.  Unlike the dotcom bubble, pure speculation,
housing are physical assets, although prices may level out or depreciate.

> (and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your question, 
> I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
>
> Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a 
> diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and 
> avoided the whole confounded incident.  But in the unimaginably 
> unlikely possible world where I found myself president on 9/12 looking 
> for something to do I'd probably have listened to my CIA/FBI advisors 
> and gone in with the toothpick before using a hammer.  If I was 
> interested in saving my political career (which would probably be the 
> main reason such a world was so completely absurd) I would attempt to 
> have a head or two rolling down the table within a few weeks and then 
> some kind of back-office deal to appease the attackers and once again 
> restore peace?  Hopefully the head will have been dead for years so 
> nobody new would have had to die...  Maybe...

We did use a toothpick in Afghanistan.  Special operations and using 
"friendly" tribal forces to disrupt Taliban forces.  Fanatics
can neither be appeased nor vetted.  My geography professor, a retired 
military intelligence colonel, predicted the rise of
extremist Islamic forces in 1995.  The best defense is a good offense.

> No doubt the Taliban were upset by Unocal's insistence on pushing 
> through the afgan line -on their terms- and no doubt they could have 
> been sated had -someone- told Unocal just to play nice with the 
> natives.  But I don't know enough about Al Quaeda's involvement with 
> the Taliban and the Saudi government to really have an understanding 
> of who to talk to and how to talk with them.  I'd LOVE to know, 
> though.  I've read Osama Bin Laden's statement but frankly without 
> knowing in more detail how Al Quaeda is organized and what their 
> relationship is with their various supporting organizations, I don't 
> have enough information to make an informed decision even in 
> retrospect.  It's possible that the taliban was so closely aligned 
> with Al Quaeda that 9/11 was essentially a first-shot act of war.  If 
> that was the case, I don't know what I'd have done, but it probably 
> wouldn't have been greeted with glee by true pacifists - would have 
> had to keep it hush-hush no doubt.  It's equally possible, from my 
> point of view, that Bin Laden was hired by Bush's people to stir 
> things up and save his flailing presidency.  In which case, because 
> I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire terrorists to 
> give me something to do and so the whole event would have been 
> avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so ridiculous 
> after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones moving forward.

The Taliban were manipulated by Osama Bin Laden.  Al Quaeda is no longer 
the primary force.  There is a movement of
like-minded fanatics, as individuals, cells, and organizations spreading 
as a virus throughout the world.  Bush's presidency
was less than a year old when 9/11 happened.  I don't blame Clinton 
entirely; however, he helped along the abetting and
ignoring that seemed to take hold after Watergate.  The CIA was 
eviscerated by Congress, rightly or wrongly/probably a mix,
and the FBI continued to muddle along.  This is more a systemic problem 
and inherent in any democracy.  My personal
analogy concerns vetting those with security clearances.  The 
bureaucracy reacted to the Walker/Whitworth et al espionage
scandals by reviewing those married to foreign nationals.  I am one of 
those who "administrately" lost their above Top Secret
security clearance.  Of those indicted and convicted for espionage none 
were married to foreign nationals except for Aldrich
Ames whose wife I think became a naturalized American.  The security 
services will accept naturalizations as nullifying any
potential for espionage encouragement by spouses.  The reasoning given 
is that foreign nationals can't be sent to prison for
espionage which is true if they have diplomatic immunity or can flee to 
a country or their country without an extradition treaty
with the United States.  My long-winded R&R (rant and rave) here is 
intended to show that bureaucracies muddle along and
all politicians are not to be trusted.  Term limits and amateur status 
as our forefathers intended those serving to return to
their farms and businesses after a few years, unlike the professional 
politicans we have today.

> I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that might 
> be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't be the 
> first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to solve 
> that problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all 
> around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!)  Anyway, for that we'd 
> probably have to start in India or Pakistan, "our allies".  So, 
> unfortunately, the sex issue gets swept under the floor as it has been 
> for the last 5000 years
>
> .
>
> Robbie

Sexism works both ways.  Some feminists and Hollywood went overboard 
portraying "ALL" males as contemptible.
One theory is that sexism began with agriculture.  Women were relegated 
to inferior roles.  The hunter-gatherers were
much more egalitarian.  Women often provided more sustenance from insect 
protein, roots, berries, etc. than those
engaged in hunting animals.

Terry


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 03:53:20 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:53:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D5CD7F.5000708@aol.com>
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>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c70507132053130b38f9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
...
 
> I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement in
> the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.

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.  We knew that Osama Bin
Laden was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over
thereby aiding and abetting terrorists.  What more information would
you need?  If you are interested, there is a whole lot of info
available from which you can draw your own conclusions.
> 
> How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and Afganistan?
> Now that's a question worth asking.

I spent 11 months of 2004 in the Paktika province of Afghanistan, part
of that in Lwara 2k from the Pakistani border.

I can say from experience, that the Majority of the Afghani people
with which I came into contact, wanted the U.S. to be there, and
firmly believed that our presence was their best hope for a brighter
future.  As a Psychological Operations soldier it was my job to go out
and assess the attitudes of the local population.

> 1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.

I for one don't believe we were wrong for invading Afghanistan. 
I am also not sorry to see Saddam gone, I did a fair amount of
research on Saddam after the first gulf war, and he was a monster.  I
would hope that for the sake of all humanity we might be willing to
get rid of and not coddle the omnsters of this world.

> 2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR terms
> - give it to them!

This I agree with.

> 3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.

The debate is, what is reasonable?  Is it reasonable to pull out our
troops before a new government has had time to settle in and get its
footing.  For we certainly do not want to leave and create a power
vacuum which would most certainly be filled by the most violent
factions.

> 4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that they'll
> be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as quickly as
> possible and that they're invited to join in the formation of the new
> government -and mean it-.  

This we do now.  I know from experience in Afghanistan, and second
hand from fellow soldiers who have served in Iraq that we extend every
opportunity to all sides to join in the peaceful formation of a new
government.  We even went so far as to offer amnesty to the taliban
leadership if they would come and support the peaceful formation of a
new government.
  

Perhaps offer to make Iraq a shining example
> of a Libertarian utopia :)

Unfortunately, there are factions in both Afghanistan and Iraq who
have a vested interest in rebuilding the old regime, many who simply
held some power there and would like that power back.  These people
are not at all interested in a libertarian utopia.  As well, while
many of the Afghani nationals that I spoke to were interested in the
idea of democracy, and excited about the prospect of power
distribution, telecommunuications, education and medical care, there
is likely a fair amount of western culture that they will not want or
may not be ready for.
> 
> (as long as I'm at it...)
> 
> 5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy
> conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest of
> the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions to
> the middle east.


> 
> (and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your question,
> I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
> 
>  Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a
> diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and
> avoided the whole confounded incident. 

Don't be fooled, proper diplomacy is not always "Playing Nice",
sometimes a show of force is the best of diplomacy.   In fact, I met a
fair number of Afghani Men who simply had no respect for you unless
you demonstrated a show of force.

You sometimes have too piss on the cat in order to get things done.
(my wife would definately show some force if I ever pissed on the cat)

 But in the unimaginably unlikely
> possible world where I found myself president on 9/12 looking for
> something to do I'd probably have listened to my CIA/FBI advisors and
> gone in with the toothpick before using a hammer.  If I was interested
> in saving my political career (which would probably be the main reason
> such a world was so completely absurd) I would attempt to have a head or
> two rolling down the table within a few weeks and then some kind of
> back-office deal to appease the attackers and once again restore peace?
> Hopefully the head will have been dead for years so nobody new would
> have had to die...  Maybe...
> 
> No doubt the Taliban were upset by Unocal's insistence on pushing
> through the afgan line -on their terms- and no doubt they could have
> been sated had -someone- told Unocal just to play nice with the
> natives.  But I don't know enough about Al Quaeda's involvement with the
> Taliban and the Saudi government to really have an understanding of who
> to talk to and how to talk with them.  I'd LOVE to know, though.  I've
> read Osama Bin Laden's statement but frankly without knowing in more
> detail how Al Quaeda is organized and what their relationship is with
> their various supporting organizations, I don't have enough information
> to make an informed decision even in retrospect.  It's possible that the
> taliban was so closely aligned with Al Quaeda that 9/11 was essentially
> a first-shot act of war.  If that was the case, I don't know what I'd
> have done, but it probably wouldn't have been greeted with glee by true
> pacifists - would have had to keep it hush-hush no doubt.  It's equally
> possible, from my point of view, that Bin Laden was hired by Bush's
> people to stir things up and save his flailing presidency.  

While I am not a huge fan of the current admistration, for numerous
reasons, I would hardly count them capable of orchestrating 9/11 for
any reason, and the presidency was still fairly new and not flailing
so horribly as to require a 9/11 size event in order to save it.

>In which case, because I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire
> terrorists to give me something to do and so the whole event would have
> been avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so
> ridiculous after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones
> moving forward.
> 
> I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that might
> be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't be the
> first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to solve that
> problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all
> around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!) 

One particularly rough day in Afghanistan, two patrols had been
ambushed (fortunately only minor injuries on our side) an old Sgt
Major suddenly say, "we could solve this whole thing if we just passed
out Beer, Porn and X-Boxes.


This whole thing is a mess, and it may well get worse before it gets better.
I am confident that it will get better, but only if we engage the
whole world in the rebuilding efforts, and stop supporting tyrants of
any stripe.


From brian at posthuman.com  Thu Jul 14 04:13:14 2005
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:13:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
In-Reply-To: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D5E65A.6030802@posthuman.com>

He still posts updates in other places like the sci.life-extension newsgroup.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 04:31:08 2005
From: jacquesmmathieu at yahoo.com (Jacques Mathieu)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
In-Reply-To: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D5DC@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20050714043108.48087.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com>

Yes, that helps a lot everyone. Thank you.

--- Jan Gruber <bchjg at nus.edu.sg> wrote:

> His fly experiments are very much ongoing and the
> results are regularly posted to cryonet:
>  
> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=26548
>  
> Hope this helps,
>  
> Jan
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on
> behalf of spike 
> 	Sent: Thu 07/14/2005 11:23 
> 	To: 'ExI chat list' 
> 	Cc: 
> 	Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	Doug Skrecky?  Ja, we miss him.  spike
> 	
> 	
> 
>
http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/4380.html
> 	
> 
>
http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/0046.html
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-
> 	> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jacques
> Mathieu
> 	> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:10 PM
> 	> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> 	> Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
> 	>
> 	> A few years back I remember reading about some
> fruit
> 	> fly experiments that a certain individual on this
> list
> 	> would post every so often. I searched through the
> 	> archives, but unfortunately could only get to
> 2003 and
> 	> I believe these were earlier. Anyway, does anyone
> know
> 	> or remember of these experiments and what the
> ultimate
> 	> results were?
> 	>
> 	> Thanks,
> 	>
> 	> Jacques
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	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 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 05:20:48 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:20:48 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050714031923.68212.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <07f201c58833$cbb2ced0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and
>> Afganistan?  Now that's a question worth asking.
>> 
>> 1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.
> 
> For what? 9/11?

For invading Iraq a sovereign member nation of the UN. 

Not for 9/11.  9/11 has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Wrongs
done one party are separate matters to wrongs done another party.

>> 2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR
>> terms - give it to them!
> 
> We are giving it to them, on the Iraqis terms, not the thug coddlers at
> the UN.

Please Mike read the IF at the front of this sentence as it is very
important.

IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?

IF you didn't support him but didn't oppose him either would you 
be a thug coddler?

IF you participated in his re-election would you be a thug coddler?

I am mindful of something that Spike said. Iraq may be on the
eve of construction. I am mindful that democracy is a good thing
or certainly a better thing than most of the alternatives.

But if someone runs into your clubroom and kills or chases away
the president and committee members of your club then arranges
a new election. An election in which the club members that were
chased away or fled in fear of their lives did not agree to participate
in. Then is the result democracy?

What about if they run into your house, shoot you, frighten your
wife away and set up an election amongst your shocked children?

Perhaps that club wasn't a very well liked club. Perhaps the person
that is shot and killed in his own house on suspicion perhaps of
having some sort of weapon of mass destruction wasn't a very
nice guy. 

I don't ask these questions as a person whose club has been 
invaded yet, nor as a person who's house has been invaded yet.

I can still be a bit dispassionate. 

Brett Paatsch




 





From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 14 08:55:04 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:55:04 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
Message-ID: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>

First, as this is my first post, I'll introduce myself. I'm Evan Hamlin, 
pleased to "meet" all of you. I hope to have some interesting exchanges with 
you all.

Extropists, your thoughts on the following please. I found it to have some 
quite valid points, despite perhaps an overly "call to arms" tone. In many 
places, replace "muslims" with "muslim terrorists" for the purpose of the 
article; the author (who is anonymous as far as I know) is a bit insensitive 
to this...


To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go
through it. Our country is now facing the most serious
threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have
faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).


The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the
fact that there are very few of us who think we can
possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what
losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say
September 11th, 2001.
The answer as far as the United
States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to
September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yemen U S S  Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
Pentagon 2001.  (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001
there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?  Envy of our position, our
success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during
the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
1, Clinton and Bush
2. We cannot fault either the
Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations
by any of the presidents or their immediate
predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?   In each case, the attacks
on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?   25%

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?  Hopefully, but
that is really not material.  There is no doubt that
the predominately Christian population of Germany was
peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of
Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference.  You either went along with the
administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5
to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://>/).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed
by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were
killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other
than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the
world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about
killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the
Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian
or any others.  Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They
focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -
their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone
else.
    The point here is that just like the peaceful
Germans were of no protection to anyone from the
Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may
be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist
Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on
doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of
us "infidels".  I don't blame the peaceful Muslims.
What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?  There is no way we can
honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct
and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be
fatal.  There is no way to win if you don't clearly
recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major
questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two
pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war,  and as anomalous as
it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so
many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the
second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that
losing the war means hanging our heads,  bringing the
troops home and going on about our business, like post
Vietnam.  This is as far from the truth as one can
get.  What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the
world.  The attacks will not subside,  but rather will
steadily increase.  Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet,  they
would not have produced an increasing series of
attacks against us, over the past 18 years.  The plan
was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were
neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other
nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that
they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one
at a time.  It will be increasingly easier for them.
They already hold Spain hostage.  It doesn't matter
whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw
its troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim
terrorists bombed their train and told them to
withdraw the troops.  Anything else they want Spain to
do, will be done.  Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on
France is that they might see the light and realize
that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that
they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.
However, it may already be too late for France.
France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports
and way of life will all vanish as we know it.  After
losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were
threatened by the Muslims.  If we can't stop the
Muslims, how could anyone else?  The Muslims fully
know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost.   We
better know it too and be likewise committed to
winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of
losing?  Simple. Until we recognize the costs of
losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning.  And it is going to
take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?  Again, the answer is
simple.  We can lose the war by " imploding".  That
is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the
enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and
lending full support to the war effort.  If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose.  If we
continue to be divided, there is no way that we can
win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't
comprehend the life and death seriousness of this
situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Minutia as Secretary
of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist
attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40
years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
profiling.   Does that sound like we are taking this
thing seriously?  This is war!  For the duration, we
are going to have to give up some of the civil rights,
we have become accustomed to. We had better be
prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily
or we will most certainly lose all of them
permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope.  We gave
up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately
restored them after the victory and in fact added many
more since then.  Do I blame President Bush or
President Clinton before him?   No, I blame us for
blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this
conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.
None of those words apply to war.  Get them out of
your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war
and/or the Administration that it almost seems they
would literally like to see us lose.  I hasten to add
that this isn't because they are disloyal.  It is
because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the
enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns
our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the
politicians and media regarding the treatment of some
prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am
saying.
     We have recently had an issue, involving the
treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small
group of our military police.  These are the type
prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing
their own people off buildings, cutting off their
hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise
murdering their own people just for disagreeing with
Saddam Hussein.
    And just a few years ago these same
type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own
people for the same reason.  They are also the same
type enemy fighters, who recently were burning
Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through
the streets of Iraq.   And still more recently, the
same type enemy that was and is providing videos to
all news sources internationally, of the beheading of
American prisoners they held.
      Compare this with someof our press and politicians, who for several 
days have thought and talked about nothing else but the
"humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning
them, not dragging their charred corpses through the
streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?  The politicians and pundits
have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of
Defense.  If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of
the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle
we are in and the disastrous results of losing this
war, nothing can.
    To bring our country to a virtual
political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us
look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -
totally oblivious to what is going on in the real
world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive
this internal strife.  Again I say, this does not mean
that some of our politicians or media people are
disloyal.   It simply means that they are absolutely
oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in
and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing
us, for many years.  Remember, the Muslim terrorists
stated goal is to kill all infidels!  That translates
into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States,
but throughout the world.  We are the last bastion of
defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being
'arrogant'.  That charge is valid in at least one
respect.   We are arrogant in that we believe that we
are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the
hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that
with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat
anything bad in the world!  We can't!  If we don't
recognize this, our nation as we know it will not
survive, and no other free country in the World will
survive if we are defeated.   And finally, name any
Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech,  freedom of thought,  freedom of
religion,  freedom of the Press,  equal rights for
anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women,  or that have been productive in one
single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be
united on this war or we will be equated in the
history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman
Empire.  If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow
history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye
on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5
years or less.  They will continue to increase the
Muslim population, of France and continue to encroach
little by little, on the established French
traditions.  The French will be fighting among
themselves, over what should or should not be done,
which will continue to weaken them and keep them from
any united resolve.   Doesn't that sound eerily
familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from
them by some external military force.  Instead, they
give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by
politically correct piece.   And they are giving those
freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that
they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or
even to themselves, once they are in power.   They
have universally shown that when they have taken over,
they then start brutally killing each other over who
will be the few who control the masses.   Will we ever
stop hearing from the politically correct, about the
"peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said
above.   If we are united, there is no way that we can
lose.   I hope now after the election, the factions in
our country will begin to focus on the critical
situation we are in, and will unite to save our
country.   It is your future we are talking about!  Do
whatever you can to preserve it.

-Evan
"The world is more beautiful through tinted glass."

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 09:14:46 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:14:46 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
References: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <084c01c58854$7ad24c40$0d98e03c@homepc>

Evan Hamlin wrote:

> First, as this is my first post, I'll introduce myself. I'm
> Evan Hamlin, pleased to "meet" all of you. I hope to have
> some interesting exchanges with you all.

Welcome Evan.
 
> Extropists, your thoughts on the following please. I found 
> it to have some quite valid points, despite perhaps an
> overly "call to arms" tone. In many places, replace "muslims"
> with "muslim terrorists" for the purpose of the article; the 
> author (who is anonymous as far as I know) is a bit insensitive 
> to this...
> 
> 
> To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go
> through it. Our country is now facing the most serious
> threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have
> faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
> 
> 
> The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the
> fact that there are very few of us who think we can
> possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what
> losing really means.
> 
> First, let's examine a few basics:
> 
> 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say
> September 11th, 2001.
> The answer as far as the United
> States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to
> September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
> Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
> Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
> Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
> Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
> First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
> Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
> Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
> Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
> Aden, Yemen U S S  Cole 2000;
> New York World Trade Center 2001;
> Pentagon 2001.  (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001
> there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

So you say the threat started in 1979. 

And you say as far as the United States is concerned.

Why 1979 and not earlier?

Do you speak for the United States? I thought only the
President could do that. 

I am Brett Paatsch. My views are my own. I live in
Australia, this list goes out internationally. 

Brett Paatsch



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu Jul 14 09:25:11 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:25:11 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history 
Message-ID: <20050714092511.72693.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I passed through a phase where I was an enthuiastic
supporter of Libertarianism but was gradually argued
out of it.  I'm still Libertarian leaning (I think the
Libertarian ideals are the right ones), but the
'Libertarian' label is ruined by the crack-pots and
abolutists.

The Ayn Rand gang (Objectivists) are a bunch of total
loons.  There's no way in hell I could vote for the NZ
Libertarian party for instance, because it's mostly
Objectivists.  The founder was a local NZ Objectivist
cult leader who runs a forum called SOLO.  He
basically just uses Objectivism as an excuse to
further his own ego and spit bile at people.  The
Austrian School of economics is total crack-pot
garbage.  Anarch-capitalism is a load of subjectivist
tripe.

The reason you see government virtually everywhere is
because life without it was pretty horrible.  Parts of
Southern Italy, Somalia or Russia today are good
examples of anarcho-capitalism in action.  The
'service providers' are mafia thugs.  That's life
without regulation.  The thugs and psychopaths take
over.  The few strong and agressive types are more
free, but virtually everyone else is *less* free.  The
purpose of government regulation is to *reduce* the
total force by restraining the psychos.  Real freedom
has to look at the *over-all* freedom (taing everyone
into account), not just the freedom of a few.

As someone on another board pointed out well, the
places in the world with weak states are all poor,
violent and disease ridden. Schools in India burn to
the ground without fire saftey regulations.  Tourists
in Asia fall sick without food saftey regualation. 
Disease is rampant without people can't afford drugs
and there is no proper infrastructure.  It's not a
pretty sight. 

A semi-Libertarian postion might work, but at the very
least you:

*Very strong democratic government to provide
accountability, transparency and due process and
regulate against force and fraud

*A minimal saftey net for those with really seriously
misfortunes (like disability).  Why shoud those with
disabilities have to be at the beck and call of the
lucky purely because of an accident of birth?

*Government to handle 'public goods' (goods and
services affecting every-one that cannot easy
partitioned).  In this category fall:  

Police
Defence
Courts
Infrastructure
Disaster relief
Dealing with Infectious Disease
Environment
Basic Scientific Research

Now if Libertarians would distance themselves from the
anarcho-capitalist and Randian nutters, and recognise
that we do need a Minimal government, I think the
Libertarian brand would really take-off and eventually
be wildly successful.  But if they continue to only
count anarcho-capitalists and hard-core Minarchists as
'Libertarian', then they're going to get absolutely
no-where and be (rightly) written off as crack-pots.





---

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

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 10:50:33 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:50:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12000 miles per gallon (equiv) !!
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071403502b8c424e@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,6118,00.html>

ETH Zurich's Fuel Cell Vehicle Sets New World Record
28 June 2005

ZURICH, Switzerland, Jun 28, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology -- ETH Zurich has set a new world record for
fuel efficiency. The world record-holding PAC Car operates on a
hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Using the lower heating values of hydrogen
and gasoline as a conversion basis, this world record now stands at
5385 kilometres per litre of gasoline.

The top-ranked world-renowned ETH Zurich set itself the goal to
construct a vehicle that used as little fuel as possible and provided
the highest possible fuel efficiency. PAC Car has an optimized fuel
cell system that produces electrical energy from hydrogen and drives
two high-efficiency electric motors. The only "emission" from PAC Car
is pure water. The car weighs in at less than 30 kilograms. It
achieved the top result at the Shell Eco-marathon on the Michelin
proving grounds at Ladoux, France on June 24 to June 26, 2005. The
vehicle used only 1.02 grams of hydrogen to drive the distance of
20.68 km at an average speed of 30 km/h. This converts to about 5385
kilometres per litre of gasoline, a new world record in minimal fuel
consumption. This means that PAC Car would only use the energy stored
in about eight litres of gasoline to drive around the globe.

Also at <http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/>


BillK


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 11:03:51 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:03:51 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] What if I was president?
In-Reply-To: <07f201c58833$cbb2ced0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <20050714031923.68212.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<07f201c58833$cbb2ced0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <c65a88610f624bdfd53e262e105b8660@aol.com>

Lorry didn't like my word "appease" possibly because his Neanderthal 
mind can't fathom that keeping the peace and thus appeasement is a 
primary goal for -real- politicians.

But since I wasn't completely clear and since I didn't take the 
question seriously because, again, the idea that I would be president 
is too absurd for too many reasons.  Let me start there.

Here's why I won't ever be president:

1)  I don't do appeasement well - look how well I've pleased so many 
people already (if you know me).
2)  I don't do public appearances well - I tend to be a loner/loser and 
stick to my close friends.
3)  I don't desire power of that kind.
4)  If I had power of that kind I would destroy it as quickly as 
possible by dismantling our government from the top down.  I'm an 
anarchist with a strongly humanitarian bias - I feel no sympathy for 
large or small corporate ventures, military groups or frankly anything 
more than individuals  and their natural families and friends.    For 
the most part I blame human institutions for the suffering and abject 
poverty in the world, in particular the wealthiest people who use 
military force to protect their fat-assets while children starve.
5)  A bridge club is a little too organized for my taste.
6)  I don't have enough money or the desire to get enough money to fund 
a serious, let alone successful, presidential campaign.  (this, btw, is 
why the Libertarians shouldn't bother running a presidential candidate, 
it's fiscally irresponsible and just makes them look more and more like 
losers).

Consequently -if I were president- I would never have been in the 
situation that Mr. Bush was since I would have already put all the 
people at the pentagon and the world trade center out of business, 
they'd have had to find -real jobs (or just go home and sulk) - doing 
things like producing valuable goods and services for the betterment of 
mankind rather than being the leaches and killers they in fact are.  If 
Bin Laden had decided to bomb them anyway it wouldn't have been a 
tragedy, there wouldn't have been anyone there.

But, to take up the absurd hypothetical that if Bush had been president 
up until 9/11 and then I got the office on 9/12, as I said, I'm not 
sure what I'd have done mostly because the President hasn't chosen to 
share with the rest of the nation the "intelligence" that led to his 
course of action which from the outside has to appear complete idiocy 
at this point.  Who knows what I'd find when I finally got to read the 
actual cia and fbi reports first-hand?

I don't think there's any definitive answer about who is responsible 
for the matter, so again, I'd have listened to the CIA and FBI on the 
matter and see who the experts really thought were involved.  I note 
that this is not what our President did who instead had a definitive 
target - the Taliban and Iraq - and fixed his intelligence around his 
definitive targets.  Note that this policy has left Al Quaeda stronger 
than they were before.  Brilliant monkey IF he and Mr. Bin Ladin really 
were in cahootz, huh?

IF the cia/fbi came up with Al Quaeda then I'd pursue them as 
criminals.  If they received the protection of Afghanistan or any other 
nation, I'd have used political and economic pressure to get them 
extradited.  If that didn't work I'd hope that a good team of 
kidnappers/assasins was available (this is what I meant by using a 
toothpick instead of a hammer).  Then I'd try them in open court to 
avoid turning them into martyrs - if we got the wrong guys, I'd go get 
the right ones.  If the Afganis flatly refused AND claimed that Al 
Quaeda was an official arm of the Taliban and that we should expect 
more, I'd have considered the WTC incident a first-strike and have 
retaliated militarily and with a tremendous sadness and reluctance.    
Simultaneously I'd be developing as many Arab allies as I could in the 
effort probably by promising them the spoils of the war - in particular 
gaining the trust and friendship of Iran and Iraq.  I may have made 
that a condition of their spoils having that they return to the UN 
inspections regime.  Carrot/stick.  I don't know exactly what 
combination of carrot/stick would work, but I'd try a few things.

When I talk about "appeasement" I don't think of it as a bad thing, 
just another thing in the bag of tricks.  Carrot/stick.  A good 
strategist has to know when it's best to fight and when it's best to 
pay them off and what all of the in-between options are.    The chinese 
tell the story of the general who's adversary asks for a tribute of 
1000 pieces of silver and he sends it.  He asks for 10 virgins and he 
sends them.  He asks for the general's daughter and he sends here.  He 
asks for a piece of land and he refuses and takes his entire army and 
destroys the adversary.   His lieutenant asks why.  He says that 
virgins and silver and even daughters are inessential to a country, but 
a country's land is essential to it and no compromise is possible 
there.

With the Taliban and with Al Quaeda (remembering that they aren't 
technically the same and weren't technically the same) one has to 
separate what is essential for them from what is accidental to their 
cause.  I sincerely believe that they want significantly what most 
Oregonians want - for the US Federal Government to leave them the heck 
alone.  I agree with this desire and so would promptly ensure as much 
as possible that the US Federal Government would never interfere in the 
operations of Afganistan or any other foreign country again.  I don't 
believe that Islam is an essentially evil "kill all the infidels" 
religion and do believe that when left alone to do their business they 
tend to mind their own business.  Bin Laden doesn't actually care much 
about people wearing bikinis in Ft. Lauderdale, he just doesn't want to 
have to see it on TV in his country (and obviously secretly he finds it 
fascinating and no doubt this is how he knows he doesn't want it in his 
country - YET!).  Fine, it's not our country, they can do what they 
want.  I believe, eventually, that all cultures must change in order to 
survive as cultures ("the only living things that don't change are long 
dead.") and that traditional Islamic cultures will change as the eons 
pass AND since I am an optimist, I think they'll eventually come to 
think of different cultures as acceptable.  I don't think they'll ever 
be able to match the technological development of the western world 
without simply joining up and so at least for the foreseeable future 
aren't a genuine military threat but only a terrorist threat.  I 
sincerely believe that rooting out terrorist activity in third-world 
countries is best done by simply being nice to them - not taking what 
isn't ours, not forcing them into poverty positions, not propping up 
puppet governments, etc.  In general, staying the heck out of their 
business.  This is what I'd like to call the "Natural Libertarian 
Foreign Policy" is - our government should leave them alone just like 
it leaves us alone.  If they want to have ritual sacrifices of goats 
and young children to Baal, may God take vengeance on them but unless 
some prophet tells me it's literally my problem, it's not.  "Vengeance 
is mine, saith the Lord".  And as long as they're on their side of the 
fence and aren't killing our kids, hey, it's their country.  If someone 
wants to push a gerbil up his ass, that's his ass, none of my business. 
  Same principle.  Some people say "poor gerbil" and then want to start 
making laws and having police around.  This is what separates real 
libertarians from power-hungry statist apologists pretending to be 
libertarians.

This is not to say I wouldn't respond to a desire by their oppressed 
masses to leave by letting them come NOR does it mean that if they were 
setting up concentration camps I'd recommend twiddling our thumbs - I 
wouldn't.  It just means that UNLESS there is some specific moral 
imperative that overrides the general principle of "leave them alone", 
I wouldn't do anything at all.  And when there is a moral imperative 
I'd try the carrot before the stick.  That's just who I am, I like the 
carrot, so does everyone else.  I recognize that having the stick for 
backup is a good idea, but that it's FOR BACKUP is important to 
remember.

As a martial arts student I was taught that violence is a last resort - 
only a fool gets into a fight he could have avoided.  This is, perhaps, 
the lesson that Mr. Bush failed to comprehend.

_____________

Mr. Lorry seems to think that when I said "alternative energy" I meant 
burning peat moss.  Mr. Lorry, you didn't invent nuclear power nor the 
idea of using it.  At the same time, here in Hawaii, for instance, we 
have operating geothermal and tidal power plants that could also serve 
as a model moving forward.  There are LOTS of possibilites.  My 
favorite toy-idea is using fast-growing trees to produce alcohol for 
fuel.   It couldn't replace oil alone, but it wouldn't have to.

But with our new-found 200 billion a year in unspent military funding 
we could (well, we'd have to shut down the government for the most 
part...but if we insisted on keeping the government running and I'm 
still president after I shut down the Pentagon and the Federal Reserve 
System) we could spend our budget on things that are valuable for our 
people like long-term energy, food and raw materials supplies - three 
things this government continues to fail to recognize as important and 
so consistently fails at its supposed primary role - promoting the 
general welfare of our people.

Finally, Mr. Lorry, your total misunderstanding of national and 
international politics alongside your blind ignorance of the material 
facts and tendency to prevaricate is contributing to the continued 
failure of the Libertarian Party to make any significant contribution 
to American National Public LIfe  (I was a card-carrying member but the 
magnificent incompetence of the party leadership was too repulsive to 
continue giving money no matter how lofty the ideals).  For that reason 
I hope you'll have the decency to resign and look for someone smarter 
than you to replace you as soon as possible.  Better yet, just resign, 
let someone smarter than you find someone smarter than you to replace 
you.

Robbie Lindauer



From xander25 at adelphia.net  Thu Jul 14 05:12:45 2005
From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:12:45 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and
	history
In-Reply-To: <20050714092511.72693.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050714092511.72693.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D5F44D.9070603@adelphia.net>

Marc Geddes wrote:

>I passed through a phase where I was an enthuiastic
>supporter of Libertarianism but was gradually argued
>out of it.  I'm still Libertarian leaning (I think the
>Libertarian ideals are the right ones), but the
>'Libertarian' label is ruined by the crack-pots and
>abolutists.
>
>The Ayn Rand gang (Objectivists) are a bunch of total
>loons.  There's no way in hell I could vote for the NZ
>Libertarian party for instance, because it's mostly
>Objectivists.  The founder was a local NZ Objectivist
>cult leader who runs a forum called SOLO.  He
>basically just uses Objectivism as an excuse to
>further his own ego and spit bile at people.  The
>Austrian School of economics is total crack-pot
>garbage.  Anarch-capitalism is a load of subjectivist
>tripe.
>  
>
Libertarianism and Objectivism have very little in common, other than
statements made by libertarians that use her works to support their
views.  The concept of a free man that is free to determine his own
destiny is antithetical to belief in anarchy which is precisely what
libertarians want us to accept.  Ayn Rand regarded such people as her
enemies.

>The reason you see government virtually everywhere is
>because life without it was pretty horrible.  Parts of
>Southern Italy, Somalia or Russia today are good
>examples of anarcho-capitalism in action.  The
>'service providers' are mafia thugs.  That's life
>without regulation.  The thugs and psychopaths take
>over.  The few strong and agressive types are more
>free, but virtually everyone else is *less* free.  The
>purpose of government regulation is to *reduce* the
>total force by restraining the psychos.  Real freedom
>has to look at the *over-all* freedom (taing everyone
>into account), not just the freedom of a few.
>
>As someone on another board pointed out well, the
>places in the world with weak states are all poor,
>violent and disease ridden. Schools in India burn to
>the ground without fire saftey regulations.  Tourists
>in Asia fall sick without food saftey regualation. 
>Disease is rampant without people can't afford drugs
>and there is no proper infrastructure.  It's not a
>pretty sight. 
>
>A semi-Libertarian postion might work, but at the very
>least you:
>
>*Very strong democratic government to provide
>accountability, transparency and due process and
>regulate against force and fraud
>
>*A minimal saftey net for those with really seriously
>misfortunes (like disability).  Why shoud those with
>disabilities have to be at the beck and call of the
>lucky purely because of an accident of birth?
>
>*Government to handle 'public goods' (goods and
>services affecting every-one that cannot easy
>partitioned).  In this category fall:  
>
>Police
>Defence
>Courts
>Infrastructure
>Disaster relief
>Dealing with Infectious Disease
>Environment
>Basic Scientific Research
>
>Now if Libertarians would distance themselves from the
>anarcho-capitalist and Randian nutters, and recognise
>that we do need a Minimal government, I think the
>Libertarian brand would really take-off and eventually
>be wildly successful.  But if they continue to only
>count anarcho-capitalists and hard-core Minarchists as
>'Libertarian', then they're going to get absolutely
>no-where and be (rightly) written off as crack-pots.
>  
>
Sir, do you realize that you have just proven Ayn Rand's point that,
yes, we do indeed need limited government?  No honest Objectivist would
ever admit to believing a philosophy which admitted of no government. 
No government gives way to "might makes right".  This is precisely Ayn
Rand's thought.  One must conclude that the source of such a view on her
philosophy exists elsewhere.  That source is libertarians plagarizing
and corrupting her philosophy, effectively using her as means to forward
their own ends.

>From Ayn Rand herself:

    "The use of physical force--even in retaliatory use--cannot be left
    at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is
    impossible if a man lives under the constant threat of force to be
    unleashed against him by any his neighbors at any moment.

    Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their
    judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a
    sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice--the
    use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary
    decision of another." (Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", Virtue
    of Selfishness/// <http://capmag.com/store_detail.asp?offset=60&ID=5>/)


Article:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4221

More links from across the web:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ayn+rand%22+anarchy&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/18/18perigo.php
Article excerpt from above link:
"Imagine, for example, being confronted by a Hegelian, who would claim
to be an enthusiastic devotee of freedom. In his lexicon, however,
individual freedom is a misnomer and true freedom consists in submission
by the individual to the state. Such a creature would vigorously promote
abuses of individual rights like compulsory taxation, military
conscription, censorship, drug prohibition, murder for the "common good"
(war) etc., and sincerely argue that by such means, true freedom would
be achieved. Rex and I, on the other hand, would loudly protest that
such outrages were "interferences with our freedom." In Rex's
government-less society, who would prevail? Without a formally
constituted agency charged with defining and defending individual rights
(government), the answer could only be: he who has the bigger club. Rex
might have no intention of "standing idly by" while his rights are
abused, but in the presence of armed Hegelians and absence of legally
constituted police, to whom and to what would he repair? Like-minded
people with better weapons? A home-made nuclear arsenal in his back
yard? The spectre of might is right looms large.

Hence Ayn Rand's statement that "a society without organised government
[or, to anticipate Rex, 'organised without government'] would be at the
mercy of the first criminal [or Hegelian] who came along.""

Thank for your time,
--Jacob Bennett



From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 14 11:19:09 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:19:09 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
Message-ID: <BAY107-F24F45874732CD5AC6DDB08FAD10@phx.gbl>

Hi Brett, nice to meet ya.

No I dont speak for the United States, perhaps you didn't realize that I 
didn't write this. I received this and thought it was interesting, so I 
posted it for discussion. My own text ends at "is a bit unsensitive to 
this..." Perhaps I should have put the article in quotes for clarity. In any 
case, the point really isnt the facts, dates, or who speaks for who. Its the 
message that caught my attention, especially the thought that we could 
actually LOSE, and what that means exactly.

-E

"The world is more beautiful through tinted glass."


Brett Paatsch wrote:

>So you say the threat started in 1979.

>And you say as far as the United States is concerned.

>Why 1979 and not earlier?

>Do you speak for the United States? I thought only the
>President could do that.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 11:48:47 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:48:47 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
References: <BAY107-F24F45874732CD5AC6DDB08FAD10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <087f01c58869$ff0ddf50$0d98e03c@homepc>

Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Hi Brett, nice to meet ya.
>
> No I dont speak for the United States, perhaps you didn't realize that I 
> didn't write this. I received this and thought it was interesting, so I 
> posted it for discussion. My own text ends at "is a bit unsensitive to 
> this..." Perhaps I should have put the article in quotes for clarity. In 
> any case, the point really isnt the facts, dates, or who speaks for who. 
> Its the message that caught my attention, especially the thought that we 
> could actually LOSE, and what that means exactly.

Ah, no problemo.

I do agree of course. We could certainly lose. Whoever we define as
we.  Threats to the United States are older than the anything that happened
in 1979 though. Pearl Harbor occurred earlier than that. And the US
Civil war, after the US independence war.

After World War II a US President,  Franklin Delenor Roosevelt, if my
memory serves on spelling, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of
Great Britain, and others, organised to put together an international
organisation aimed at saving "succeeding generations from the scourge
of war, which twice in (their) lifetimes [had] brought untold sorrow to
mankind". That organisations purpose was "to maintain international
peace and security and to that end: to take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace".

That Organisation was called the United Nations.  It has a charter.
It is a treaty. Arguably, according to the language in it, it is the master
treaty of treaties between nations.

It contains provisions for each of the respective member nations one
of the most important of which was the United States to ratify it and
to make it part of their own law.

The United States did so ratify it by a vote in the US Senate of around
87 votes in favor to 2 against if memory serves. So the UN Charter
once ratified by Congress became part of the law of the United States
of America. The UN Charter, if you were born into the United States
after its ratification is part of your birthright.

Anyway, I have digressed, and this is probably not what you wished
to talk about.

Without meaning any disrespect to yourself, I'll leave the processing
of what you forwarded from an anonymous source to others if they are
interested. I prefer to work with first hand sources myself. I get more
out of the exchange that way. The personal touch, hearing someone's
personal opinion from them is part of the pleasure for me. Right or
wrong anyones own opinion, if it is honest and generously given, is
interesting if only for being original and authentic. Other peoples opinions
of others opinions isn't so much of interest to me personally.

Sometimes, unfortunately, I've learnt that propaganda is just passed
on by innocents that don't even know they are doing it. And sometimes
those that pass it on aren't even so innocent.

All the best to you,

Brett Paatsch 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 12:12:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12000 miles per gallon (equiv) !!
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05071403502b8c424e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050714121224.72903.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The only thing that makes this thing a car and not a bike is that it
has three wheels instead of two. This being said, here are some
comments:

a) as it was performed on a track, after the vehicle had reached its
average speed (i.e. energy cost of accelerating to 30 km/h were not
included) it only had to expend energy on rolling and wind resistance

b) for a very small very light (30 kilos is about 1/50th to 1/100th of
the mass of most vehicles called 'cars') and very aerodynamic vehicle
(note that aerodynamic resistance increases geometrically as vehicle
cross section and surface area increase) I would expect such high fuel
efficiency. 1200 mpg is no different than what solar powered vehicles
using similar design principles have demonstrated in similar tests.

--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

>
<http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,6118,00.html>
> 
> ETH Zurich's Fuel Cell Vehicle Sets New World Record
> 28 June 2005
> 
> ZURICH, Switzerland, Jun 28, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Swiss
> Federal
> Institute of Technology -- ETH Zurich has set a new world record for
> fuel efficiency. The world record-holding PAC Car operates on a
> hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Using the lower heating values of
> hydrogen
> and gasoline as a conversion basis, this world record now stands at
> 5385 kilometres per litre of gasoline.
> 
> The top-ranked world-renowned ETH Zurich set itself the goal to
> construct a vehicle that used as little fuel as possible and provided
> the highest possible fuel efficiency. PAC Car has an optimized fuel
> cell system that produces electrical energy from hydrogen and drives
> two high-efficiency electric motors. The only "emission" from PAC Car
> is pure water. The car weighs in at less than 30 kilograms. It
> achieved the top result at the Shell Eco-marathon on the Michelin
> proving grounds at Ladoux, France on June 24 to June 26, 2005. The
> vehicle used only 1.02 grams of hydrogen to drive the distance of
> 20.68 km at an average speed of 30 km/h. This converts to about 5385
> kilometres per litre of gasoline, a new world record in minimal fuel
> consumption. This means that PAC Car would only use the energy stored
> in about eight litres of gasoline to drive around the globe.
> 
> Also at <http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/>
> 
> 
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 14 13:03:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <087f01c58869$ff0ddf50$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050714130357.77138.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> I do agree of course. We could certainly lose. Whoever we define as
> we.  Threats to the United States are older than the anything that
> happened
> in 1979 though. Pearl Harbor occurred earlier than that. And the US
> Civil war, after the US independence war.

None of which have anything to do with the present crisis. Please stick
to the subject.

> 
> After World War II a US President,  Franklin Delenor Roosevelt, if my
> memory serves on spelling, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of
> Great Britain, and others, organised to put together an international
> organisation aimed at saving "succeeding generations from the scourge
> of war, which twice in (their) lifetimes [had] brought untold sorrow
> to
> mankind". That organisations purpose was "to maintain international
> peace and security and to that end: to take effective collective
> measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace".
> 
> That Organisation was called the United Nations.  It has a charter.
> It is a treaty. Arguably, according to the language in it, it is the
> master treaty of treaties between nations.

You are forgetting who the real author of the UN Charter was. It was
written by Alger Hiss, US Secretary of State, CFR member, Fabianist,
and spy for Stalin (later to be convicted of espionage, a conviction,
while disputed by the American left for decades, was confirmed in its
validity after the fall of the USSR when the KGB released its records
on Hiss, and the US released the Venona files). Nor was it after WWII,
it was during WWII, at the Yalta conference, when Roosevelt was ill and
essentially operating under the influence of Hiss (i.e. Stalin), when
the three of them agreed to the UN Charter. That it was later signed
publicly in San Francisco is immaterial outside of being illuminative
of the propaganda. The UN was born in the USSR, it was a Soviet
creature. Americans were conned into it by a spy and traitor.

This being said, in the current crisis, the UN has proven itself
nothing but an absurdity. From its birth until 1990, it was nothing but
an empty forum where NATO and the Warsaw Pact traded vetoes on anything
of substance. The first Gulf War was the first time that the UN
fulfilled its purpose, and following the cease fire, it doggedly
pursued a policy of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,
particularly at the hands of the French and Russians, despite passing
some 17 or 18 resolutions regarding Iraq, the French and Russians
prevented the UN from enforcing any of them itself.


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 Jul 14 13:17:54 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <07f201c58833$cbb2ced0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050714131754.33638.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
> him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?

Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
invasion was illegal. Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the arms
inspectors, for instance, plus an entire decade of violations of the
Gulf War cease-fire agreement, were far more important IMHO. Bush (as
well as every other UN SC member) was obligated to enforce all UN
resolutions being violated by Iraq, including a number that had nothing
to do with WMD.

> 
> IF you didn't support him but didn't oppose him either would you 
> be a thug coddler?
> 
> IF you participated in his re-election would you be a thug coddler?
> 
> I am mindful of something that Spike said. Iraq may be on the
> eve of construction. I am mindful that democracy is a good thing
> or certainly a better thing than most of the alternatives.
> 
> But if someone runs into your clubroom and kills or chases away
> the president and committee members of your club then arranges
> a new election. An election in which the club members that were
> chased away or fled in fear of their lives did not agree to
> participate in. Then is the result democracy?

Your analogy is bad. If someone holds a gun to the head of every member
and says, "vote for me or die", wins his 'election', and is then
deposed by an outside group that then ensures free and fair elections,
is the result democracy? Sure it is.

> 
> What about if they run into your house, shoot you, frighten your
> wife away and set up an election amongst your shocked children?

Where Saddam is in the role of Big Daddy? Your strawman is hardly representative.

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


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


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 13:21:09 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:21:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12000 miles per gallon (equiv) !!
In-Reply-To: <20050714121224.72903.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <ee50357e05071403502b8c424e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050714121224.72903.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0507140621223abbc@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> a) as it was performed on a track, after the vehicle had reached its
> average speed (i.e. energy cost of accelerating to 30 km/h were not
> included) it only had to expend energy on rolling and wind resistance
> 
> b) for a very small very light (30 kilos is about 1/50th to 1/100th of
> the mass of most vehicles called 'cars') and very aerodynamic vehicle
> (note that aerodynamic resistance increases geometrically as vehicle
> cross section and surface area increase) I would expect such high fuel
> efficiency. 1200 mpg is no different than what solar powered vehicles
> using similar design principles have demonstrated in similar tests.
> 


"Our goal is to build a car powered by a fuel cell that uses as little
fuel as possible."

So, yes, it is very light, yes, it is very streamlined, and yes, it
just keeps going round and round the track. They are not building your
average commuter vehicle. :)
But they did drive off from a standing start as specified in the Shell
Eco-marathon rules.
And achieved a world record 12 thousand mpg equivalent.
See <http://www.shelleco-marathon.com/index.htm>

As I understand it, fuel economy does not apply to solar-power cars as
they do not use any fuel at all. Infinite mpg!  The solar panels
generate electricity which feed batteries to provide motive power.
Regenerative braking on downhills also helps to charge the batteries.

The PAC car does not use any solar cells.
"Whereas most of the other fuel economy vehicles burn fuel in an ICE
(Internal Combustion Engine), PAC-Car II uses a fuel cell to convert
hydrogen into electricity to power its electric motors. The main
advantages are greater efficiency, much more silent operation and most
importantly, zero emission with pure water as the only by-product."

BillK


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 13:37:48 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:37:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
In-Reply-To: <42D5F44D.9070603@adelphia.net>
References: <20050714092511.72693.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D5F44D.9070603@adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605071406383f6eb345@mail.gmail.com>

Funny, Marc is confusing objectivism and anarcho-capitalism, rejecting
the referent of the latter using arguments from the former, and
renouncing libertarianism as a form of anarchocapitalism while
endorsing minarchism.

You OK, Marc?


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Jul 14 13:30:55 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:30:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fruit Fly Experiment
In-Reply-To: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050714031019.95838.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D6690F.9040005@sasktel.net>

was doug (skrecy)sp? at UBC.




Jacques Mathieu wrote:

>A few years back I remember reading about some fruit
>fly experiments that a certain individual on this list
>would post every so often. I searched through the
>archives, but unfortunately could only get to 2003 and
>I believe these were earlier. Anyway, does anyone know
>or remember of these experiments and what the ultimate
>results were?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jacques
>
>__________________________________________________
>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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Jul 14 14:26:57 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:26:57 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050714131754.33638.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <08ec01c58880$1781c860$0d98e03c@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> 
>> IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
>> him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
> 
> Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
> invasion was illegal. Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the arms
> inspectors, for instance, plus an entire decade of violations of the
> Gulf War cease-fire agreement, were far more important IMHO. Bush (as
> well as every other UN SC member) was obligated to enforce all UN
> resolutions being violated by Iraq, including a number that had nothing
> to do with WMD.

But you haven't answered my question. I am trying to get some deeper
insight into the real Mike Lorrey here. 

You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to but I did
ask exactly what I meant to ask and I am really interested.

Based on what I have read that you have written I thought you *might*
answer either yes or no, and I didn't know which. I did hope you 
wouldn't just smoke-out on a tough question though, that is not like
you. 

Brett Paatsch



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 14:31:41 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:31:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605071406383f6eb345@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050714092511.72693.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42D5F44D.9070603@adelphia.net>
	<7641ddc605071406383f6eb345@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071407312a67c1e9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Funny, Marc is confusing objectivism and anarcho-capitalism, rejecting
> the referent of the latter using arguments from the former, and
> renouncing libertarianism as a form of anarchocapitalism while
> endorsing minarchism.
> 


Whew! Lucky he didn't confuse Blavatsky with the Great Pumpkin.
Then he'd really be in trouble.

BillK


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jul 14 14:45:43 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:45:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] welcome
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200507141445.j6EEjcR28935@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Evan Hamlin
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
> 
> First, as this is my first post, I'll introduce myself. I'm Evan Hamlin,
> pleased to "meet" all of you...
> -Evan
> "The world is more beautiful through tinted glass."

Welcome Evan!  {8-]  spike






From es at popido.com  Thu Jul 14 14:59:04 2005
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:59:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
Message-ID: <200507141459.j6EEx4Z9002031@mail-core.space2u.com>


I believe firmly in minimal state intervention in peoples lifes, but I suggest a reading of Hernando de Sotos "The Mystery of Capital" if you think that complete anarchy is the way to go. At the very least we need property laws, which in turn implies a police and a court. Don't know what that makes me.

More interesting to discuss is perhaps the role of the national state in an ever more globalised world. In "One World", Peter Singer puts forth the following:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300103050/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/104-5818349-0666300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link
"One Atmosphere. One Economy. One Law. One Community." 

Given this view of the world, do we really need the national states?

If we don't, then what should be in their place?

My personal belief is that the local community will become much stronger as the state grows weaker. The urban city may become the most important political unit in the not to distant future. Regions, clusters, city states. That's what will take the national states' place on the smaller scale.

Question then is, what about the rest of the world? What about the bigger picture? Will we ever get a truly global democracy consisting of thousands of regions? Any thoughts?


BR Erik




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 15:27:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 12000 miles per gallon (equiv) !!
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507140621223abbc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050714152719.86538.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> "Our goal is to build a car powered by a fuel cell that uses as
> little fuel as possible."
> 
> So, yes, it is very light, yes, it is very streamlined, and yes, it
> just keeps going round and round the track. They are not building
> your average commuter vehicle. :)

The prof claimed they used technologies which would be road applicable.
I fail to see how a 30 kg bike has much that applies to a road worthy
car.

> But they did drive off from a standing start as specified in the
> Shell Eco-marathon rules.
> And achieved a world record 12 thousand mpg equivalent.
> See <http://www.shelleco-marathon.com/index.htm>
> 
> As I understand it, fuel economy does not apply to solar-power cars
> as they do not use any fuel at all. Infinite mpg! 

Solar car teams do calculate equivilancy based on watt-hours conversion
to horsepower and thence to average fuel economy per horsepower.

> Regenerative braking on downhills also helps to charge the batteries.
> 
> The PAC car does not use any solar cells.
> "Whereas most of the other fuel economy vehicles burn fuel in an ICE
> (Internal Combustion Engine), PAC-Car II uses a fuel cell to convert
> hydrogen into electricity to power its electric motors. The main
> advantages are greater efficiency, much more silent operation and
> most importantly, zero emission with pure water as the only by-
> product."

Technically speaking, a fuel cell peak effiency is at best 99%
conversion of chemical bond energy, minus efficiency of the electric
hub motors, any battery storage, voltage treatment, as well as rolling
and aerodynamic resistance. With this vehicle, efficiency likely
remains in the high 80%'s to low 90%'s.

Conversely, an ICE vehicle typically has an on the road efficiency of
about 15% or less. Assuming 30 mpg for such a vehicle, the best it
could attain at, say, 95% efficiency would be 195 mpg. Any gains in
efficiency beyond 100%, which would be above 200 mpg, must come from
reductions in weight, which means potentially compromising passenger
safety, or in vehicle size, i.e. aerodynamic cross section and surface
area, which impacts passenger and cargo capacity.

A particle of zero size can travel with infinite efficiency, but it
can't carry much, can it?

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


		
__________________________________ 
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 Jul 14 15:32:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <08ec01c58880$1781c860$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050714153255.39337.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> 
> >> IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
> >> him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
> > 
> > Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether
> the
> > invasion was illegal. Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the arms
> > inspectors, for instance, plus an entire decade of violations of
> the
> > Gulf War cease-fire agreement, were far more important IMHO. Bush
> (as
> > well as every other UN SC member) was obligated to enforce all UN
> > resolutions being violated by Iraq, including a number that had
> nothing
> > to do with WMD.
> 
> But you haven't answered my question. I am trying to get some deeper
> insight into the real Mike Lorrey here. 
> 
> You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to but I did
> ask exactly what I meant to ask and I am really interested.

If for some reason I were to conclude that my previous statements
regarding the justification for deposing Saddam's government were
wrong, then Bush would be what? What law are you claiming he broke? And
does breaking a law make one a thug?

What law are you saying Bush broke?

I don't recall there being a law that Bush has broken. He hasn't
testified anywhere falsely, though his some of his minions have, and
his invasion of Iraq was fully justified under many UN resolutions, so
exactly what laws are you claiming he broke, and when did he become
subject to them?

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  Thu Jul 14 15:36:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
In-Reply-To: <200507141459.j6EEx4Z9002031@mail-core.space2u.com>
Message-ID: <20050714153615.69586.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Erik Starck <es at popido.com> wrote:

> 
> I believe firmly in minimal state intervention in peoples lifes, but
> I suggest a reading of Hernando de Sotos "The Mystery of Capital" if
> you think that complete anarchy is the way to go. At the very least
> we need property laws, which in turn implies a police and a court.
> Don't know what that makes me.
> 
> More interesting to discuss is perhaps the role of the national state
> in an ever more globalised world. In "One World", Peter Singer puts
> forth the following:
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300103050/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/104-5818349-0666300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link
> "One Atmosphere. One Economy. One Law. One Community." 
> 
> Given this view of the world, do we really need the national states?
> 
> If we don't, then what should be in their place?

I happen to like the concept of the Franchise Organised Quasi-National
Entity from the Stephenson novels Snow Crash and Diamond Age. The
Common Economic Protocol is the whole of the law.


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 russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 15:37:53 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:37:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
In-Reply-To: <200507141459.j6EEx4Z9002031@mail-core.space2u.com>
References: <200507141459.j6EEx4Z9002031@mail-core.space2u.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05071408374d665615@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/05, Erik Starck <es at popido.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe firmly in minimal state intervention in peoples lifes, but I suggest a reading of Hernando de Sotos "The Mystery of Capital" if you think that complete anarchy is the way to go. At the very least we need property laws, which in turn implies a police and a court. Don't know what that makes me.

That philosophy (which I also hold) is what "libertarian" usually
refers to. (The philosophy Marc was correctly criticizing is
"anarchist".)

> More interesting to discuss is perhaps the role of the national state in an ever more globalised world. In "One World", Peter Singer puts forth the following:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300103050/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/104-5818349-0666300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link
> "One Atmosphere. One Economy. One Law. One Community."
> 
> Given this view of the world, do we really need the national states?

Absolutely. If you disagree, consider why we're speaking English
instead of Chinese right now.

- Russell


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Jul 14 15:46:24 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:46:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
Message-ID: <380-220057414154624516@M2W029.mail2web.com>


Please change post subject line for subsequent posts deviating from this
thread.  

Thanks,
Natasha

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




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Jul 14 16:08:15 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:08:15 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism,
	and history
Message-ID: <380-22005741416814995@M2W045.mail2web.com>


Please change the subject line to reflect the current thread.

Thanks,
Natasha


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




From jonkc at att.net  Thu Jul 14 16:29:16 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:29:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion from sound waves
References: <200507141459.j6EEx4Z9002031@mail-core.space2u.com>
Message-ID: <015901c58891$3e068fa0$dfee4d0c@MyComputer>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050714010405.htm 



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Jul 14 17:10:50 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:10:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Pinched this article from the
	ThailandLaos Forum
Message-ID: <42D69C9A.8010108@mindspring.com>

You "may" have already seen this article, but I'm passing it on for your 
comments.
 
BANGKOK Muslim insurgents in Thailand have stockpiled more than 7,000
weapons and have trained with Indonesian militants to wreak violence in
southern Thailand, a former army commander said Monday.
 
Kitti Rattanachaya, a retired army general who was praised for
maintaining the peace in southern Thailand in the 1990s and has been a
security adviser to the government, said its mishandling of the
situation could cause it to deteriorate.
 
"There is still no light at the end of the tunnel," Kitti said.
"Eighteen months after the government started deploying massive numbers
of troops into the region, the situation is getting worse. The
separatist movement has complete control of the people. Only the land
belongs to us, but the people belong to the movement, 100 percent."
 
A decades-old Muslim separatist movement in southern Thailand died
down in the late 1980s after the government granted an amnesty.
 
But the violence surged early last year and has resulted in more than
880 deaths in the last 18 months.
 
The three southernmost provinces are the only Muslim majority areas in
predominantly Buddhist Thailand. Southerners have long complained of
discrimination in education and jobs.
 
Kitti said that many of the guns stockpiled by the separatists had
been stolen from the police and the army, including weapons seized in
an attack on an army camp that started the latest offensive.
 
On Jan. 4, 2004, a group of armed men stormed a camp in Narathiwat
Province, killing four soldiers and stealing more than 400 weapons,
mostly assault rifles. The raid prompted the government to send more
than 50,000 soldiers to the region.
 
Kitti cited intelligence sources as saying that at least seven
Indonesian Muslim militants had gone to the south to provide training
for the Muslim rebels.
 
"Things are getting worse because the government doesn't accept the
fact that this is a movement of terrorists and separatists," he said.
 
Defense Minister Thammarak Isarangura said the situation was under
control and that locals would be trained to defend themselves against
the militants. "The situation is calming down," he said, "and in some
areas, daily attacks on innocent people have decreased by 50 percent."
 
Regional police statistics show that from January to June 20, at least
207 people had been killed and 601 people had been wounded in
hit-and-run attacks, bombings and beheadings.
 
Ken Bower
"The longer I live, the more beautiful life becomes"  
Frank Lloyd Wright
------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

"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/20050714/6710527e/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Thu Jul 14 17:43:36 2005
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:43:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
References: <20050714153255.39337.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017c01c5889b$93348bd0$dfee4d0c@MyComputer>

I have a different question, which is the more comforting, to believe the 
Bush administration lied about Iraq, or that they thought every word they 
said was true? I'd love to say they just lied but I fear they believed it. 
What else do they believe?

John K Clark




From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 14 17:55:31 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:55:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <60302326-F85E-4174-9BFE-F0B4F6D94B18@mac.com>


On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:55 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> 2. Why were we attacked?  Envy of our position, our
> success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during
> the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
> 1, Clinton and Bush
> 2. We cannot fault either the
> Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations
> by any of the presidents or their immediate
> predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
>

Sigh.  You really have no idea at all of how long we have run major  
dirty tricks in the Middle East, do you?  You also ignore our major  
support of Israel which is nuclear powered strongly religion run and  
quite aggressive state to do this day.

> 3. Who were the attackers?   In each case, the attacks
> on the US were carried out by Muslims.
>

Considering (4) and our provocations in Muslim countries this is  
hardly surprising.

> 4. What is the Muslim population of the World?   25%
>
> 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?  Hopefully, but
> that is really not material.  There is no doubt that
> the predominately Christian population of Germany was
> peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of
> Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
> difference.  You either went along with the
> administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5
> to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
> political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
> (see http://>/).
>
> Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed
> by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were
> killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other
> than the Jewish atrocities.


Proof please.

>
> 6. So who are we at war with?  There is no way we can
> honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
> Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct
> and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be
> fatal.  There is no way to win if you don't clearly
> recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
>

A war on terrorism as such makes no sense.

> So with that background, now to the two major
> questions:
> 1. Can we lose this war?
> 2. What does losing really mean?

Since there is no rational criteria for what winning it is it is  
difficult to say.

>
> If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two
> pivotal questions.
>
> We can definitely lose this war,  and as anomalous as
> it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so
> many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the
> second question - What does losing mean?
>
> It would appear that a great many of us think that
> losing the war means hanging our heads,  bringing the
> troops home and going on about our business, like post
> Vietnam.  This is as far from the truth as one can
> get.  What losing really means is:
>
> We would no longer be the premier country in the
> world.  The attacks will not subside,  but rather will
> steadily increase.  Remember, they want us dead, not
> just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet,  they
> would not have produced an increasing series of
> attacks against us, over the past 18 years.  The plan
> was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were
> neutered and submissive to them.
>

If we stopped some of our major provocations I have no reason to  
believe the attacks would increase.  Neutered and submissive?  Sigh.
>

> They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one
> at a time.  It will be increasingly easier for them.

Ah, the great Muslim expansion theory.  Do you really believe this or  
is the above notion that they attack us because we are so good in  
contradiction?


> They already hold Spain hostage.  It doesn't matter
> whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw
> its troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim
> terrorists bombed their train and told them to
> withdraw the troops.  Anything else they want Spain to
> do, will be done.  Spain is finished.
>

Ah, so we can't stop doing any of our nasties because terrorist  
oppose us.  I see.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 14 18:04:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:04:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
In-Reply-To: <017c01c5889b$93348bd0$dfee4d0c@MyComputer>
References: <20050714153255.39337.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<017c01c5889b$93348bd0$dfee4d0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <FF90F6EC-26A3-4B8B-81D9-957D5A98C2A0@mac.com>

That they lied at least in part is now a given.  I see no point in  
further denial.  Neither position is comforting and cmofort was not  
the point.

On Jul 14, 2005, at 10:43 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> I have a different question, which is the more comforting, to  
> believe the Bush administration lied about Iraq, or that they  
> thought every word they said was true? I'd love to say they just  
> lied but I fear they believed it. What else do they believe?
>
> John K Clark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jul 14 18:09:01 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:09:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
In-Reply-To: <60302326-F85E-4174-9BFE-F0B4F6D94B18@mac.com>
References: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
	<60302326-F85E-4174-9BFE-F0B4F6D94B18@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42D6AA3D.6080709@pobox.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:55 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:
>>
>> 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?  Hopefully, but
>> that is really not material.  There is no doubt that
>> the predominately Christian population of Germany was
>> peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of
>> Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
>> difference.  You either went along with the
>> administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5
>> to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
>> political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
>> (see http://>/).
>>
>> Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed
>> by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were
>> killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other
>> than the Jewish atrocities.
> 
> Proof please.

Samantha, the figure of 11,000,000 deliberately exterminated by the Nazis is 
correct; and Hamlin is also correct that I have seen the figure of 6 million 
Jews mentioned more often than the other one.  Sort of like how World Trade 
Center casualties mention Americans to the exclusion of foreign nationals.

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


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 19:20:02 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:20:02 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks
	the	Bush	admin	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D5E133.9020300@mindspring.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
	<42D5E133.9020300@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <42D6BAE2.9010605@aol.com>

Terry W. Colvin wrote:

> Ah, that explains certain words.  I myself have a love of English 
> literature which often confuses my use of "s" and "z" in
> words Americans changed early in our history.  My ancestors come from 
> Scotland.  I too like mushrooms and tomatoes
> but rarely for breakfast.


Well, you've got to try them!  Cut in half fried in butter.  Mmmmm.

>   Queen's greatest hits?  Leg-pull?


We were all young once.

>   I'm curious to trace ancestry through the National Geographic
> project but $125 to process a mouth swab is a bit exorbitant.


Thankfully my ancestors have been pretty careful to leave written 
records.  On the korean side I've got records going back around 3000 
years from when the Mongolians invaded china and were given Korea as 
appeasement (see, the Chinese know that appeasement works sometimes - 
after giving Korea to the Mongolians, the Koreans never again invaded 
china).  On the European sides I can get back to the middle ages, 
suprising as that is.  For the Irish I was lucky enough to find some 
catholic birth records and for the Hungarians they had a land grant and 
tobacco concession from a local duke which made them pretty easy to 
trace and when their family married with the Austrians they incorporated 
their records AND when the German (beck) showed up to marry the eldest 
daughter of my great-great-great-great (or so) grandfather because he 
had no daughters.  Not much is known about him except that he wasn't 
well-liked as a german in hungary.

>   My wife is Thai-Chinese.  Ruk-Long (Infatuation) and I have
> been married 32 years.  We have five adult children and six 
> grandchildren.  Amy (age 30) and Jeremy (age 28) tend to look
> either Arabic or Spanish in my opinion.  Amy married a fellow of 
> German ancestry.  Their sons/our grandsons, Nicholas
> (age 7.5) and Jacob (age 4.5) are 25% Thai-Chinese but the phenotypes 
> common to Asians are not expressed.  It is
> fascinating to watch genetics at work.


It's AMAZING sometimes.  My two daughters are dark-skinned (like me), 
but my son is whiter than my Austrian Grandmother (green eyes, red hair, 
allergic to the sun, etc.) and looks most like my Grandfather 
(german-irish) and my wife's father (Flemish).

>
>>>
>>> Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued 
>>> Islamic extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement 
>> in the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.
>>
>> How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and 
>> Afganistan?  Now that's a question worth asking.
>>
>> 1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.
>
>
> IMO, no evidence to impeach.


Obviously it's not an opinion I can respect but I won't chide you about 
it because you've been so polite.  What we have are some definitive 
statements by Bush that there were Chemical, Biological and Nuclear 
weapons and/or programs (various statements) in Iraq and on the other 
side no evidence whatever of them.  This establishes a reason for 
suspicion.  You say later that you're suspcious of politicians, well...  
An impeachment is, in some ways, like a trial.  Once the impeachment 
proceeding is begun the President has the right and ability to defend 
himself during the discovery process (congress has broader discovery 
powers than a court, I think). 

>> 2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR 
>> terms - give it to them!
>
>
> The UN make good peacekeepers, not peacemakers.  Diplomacy and 
> economic sanctions sometimes aren't enough.

But you have to try and not half-assed baloney.

> Two prime examples are Somalia in 1993 and Bosnia/Kosovo before 1995.  
> Somalia was a disaster where the U.S.
> allowed UN bureaucrats to make military decisions.  We left.  Somalia 
> continues to be a non-functional country.  The
> UN couldn't talk the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims into being good guys.  
> After the Srebenica massacre (10 years ago
> as of 11 July) the UN handed control over to NATO.  This worked.  NATO 
> (mostly American forces) put out the word
> that any attacks on NATO would bring full military force on their 
> heads.  The UN was run out of Iraq last year.


They were run out of Iraq BY THE US "better get your guys outta there 
because we're gonna start bombing."

>> 3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.
>
>
> Yes, and the horns of a dilemma.  Too soon and the area reverts to 
> tribal/religious warfare with another strongman
> emerging.  Too lengthy and we do risk a long-term 
> Baathist/Sunni/foreign extremist nightmare.

I suspect with a reasonable coalition of local arab nations alongside 
religious sunnis, shiites and kurds a government could be formed 
(assuming that's a good thing for the time being, sometimes the pain of 
revolution is a good thing) if it weren't seen as coming from the United 
States.

>> 4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that 
>> they'll be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as 
>> quickly as possible and that they're invited to join in the formation 
>> of the new government -and mean it-.  Perhaps offer to make Iraq a 
>> shining example of a Libertarian utopia :)
>
>
> I'm hearing that U.S. commanders and GOI (government of Iraq) 
> officials are meeting with some insurgent groups.  The Shias
> allied with Muqtada-al-Sadr have ceased military action and seek 
> political assimilation.  The Kurdish region is relatively stable.
> The Shia south is relatively stable.  Yes, I see your smiley face.  
> IMO, utopias only work in literature.


I agree, utopias don't even work in litterature, really.  For every 
literary utopia there is a corresponding dystopia. But I still think 
with the US presence there in the formation of a government it will fail 
to have legitimacy in the eyes of the common people and consequently 
will be regarded as an imposed puppet government likely to continue to 
receive attacks by the poor and engender the hatred of all things American.

> (as long as I'm at it...)
>
>>
>> 5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy 
>> conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest 
>> of the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions 
>> to the middle east.
>
>
> The economy remains strong; however, the housing market bubble worries me.


Check the following statistcis - corporate and personal bankruptcy 
rates, "no longer looking for work" rates at the unemployment office.  
Also compare average household salaries from 5 years ago to today.

Also, the housing market appears to have been a bubble caused by 
artificially low interest rates proceeding from the FED. 

>   Unlike the dotcom bubble, pure speculation,
> housing are physical assets, although prices may level out or depreciate.

The dot-com bubble wasn't pure speculation, it remains that the Internet 
has significantly replaced radio, television and newspaper in some media 
consumption segments.  Control of this media remains the most important 
project for major media players. 

The housing market has plenty of speculation.  I sincerely believe that 
we're due for a Freddie/Fannie/Ginne-Mac/Mae fiasco on the level of the 
Savings and Loan Scandal of the first Bush era.  The devestation of the 
job market caused primarily by the off-shoring of technical jobs (it's 
offensive to call programmers "resources" as though they're a variety of 
structural wood or something) resulted in a major vaccuum probably 
intended to coerce the current generation of recent grads into signing 
up for the air-force, marines, army and navy since we're obviously going 
to be needing bodies to fill all those bags "we're" planning on having.

>> (and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your 
>> question, I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
>>
>> Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a 
>> diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and 
>> avoided the whole confounded incident.  But in the unimaginably 
>> unlikely possible world where I found myself president on 9/12 
>> looking for something to do I'd probably have listened to my CIA/FBI 
>> advisors and gone in with the toothpick before using a hammer.  If I 
>> was interested in saving my political career (which would probably be 
>> the main reason such a world was so completely absurd) I would 
>> attempt to have a head or two rolling down the table within a few 
>> weeks and then some kind of back-office deal to appease the attackers 
>> and once again restore peace?  Hopefully the head will have been dead 
>> for years so nobody new would have had to die...  Maybe...
>
>
> We did use a toothpick in Afghanistan.  Special operations and using 
> "friendly" tribal forces to disrupt Taliban forces.


Then why is bin Laden still alive?  We must have the most bungling 
dipshit assasins in the whole world.  I wasn't thinking green berets, 
though.  I'm talking James Bond shit, here.  Super-spy teams with 
license to kill and kool ray-guns that shoot out of their bionic eyes!  
I mean, if you're going to have "special forces" you may as well make 
them REALLY special.  Which leads me to the whole preparedness thing.  
This "war against terror" can't be won with tanks and machine guns.  Our 
enemy isn't of that kind (and there's plenty of analysis on this so I 
won't rehash it...).  Which means that the nature of current military 
spending is at best misguided for facing the threat posed.  Instead of 
building bombers and bombs and smart bombs and stuff, we need to be 
thinking small and smart.  Enhanced people.  Well, that is, if we like 
the idea of enhanced people.  I'm ambivalent about it.  I kind of like 
the idea of having a high powered lazer embedded in my eyes and a small 
net-connected super-computer in my brain.  BUT I don't really like the 
idea of everyone else having a high-powered lazer embedded in their eyes 
and a small net-connected super-computer in their brains....

My mother says "If everyone owned a nuclear weapon people'd be a lot 
more polite."  I dunno.  There are sadistic sycophants in the world, 
they might not like the idea that just any old little old lady could 
take them out by blinking their eyes the wrong way at them.  But, maybe, 
if humans were super-humans we'd "evolve".  But that's a giant, huge, 
tremendously irrationally optimistic MAYBE.

All of this, of course, is based on the premise that force is the best 
way to fight this battle, but this remains to be proved.  I don't agree 
with you that you can't appease or placate the other side in any given 
conflict and as soon as you see the enemy rationally as combatants, then 
you can start dealing with them rationally as enemies with specific 
goals that, not suprisingly, aren't all that unlike one's own goals but 
in reverse (prosperity, security, peace, etc.)  It's when we dehumanize 
enemies that they become implacable fanatics bent on death and 
destruction.  This isn't a rational outlook.

>   Fanatics
> can neither be appeased nor vetted.


What makes you think Bin Laden is a "fanatic".  As I see it, he's a 
tribal leader of some sort protecting his values as best he can.  He's 
unable to raise a real army and so is using the means that are available 
to him.  He dislikes US intervention in the middle east and sees it as 
imperialism.  In this I agree with him and so should anyone with two 
open eyes.  I consider the case parallel to the IRA.  The Irish were 
unjustly invaded and oppressed by the English and the poor and 
disenfranchised Irish resorted to whatever means were available to 
express their pain.  People don't become terrorists because they're 
happily married with two kids a nice house and prospects for a 
prosperous future.  If you're thinking about strapping a bomb to your 
chest and walking into a library, you're probably not extremely hopeful 
about your life-prospects anyway.  Such circumstances for city-folk 
often includes desperate boredom.  That is, the roots of "fanaticism" or 
"revolutionary" or "radical" or "terroristic" behavior are not 
necessarily the same as the sadistic impulse in people.  Sometimes 
they're the result of the rational facility in people to evaluate their 
circumstances and options.  I don't think Bin Laden and the junior Bin 
Laden's of the word is/are Hitlerian in that I don't think he has a sick 
agenda of trying to wipe out a particular race and taking over the 
world.  Nor do I think he just enjoys killing people  (although I 
suppose that qua warrior he may in the same way that many American 
soldiers enjoy the fight, it may be a psychological pre-requisite for 
warriors that they enjoy it on some level). My guess, not having met the 
man, is that he's a rational warrior in a rational battle.  One must 
remember that the CIA in a sense created Bin Laden and the Taliban to 
combat the Russians in Afghanistan during the cold war.  Understanding 
him that way is a first step to trying to end the conflict with Al Quaeda.

>   My geography professor, a retired military intelligence colonel, 
> predicted the rise of
> extremist Islamic forces in 1995.

Wow, a real visionary!  I take a longer view of the matter.  I don't 
regard 'the rise of extremist islamic forces' as something that 
'started' in the modern era at all nor do I see the current conflict 
between Wetern Civilization and THEM (remembering that the North Koreans 
are NOT Islamic and neither are the Chinese both of whom are equally 
enemies in the global struggle for world-domination...) as simply 
economic or technological or tribale or...  The difference between US 
and THEM is that they are THEM and we are US.  The WE hate the THEM, 
that's how the psychology of war works, that's how governments justify 
their oppression of their own people.  I assume you've read 1984, right 
(sadly, I've met people who haven't!)  For a -real- visionary, check out 
Malachi.

>   The best defense is a good offense.

Sometimes.  The best defense is the ability to adapt to circumstances ad 
hoc and react rationally under pressure while simultaneously keeping as 
many of one's options open as possible.

>> No doubt the Taliban were upset by Unocal's insistence on pushing 
>> through the afgan line -on their terms- and no doubt they could have 
>> been sated had -someone- told Unocal just to play nice with the 
>> natives.  But I don't know enough about Al Quaeda's involvement with 
>> the Taliban and the Saudi government to really have an understanding 
>> of who to talk to and how to talk with them.  I'd LOVE to know, 
>> though.  I've read Osama Bin Laden's statement but frankly without 
>> knowing in more detail how Al Quaeda is organized and what their 
>> relationship is with their various supporting organizations, I don't 
>> have enough information to make an informed decision even in 
>> retrospect.  It's possible that the taliban was so closely aligned 
>> with Al Quaeda that 9/11 was essentially a first-shot act of war.  If 
>> that was the case, I don't know what I'd have done, but it probably 
>> wouldn't have been greeted with glee by true pacifists - would have 
>> had to keep it hush-hush no doubt.  It's equally possible, from my 
>> point of view, that Bin Laden was hired by Bush's people to stir 
>> things up and save his flailing presidency.  In which case, because 
>> I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire terrorists to 
>> give me something to do and so the whole event would have been 
>> avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so 
>> ridiculous after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones 
>> moving forward.
>
>
> The Taliban were manipulated by Osama Bin Laden.  Al Quaeda is no 
> longer the primary force.  There is a movement of
> like-minded fanatics, as individuals, cells, and organizations 
> spreading as a virus throughout the world.  Bush's presidency
> was less than a year old when 9/11 happened.


If your child died in its first year because you left it in a grocery 
store, would you excuse yourself because you'd only had the child for a 
year.

>   I don't blame Clinton entirely; however, he helped along the 
> abetting and
> ignoring that seemed to take hold after Watergate.  


What the heck are you talking about?  Slick willie wasn't good at hiding 
his dick but he was prettty good at providing a relatively secure 
environment for domestic growth.

> The CIA was eviscerated by Congress, rightly or wrongly/probably a mix,
> and the FBI continued to muddle along.

It appears from the record that the FBI and CIA were on top of it.  The 
FBI had reported correctly to the white house that Bin Laden was 
planning on using planes to attack targets in the US and had identified 
trainees in flight schools in the us who later turned out (assuming you 
believe even this stuff) to be the perps.  They had, correctly, asked 
the President's Office for the CIA intelligence on the matter when the 
CIA, correctly, refused to give it to them themselves.  The President's 
office denied their request for information for some unknown reason.  
THEY, the intelligence community, were doing their jobs.  The official 
report is that it was the white house that shrugged its collective 
shoulder at the reports and consequently denied the FBI's request for 
information.

It should be noted that the same kinds of threats have been happening 
for years and that the reaction of rational white-house officials has 
been to step up funding and resources and to promote cooperation between 
the agencies on genuine threats in order to avoid major incidents like 
these when the warning flag is raised.  Bush's incorrect action here or 
maybe prevention of action here has to be regarded as among the 
strangest events in this history of his presidency and if he did it with 
malice, it's certainly treason.  If he did it simply out of laziness and 
stupidity it's really, really, really scary.

>   This is more a systemic problem and inherent in any democracy.  

Actually, with people in general.the problems are greed, faithlessness, 
foolishness, sadism, bloodthirst, (not in any particular order) etc.    
Democracy is only a violent byproduct of our generalized inability to 
"just get along".

>  Term limits and amateur status as our forefathers intended those 
> serving to return to
> their farms and businesses after a few years, unlike the professional 
> politicans we have today.


I wish they'd just stayed at home.  I for one certainly don't trust 
politicians, and certainly not professional politicians.  But it's a 
natural extension of a specialization economy.  If you have the time and 
resources to practice being a good politician (which means winning 
elections, not doing good things), you're likely to be better at it than 
any amateur.  Elections are like todo va fights, you'd better be good.

>> I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that 
>> might be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't 
>> be the first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to 
>> solve that problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap 
>> dances all around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!)  Anyway, for 
>> that we'd probably have to start in India or Pakistan, "our allies".  
>> So, unfortunately, the sex issue gets swept under the floor as it has 
>> been for the last 5000 years
>>
>
> Sexism works both ways.  Some feminists and Hollywood went overboard 
> portraying "ALL" males as contemptible.
> One theory is that sexism began with agriculture.  Women were 
> relegated to inferior roles.  The hunter-gatherers were
> much more egalitarian.  Women often provided more sustenance from 
> insect protein, roots, berries, etc. than those
> engaged in hunting animals.


The point here being that the "long list of reasons to hate the Taliban 
and Bin Laden and all of THEM" that was fabricated immediately after the 
9/11 incident to justify the toppling of that government (despite the 
fact that diplomatic resources had not be exhausted in that case either) 
included the sexism of the Taliban.  Well, let them without sin cast the 
first stone.  It's just funny to watch the propaganda machine at work.  
It's so sad to watch the public-school-brain-washed residents of 
dumbfuckistan be hand-fed their own children on sticks with smiles on 
their faces.  Soilent green - it's people!

Robbie Lindauer


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 20:04:37 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:04:37 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <5d74f9c70507132053130b38f9@mail.gmail.com>
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: <42D6C555.3020706@aol.com>

John Calvin wrote:

>On 7/13/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>...
> 
>  
>
>>I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement in
>>the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.
>>    
>>
>
>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.  We knew that Osama Bin
>Laden was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over
>thereby aiding and abetting terrorists.  What more information would
>you need?  If you are interested, there is a whole lot of info
>available from which you can draw your own conclusions.
>  
>
I agree, there's lots of information, but not ALL of the information.  
If I were president I assume there'd be more information, that's the 
only point I was making.  It's POSSIBLE that the official information is 
accurate and that Bin Laden really is the Anti-Christ.  I'm just 
unconvinced, I'd like to see the hard evidence for myself.  I'm sure 
lots of people would have liked to have taken responsibility for 9/11 
and the fact that Al Quaeda made the most convincing case is impressive 
but not definitive to me without seeing the hard evidence.  I'd like to 
see the official and secret FBI and CIA files on the matter before 
making any judgement on the matter.

>>How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and Afganistan?
>>Now that's a question worth asking.
>>    
>>
>
>I spent 11 months of 2004 in the Paktika province of Afghanistan, part
>of that in Lwara 2k from the Pakistani border.
>
>I can say from experience, that the Majority of the Afghani people
>with which I came into contact, wanted the U.S. to be there, and
>firmly believed that our presence was their best hope for a brighter
>future.  As a Psychological Operations soldier it was my job to go out
>and assess the attitudes of the local population.
>  
>
Maybe in Afganistan but Afganistan is not Iraq.  In Iraq, they're 
killing us daily for being there.

>  
>
>>1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>I for one don't believe we were wrong for invading Afghanistan. 
>  
>
I'm just not sure, we the public were never given enough information to 
make a rational decision.  Again the problem with sheep-democracy is 
that we are asked to trust our leaders.  F-that.

>I am also not sorry to see Saddam gone, I did a fair amount of
>research on Saddam after the first gulf war, and he was a monster.
>
Did you do the same research on Bush Sr.?

>  I
>would hope that for the sake of all humanity we might be willing to
>get rid of and not coddle the omnsters of this world.
>  
>

You mean like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and Condoleeza?

>  
>
>>2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR terms
>>- give it to them!
>>    
>>
>
>This I agree with.
>
>  
>
>>3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.
>>    
>>
>
>The debate is, what is reasonable?  Is it reasonable to pull out our
>troops before a new government has had time to settle in and get its
>footing.  For we certainly do not want to leave and create a power
>vacuum which would most certainly be filled by the most violent
>factions.
>  
>

Reasonable is reasonable, I know it's a sticky situation.  Where we 
appear to disagree is that you think our presence is a stabilizing 
factor.  I think that the US presence there is likely only to 
disintegrate any legitimacy a newly formed government may have.  For 
this reason a coalition of Arab and UN forces would be the relevant 
people for helping the Iraqis form a new government.

>>4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that they'll
>>be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as quickly as
>>possible and that they're invited to join in the formation of the new
>>government -and mean it-.  
>>    
>>
>
>This we do now.
>

FINALLY.  But why isn't this called "appeasement".  Funny how the 
propaganda goes.  Someone with a different attitude shares an opinion 
and it's wisdom, otherwise it's appeasement.

>  I know from experience in Afghanistan, and second
>hand from fellow soldiers who have served in Iraq that we extend every
>opportunity to all sides to join in the peaceful formation of a new
>government.  We even went so far as to offer amnesty to the taliban
>leadership if they would come and support the peaceful formation of a
>new government.
>  
>
Good!

>  
>
>Perhaps offer to make Iraq a shining example
>  
>
>>of a Libertarian utopia :)
>>    
>>
>
>Unfortunately, there are factions in both Afghanistan and Iraq who
>have a vested interest in rebuilding the old regime, many who simply
>held some power there and would like that power back.  These people
>are not at all interested in a libertarian utopia.
>

I know, you didn't sense the irony?

>  As well, while
>many of the Afghani nationals that I spoke to were interested in the
>idea of democracy, and excited about the prospect of power
>distribution, telecommunuications, education and medical care, there
>is likely a fair amount of western culture that they will not want or
>may not be ready for.
>  
>
>>(as long as I'm at it...)
>>
>>5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy
>>conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest of
>>the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions to
>>the middle east.
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>(and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your question,
>>I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
>>
>> Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a
>>diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and
>>avoided the whole confounded incident. 
>>    
>>
>
>Don't be fooled, proper diplomacy is not always "Playing Nice",
>sometimes a show of force is the best of diplomacy.
>

Yes, and sometimes pretending to show force is enough.  There's a long 
spectrum of options, none of which were exhausted before we went to war.

>   In fact, I met a
>fair number of Afghani Men who simply had no respect for you unless
>you demonstrated a show of force.
>  
>
I live in Hawaii, it's cultural to fight with someone upon meeting them 
to figure out where you fit in the pecking order.  But wise peaceful 
people manage to avoid this kind of baloney and are respected for it.

>You sometimes have too piss on the cat in order to get things done.
>(my wife would definately show some force if I ever pissed on the cat)
>  
>
Ah, how many times I've wanted to piss on my wife's cat!  Look, I know 
that SOMETIMES force is the only solution.  I don't see that anyone has 
even started to make a convincing argument that it was in either the 
case for Afghanistan or Iraq (although intuitively I see the case could 
be made more obvious for Afghanistan).  BUT I don't see, in the light of 
my own utopian goals, how any violence at all will ever achieve anything 
-in the long run-.

>While I am not a huge fan of the current admistration, for numerous
>reasons, I would hardly count them capable of orchestrating 9/11 for
>any reason, and the presidency was still fairly new and not flailing
>so horribly as to require a 9/11 size event in order to save it.
>  
>
You don't remember the less than 30% approval ratings and inability to 
move any bill at all through congress?  I remember it vividly.  I know 
I've got coverage of it from the AP on thetip somehwere.  9/11 certainly 
greased the wheels for the pres.  And the only motivation isn't fixing a 
flailing presidency, it's also the economic rewards for the energy and 
military community to which Bush is connected by blood on all sides.

Remember we're not talking about Bush the Chimp doing it, we're talking 
about him having the help of some genuinely experienced CIA ops people 
like Papa Bush and Cheney and Rummy, et. al. 

But the fact is, I just don't know how it went down, not having seen the 
actual files of the FBI and CIA.  I DO know that the they informed the 
president that Al Quaeda was going to use planes to attack some US 
targets and that the FBI and CIA had seperately identified many of the 
targets and that the FBI had made a formal request first to the CIA and 
then to the white house for intelligence on several of the attackers 
before the case and the white house refused their relatively routine 
request.  Again, if this is simply complete idiocy or malfeasance is a 
matter of conjecture, but it's the kind of thing that an independant 
investigative committee would be appropriate for.  When these things 
came out in the official Commission (during the Rice testimony which I 
found hilarious, didn't you?) I was genuinely suprised they didn't get a 
rope and hang her and then head over to the white house.  "We really 
didn't take it seriously" she said.  Well what the fuck -does- she take 
seriously?   I mean shouldn't SOMEONE in the administration take 
terrorism and the recommendations of the FBI and CIA seriously?

>>In which case, because I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire
>>terrorists to give me something to do and so the whole event would have
>>been avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so
>>ridiculous after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones
>>moving forward.
>>
>>I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that might
>>be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't be the
>>first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to solve that
>>problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all
>>around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!) 
>>    
>>
>
>One particularly rough day in Afghanistan, two patrols had been
>ambushed (fortunately only minor injuries on our side) an old Sgt
>Major suddenly say, "we could solve this whole thing if we just passed
>out Beer, Porn and X-Boxes.
>
>
>This whole thing is a mess, and it may well get worse before it gets better.
>I am confident that it will get better, but only if we engage the
>whole world in the rebuilding efforts, and stop supporting tyrants of
>any stripe.
>

Who could disagree with that sentiment?  Will you turn your skepticism 
of tyranny on the US leadership? 

"You hypocrite, before you try to take the splinter out of your 
neighbor's eye, first remove the log from your own."


Robbie


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 20:49:15 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:49:15 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050714153255.39337.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050714153255.39337.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D6CFCB.6050006@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
>>him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
>>    
>>
>
>Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
>invasion was illegal.
>

His characterization of questionable intelligence as legitmate is 
precisely at issue.  Instead of saying "we know there there and we know 
where they are" the administration should have said "we think they might 
be there because of some questionable intelligence and we may know where 
they might be keeping them".  Note the difference is emphasis is 
significant for intelligent people.

An analogy for -people like you-.  Say I say "I have a gun in my 
pocket."  You may be inclined to do what I ask of you if I say it in a 
threatening voice.  Now say I say "I may have a gun in my pocket."  You 
may be inclined to reply with "show me the gun, then we'll talk."  What 
kind of crazy person carries around a gun and threatens people with 
maybe they have one?  The point, MAYBE is a lot less threatening than DOES.

Maybe I'll get cancer.  Maybe I'll get run over by a truck.  Maybe a 
homocidal maniac will kill my in my sleep.  Maybe the sun will explode.  
Maybe the Iraqi's have nuclear weapons.  You see how that goes.

NONE OF THESE CONSTITUTE A MATTER FOR WAR.

Maybe doesn't buy soap.  The President knew this and was unable to sell 
his war with maybe either.  He needed "does" and he pulled the trigger 
DESPITE what the CIA had advised.  Remember "Hadly did it" (look it up 
on thetip.org if you've forgotten).  Hadley is the fall-guy for who put 
the Niger/Uranium story into the state of the union.  But now we have to 
buy that the President didn't review his speech with his staff which, 
though plausible for a complete imbecil, isn't likely.  And frankly, I'm 
soooo tired of the complete imbecil excuse for the President's actions 
that I simply won't hear it any more.

> Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the arms
>inspectors, for instance, plus an entire decade of violations of the
>Gulf War cease-fire agreement, were far more important IMHO.
>

But neither of these were the reasons given for the war and neither of 
them were sufficient cause to go to war, both of which were solved by 
political means before we actually went in. The weapons inspectors were 
readmitted for months and the only people flying incursions across the 
neutral zone were Americans taking out communications stations near the 
borders in preparation for the not-yet-approved war.

> Bush (as
>well as every other UN SC member) was obligated to enforce all UN
>resolutions being violated by Iraq, including a number that had nothing
>to do with WMD.
>  
>
And how they enforce them IS UP TO THE UN.  The UN specifically didn't 
authorize military action in Iraq this time.

>  
>
>>IF you didn't support him but didn't oppose him either would you 
>>be a thug coddler?
>>
>>IF you participated in his re-election would you be a thug coddler?
>>
>>I am mindful of something that Spike said. Iraq may be on the
>>eve of construction. I am mindful that democracy is a good thing
>>or certainly a better thing than most of the alternatives.
>>
>>But if someone runs into your clubroom and kills or chases away
>>the president and committee members of your club then arranges
>>a new election. An election in which the club members that were
>>chased away or fled in fear of their lives did not agree to
>>participate in. Then is the result democracy?
>>    
>>
>
>Your analogy is bad. If someone holds a gun to the head of every member
>and says, "vote for me or die", wins his 'election', and is then
>deposed by an outside group that then ensures free and fair elections,
>is the result democracy? Sure it is.
>  
>
It's unconvincing if the "free and fair elections" are supervised by an 
occupying military force of upwards of 100,000 people and heavy artillery.

>>What about if they run into your house, shoot you, frighten your
>>wife away and set up an election amongst your shocked children?
>>    
>>
>
>Where Saddam is in the role of Big Daddy? Your strawman is hardly representative.
>

Lorry, please, please, please resign from the Libertarian party, you're 
idiocy is just making an already beaten-down hunk of political rhetoric 
even more tired.

Robbie Lindauer



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jul 14 20:54:53 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:54:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D58479.5000000@aol.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
Message-ID: <64DCE426-2B03-4FC0-9E10-8954C1451A32@bonfireproductions.com>

On Jul 13, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> What we seem to agree on is that 1)  they weren't there when we got  
> there and 2) we didn't -actually- have any good reason to suspect  
> that they would be.  I think that's all that's needed to make the  
> case.

Sorry to jump around here, but this part is more in tune with the  
original thread so I thought I would start here.

As for 1) it does seem to be the case that we haven't found anything  
yet, and it can be argued that there is nothing to find to begin  
with, but as far as 2) goes, I don't know that we're in agreement, no  
biggie. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff going on, and a lot of  
opinion. So if I put my personal opinion out there, which is based on  
reading alot, and having an interest in epidemiology (and reading  
books like Ken Alibek's memoirs, etc.) i.e. which is no better  
qualified than anyone else in particular - I would want to err on the  
side of caution. There were, all parties agree I believe, lots of  
weapons unaccounted for when tallies were made at different points.  
There was an infrastructure churning out chemical and biological  
weapons. When I see people unearthing a Mig-25 out in the desert, I  
think it is totally rational to assume that "if I were him" I'd bury  
a lot more stuff than that. A Mig-25 is still a formidable  
interceptor even now, I wouldn't want to hand that to a neighbor,  
even to keep it out of coalition hands.

All your points that war is terrible, and a last resort, of course I  
pretty much agree with. And that there were other options, well  
certainly.


> Well, we don't have a reliable source of numbers, obviously, since  
> our government doesn't allow third-party observers to investigate  
> such matters.  On the other hand, we have the Lancet Study which  
> reports the total civilian dead since the beginning of the effort  
> at around 98,000, when you include the military deaths you're up  
> over a hundred.  It's a matter of conjecture what percentage is  
> collateral dammage versus natural causes.  HOWEVER since there is a  
> big war and we did just shock and awe the shit out of their biggest  
> city and continue to be carrying live ammunition around in the  
> streets there and since we won't allow third-party investigators to  
> settle the matter there is an impetus to err on the side of more  
> dead rather than less, at least until say, the Red Cross or UN is  
> admitted to analyze the situation publicly and without any obvious  
> accountability to the Bush Administration.  But even at 99,000 dead  
> iraqi's the sadness of the matter remains.  Perhaps I should post  
> this disclaimer on the site.


What the Lancet reported was that they were 95% certain that the  
number of people who died the year of the invasion was between 8,000  
and 195,000 people. The number is based on a cluster survey with ~30  
homes in each cluster. They went to each of these households, almost  
1000, and conducted interviews with the members of the households  
about who lived there, and asked how many people had died in the past  
year, and the cause. The people in the houses, the source of their  
data, stated that people in their households had died violent deaths,  
by coalition forces.

Arriving at a number without the census as you say, is pretty much  
impossible. And in order for everyone to accept that number, it must  
come from a so-called neutral party, not the Iraqi Ministry of  
Health, or the coalition.

I also understand that people try to justify the number being 100,000  
because the US "flattened" al Fallujah, which it did not. The strike  
against al Fallujah, while not 'surgical' was not nearly damaging as  
is being told by certain news outlets and partisans.



> * I like oxymorons and footnotes in emails.

Then we do agree on two points after all!


]3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050714/f06912c4/attachment.html>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Thu Jul 14 21:06:12 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:06:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
Message-ID: <1121375172.4705@whirlwind.he.net>

> When I see people unearthing a Mig-25 out in the desert, I  
> think it is totally rational to assume that "if I were him" I'd bury  
> a lot more stuff than that.


The fact that he actually *buried* entire fighter jets in the sand
pretty much tells you everything you need to know.  Very few people
would go that far, and it gives one an idea of what he was capable of in
practice.  Burying chemical or biological weapons would be a far more
trivial and useful exercise by comparison.


j. andrew rogers



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Jul 14 21:16:42 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:16:42 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <64DCE426-2B03-4FC0-9E10-8954C1451A32@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
	<64DCE426-2B03-4FC0-9E10-8954C1451A32@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507142314351.2135@zeus>

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>I also understand that people try to justify the number being 100,000
>because the US "flattened" al Fallujah, which it did not. The strike
>against al Fallujah, while not 'surgical' was not nearly damaging as
>is being told by certain news outlets and partisans.

The average of 100,000 specifically excluded Fallujah's surveyed homes,
because the number of reported deaths was too high and it would have
skewed the results for the entire country much higher.

Alfio



From amara at amara.com  Thu Jul 14 21:22:57 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:22:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] WOW! Numerische Mathematik from 1959 to 1994
Message-ID: <p06210201befc8772653c@[23.237.66.13]>

Oh my god... Numerische Mathematik from 1959 to 1994! There are
some real classic articles here, and the articles are FREE

http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D196287

Amara


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 14 21:42:48 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:42:48 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	over	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <64DCE426-2B03-4FC0-9E10-8954C1451A32@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>	<42D339E2.4030000@aol.com><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>
	<64DCE426-2B03-4FC0-9E10-8954C1451A32@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <42D6DC58.1090708@aol.com>

Bret Kulakovich wrote:

> On Jul 13, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> What we seem to agree on is that 1)  they weren't there when we got 
>> there and 2) we didn't -actually- have any good reason to suspect 
>> that they would be.  I think that's all that's needed to make the case.
>
>
> Sorry to jump around here, but this part is more in tune with the 
> original thread so I thought I would start here.
>
> As for 1) it does seem to be the case that we haven't found anything 
> yet, and it can be argued that there is nothing to find to begin with,


Good start.

> but as far as 2) goes, I don't know that we're in agreement, no 
> biggie. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff going on, and a lot of 
> opinion. So if I put my personal opinion out there, which is based on 
> reading alot, and having an interest in epidemiology (and reading 
> books like Ken Alibek's memoirs, etc.) i.e. which is no better 
> qualified than anyone else in particular - I would want to err on the 
> side of caution. There were, all parties agree I believe, lots of 
> weapons unaccounted for when tallies were made at different points. 
> There was an infrastructure churning out chemical and biological 
> weapons. When I see people unearthing a Mig-25 out in the desert, I 
> think it is totally rational to assume that "if I were him" I'd bury a 
> lot more stuff than that. A Mig-25 is still a formidable interceptor 
> even now, I wouldn't want to hand that to a neighbor, even to keep it 
> out of coalition hands.


Again, I think what we're missing is legitimate intelligence sources 
that demonstratively support Bush Administration's pre-war contention 
that Iraq was harboring and producing biological, chemical and nuclear 
weapons in massive amounts.  Otherwise it appears that Bush was 
exxagerating to say the least, if not straight out making things up.  
Without clarity into the intelligence sources that he was quoting it's 
hard to say.  We know in at least one case that the intelligence was 
known by the CIA to be faulty (the case of the Niger nuclear material) 
and had been reported to the white house as faulty.  Whether or not the 
rest of the 'intelligence' he was quoting was equally faulty remains 
something to be found out, preferably in an adversarial impeachment 
setting. 

It may have been the case, as you say, with all that great desert to 
bury stuff in we may never know.  This is not the point.  The point is 
that we were objectively in the same quandry before as after - we didn't 
know.  Our best intelligence experts told the president that we didn't 
know.  We didn't know.  MAYBE he had them, MAYBE he didn't.  We didn't 
know.  Bush didn't KNOW, he just said he did.  In fact, according to 
admissions by the white house, Bush didn't even read his own state of 
the union speech.  I find that a little hard to swallow, still rejecting 
the retarded spoiled brat version of Bush psychology. 

On the other hand, we did know that the UN inspection regime was 
relatively effective at at least slowing the pace of any such 
developments because they'd have to be performed under-the-radar and 
that for the last few years at least Iraq had been relatively quiet even 
without the inspections teams.  With the reinstallation of the UN 
inspection regime we could have felt satisfied.  Nobody dies, Iraq 
remains messed up but stable, no potential leak of weapons to Syria, 
etc.  We remain able to attempt to remove Saddam with political means, 
etc.  In fact, with continued UN pressure because of our willingness to 
cooperate we may have been able simply to pay Saddam off and get him to 
move to Aruba or something.  Instead, we have to bomb downtown bagdad 
for two weeks.

Again the appeasement thing.  No, I don't like Saddam, but the vision of 
a world where he's sipping champaigne on a beach in Aruba smugly 
enjoying the fruits of his evil life but where the upwards of 100,000 
Iraqis and several thousand Americans and British soldiers are alive 
sounds good to me.  God will pay him for his sins, it's not the business 
of men to take vengeance, but to make peace work.


> All your points that war is terrible, and a last resort, of course I 
> pretty much agree with. And that there were other options, well 
> certainly.


Wow.  You may be restoring my faith in humanity.

>
>> Well, we don't have a reliable source of numbers, obviously, since 
>> our government doesn't allow third-party observers to investigate 
>> such matters.  On the other hand, we have the Lancet Study which 
>> reports the total civilian dead since the beginning of the effort at 
>> around 98,000, when you include the military deaths you're up over a 
>> hundred.  It's a matter of conjecture what percentage is collateral 
>> dammage versus natural causes.  HOWEVER since there is a big war and 
>> we did just shock and awe the shit out of their biggest city and 
>> continue to be carrying live ammunition around in the streets there 
>> and since we won't allow third-party investigators to settle the 
>> matter there is an impetus to err on the side of more dead rather 
>> than less, at least until say, the Red Cross or UN is admitted to 
>> analyze the situation publicly and without any obvious accountability 
>> to the Bush Administration.  But even at 99,000 dead iraqi's the 
>> sadness of the matter remains.  Perhaps I should post this disclaimer 
>> on the site.
>
>
>
> What the Lancet reported was that they were 95% certain that the 
> number of people who died the year of the invasion was between 8,000 
> and 195,000 people. The number is based on a cluster survey with ~30 
> homes in each cluster. They went to each of these households, almost 
> 1000, and conducted interviews with the members of the households 
> about who lived there, and asked how many people had died in the past 
> year, and the cause. The people in the houses, the source of their 
> data, stated that people in their households had died violent deaths, 
> by coalition forces. 
>
> Arriving at a number without the census as you say, is pretty much 
> impossible. And in order for everyone to accept that number, it must 
> come from a so-called neutral party, not the Iraqi Ministry of Health, 
> or the coalition.
>
> I also understand that people try to justify the number being 100,000 
> because the US "flattened" al Fallujah, which it did not. The strike 
> against al Fallujah, while not 'surgical' was not nearly damaging as 
> is being told by certain news outlets and partisans.


So the bottom line is we know that LOTS of civilians and military people 
died as a result of the war and "upwards of 100,000" isn't an 
unreasonable interpretation of the facts we do have on hand. 

>
>
>
>> * I like oxymorons and footnotes in emails.
>
>
> Then we do agree on two points after all!
>
>
> ]3
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jul 14 23:10:03 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology 
In-Reply-To: <380-22005731316230198@M2W070.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050714231003.41734.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> This could very well be correct, but this should not derail those of
> us who
> are opponents of the misuse of the Precautionary Principle in these
> types
> of formats.  Rather than turn our backs on the possibilty for
> success, it
> is essential to be active in pursuing alternatives to the
> Precautionary
> Principle's use.
> 
> As someone who thinks about global frameworks, I am not derailed by
> what
> "most" people or organizations do.

True, but you still need to be aware of potential and likely reactions
to your message.  In this case, the fear is that you may, to be blunt,
be walking into a trap, for instance that someone will try to set up
the
audience and context to poison audiences against your message.  The
"most" is a statement of the likelihood of this type of scenario -
i.e.,
it implies that this may be likely enough to specifically watch out for
and be prepared to react to.  But you are correct, this should not
derail you.

...come to think of it, this could be seen as an instance of the
Proactionary Principle in action.  As you noted, the costs of doing
nothing are too great.  Proceeding with caution (where there is an
identified, but hard to quantify, risk) is still proceeding, as opposed
to stopping to study the problem until it can be proven safe.  :)

> Did you go to the website of the webcast? 
> http://www.terasemfoundation.org/workshop.htm

I did.  I'm still not entirely certain they're not just having you
there
as "a representative of the enemy".  We'll see how things come out.

> I wish you and others would
> frequent
> the announcements and read the Exponent newsletter to keep up with
> the
> proactive efforts of ExI and its Board.  

I do.  That was part of why this misperception came as such a shock.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 23:54:41 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D6CFCB.6050006@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050714235441.40237.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
> >>him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
> >invasion was illegal.
> >
> 
> His characterization of questionable intelligence as legitmate is 
> precisely at issue.  Instead of saying "we know there there and we
> know where they are" the administration should have said "we think
> they might be there because of some questionable intelligence and
> we may know where they might be keeping them".  Note the difference
> is emphasis is significant for intelligent people.
> 
> An analogy for -people like you-. 

I do believe I've been treated in a prejudicial or stereotypical
manner.

> Say I say "I have a gun in my 
> pocket."  You may be inclined to do what I ask of you if I say it in
> a threatening voice.  Now say I say "I may have a gun in my pocket." 
> You may be inclined to reply with "show me the gun, then we'll talk."

> What kind of crazy person carries around a gun and threatens people
> with maybe they have one?  The point, MAYBE is a lot less
> threatening than DOES.

Which is why people don't claim they have a weapon when they don't
unless they are crazy, even sociopathic, or absolutely positive there
is no way you can verify their claim. If someone comes up behind you
and sticks a pen against your back, claims it is a gun, and if you make
one move you are dead, are you going to debate whether it's actually a
pen or actually a gun if you can't verify without risking death?

In the case of Iraq, the picture that has seemed to emerge is that
Saddam believed he had WMD developed, because his underlings told him
so. Whether he actually did or not was irrelevant, he acted like he had
them: he had mobile weapons labs built, he had chemical weapons spray
planes made out of Mig jets (which have no use as crop dusters). 

Saying you have a weapon that you don't have AND won't be able to use
unless you really intend or need to commit an atrocity is a cheap way
to the equivalent of a MAD deterrence. I mean, how many nukes did the
US or the USSR actually have to test to convince the world they each
had thousands of them? Israel has never tested one but pretty much
everybody is convinced they have at least 100 nuclear weapons they are
prepared to use on arab cities as a second strike. Since the test ban
treaty, the US and USSR still maintain they have tens of thousands of
warheads, but who can prove for a fact that they work unless you test
them?

> 
> Maybe I'll get cancer.  Maybe I'll get run over by a truck.  Maybe a 
> homocidal maniac will kill my in my sleep.  Maybe the sun will
> explode.  

If you have a risk of cancer, you take precautions, change behavior.
If, in the example of some women with virtually a 100% chance of breast
cancer for heritable reasons, you may seriously consider having your
breasts cut off as soon as your last kid is weaned, if not sooner, as
many other women have done. If you have a high risk of prostate cancer,
you get your prostate cut out at the very first sign of odd behavior by
that organ.

You might get run over by a truck, but you don't refuse to look both
ways when crossing the street, and if you are smart, you will purchase
and learn to use and carry a gun to protect yourself against homicidal
maniacs (or move some place where they are less likely to be). A smart
person takes intelligent preemptive actions to minimize risks to
themselves. An idiot keeps doing the same old things, ignoring the
risk, and blaming everybody else, especially those who warned them,
when it actually happens...

> Maybe the Iraqi's have nuclear weapons.  You see how that goes.
> 
> NONE OF THESE CONSTITUTE A MATTER FOR WAR.

Bullshit. If someone who is a documented nutter (like Kim Jong Il), or
has a documented record of using WMD in the past on innocents (as
Saddam does) actually has them, particularly if they posess them in
conflict with international agreements they've signed and ratified to
not posess them (not just UN resolutions, cease fire agreements, but
also the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), I am going to seriously
consider it, particularly if those individuals have established records
of funding terrorism (as Saddam does in offering $50k bounties to the
families of homicide bombers), and sending assasination squads into my country.

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 Jul 14 23:57:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <1121375172.4705@whirlwind.he.net>
Message-ID: <20050714235745.17026.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:

> > When I see people unearthing a Mig-25 out in the desert, I  
> > think it is totally rational to assume that "if I were him" I'd
> bury  
> > a lot more stuff than that.
> 
> 
> The fact that he actually *buried* entire fighter jets in the sand
> pretty much tells you everything you need to know.  Very few people
> would go that far, and it gives one an idea of what he was capable of
> in
> practice.  Burying chemical or biological weapons would be a far more
> trivial and useful exercise by comparison.

And given we know he's hidden them in concrete foundations (as was
discovered prior to the invasion), he has a history of such behavior,
and as a kicker: there is a WHOLE LOT more sand in Iraq than concrete.

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  Fri Jul 15 00:00:06 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507142314351.2135@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050715000007.64879.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
> 
> >I also understand that people try to justify the number being
> 100,000
> >because the US "flattened" al Fallujah, which it did not. The strike
> >against al Fallujah, while not 'surgical' was not nearly damaging as
> >is being told by certain news outlets and partisans.
> 
> The average of 100,000 specifically excluded Fallujah's surveyed
> homes,
> because the number of reported deaths was too high and it would have
> skewed the results for the entire country much higher.

I also believe the Lancet study overestimated because they did not come
to a determination of how big the average Iraqi meant when you used the
term "family". Being a tribal culture, the Iraqi idea of "family" is a
whole lot larger than the nuclear family concept of the west. This
could easily have introduced a magnitude of error into the study.

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  Fri Jul 15 00:12:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology 
In-Reply-To: <20050714231003.41734.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050715001251.88494.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This being said, when, again, is the event? I may be able to attend if
you can get me an invite, give some audience support... I could also
get some friends to attend as well if desired. Packing the audience is
a time honored way to establish a more realistic middle ground...

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

> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > This could very well be correct, but this should not derail those
> of
> > us who
> > are opponents of the misuse of the Precautionary Principle in these
> > types
> > of formats.  Rather than turn our backs on the possibilty for
> > success, it
> > is essential to be active in pursuing alternatives to the
> > Precautionary
> > Principle's use.
> > 
> > As someone who thinks about global frameworks, I am not derailed by
> > what
> > "most" people or organizations do.
> 
> True, but you still need to be aware of potential and likely
> reactions
> to your message.  In this case, the fear is that you may, to be
> blunt,
> be walking into a trap, for instance that someone will try to set up
> the
> audience and context to poison audiences against your message.  The
> "most" is a statement of the likelihood of this type of scenario -
> i.e.,
> it implies that this may be likely enough to specifically watch out
> for
> and be prepared to react to.  But you are correct, this should not
> derail you.
> 
> ...come to think of it, this could be seen as an instance of the
> Proactionary Principle in action.  As you noted, the costs of doing
> nothing are too great.  Proceeding with caution (where there is an
> identified, but hard to quantify, risk) is still proceeding, as
> opposed
> to stopping to study the problem until it can be proven safe.  :)
> 
> > Did you go to the website of the webcast? 
> > http://www.terasemfoundation.org/workshop.htm
> 
> I did.  I'm still not entirely certain they're not just having you
> there
> as "a representative of the enemy".  We'll see how things come out.
> 
> > I wish you and others would
> > frequent
> > the announcements and read the Exponent newsletter to keep up with
> > the
> > proactive efforts of ExI and its Board.  
> 
> I do.  That was part of why this misperception came as such a shock.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jul 15 00:13:43 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:13:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Webcast: 1st Annual Workshop on
	Geoethical Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <20050714231003.41734.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <380-22005731316230198@M2W070.mail2web.com>
	<20050714231003.41734.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714191118.04218fa8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


>True, but you still need to be aware of potential and likely reactions
>to your message.  In this case, the fear is that you may, to be blunt,
>be walking into a trap, for instance that someone will try to set up
>the
>audience and context to poison audiences against your message.  The
>"most" is a statement of the likelihood of this type of scenario -
>i.e.,
>it implies that this may be likely enough to specifically watch out for
>and be prepared to react to.  But you are correct, this should not
>derail you.

I happen to know the webcaster and she is a very close friend of mine and 
someone who is on this list. So, I don't think there is anything to be 
watch out for.

>...come to think of it, this could be seen as an instance of the
>Proactionary Principle in action.  As you noted, the costs of doing
>nothing are too great.  Proceeding with caution (where there is an
>identified, but hard to quantify, risk) is still proceeding, as opposed
>to stopping to study the problem until it can be proven safe.  :)
>
> > Did you go to the website of the webcast?
> > http://www.terasemfoundation.org/workshop.htm
>
>I did.  I'm still not entirely certain they're not just having you
>there
>as "a representative of the enemy".  We'll see how things come out.
>
> > I wish you and others would
> > frequent
> > the announcements and read the Exponent newsletter to keep up with
> > the
> > proactive efforts of ExI and its Board.
>
>I do.  That was part of why this misperception came as such a shock.

Thanks for all you comments,

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/20050714/1f25a77f/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 00:22:48 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:22:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>

There are many fundamental questions to which we currently have no 
scientific answers.

Two of the biggies:
1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means enough 
matter
     to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the cosmos.
2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other 
intelligent life in
      the cosmos?

Perhaps these questions answer each other. Dyson spheres have been 
considered and rejected,
but Dyson spheres are not the only (or even most likely) end result of 
the evolution of
intelligence. For example, most SI might evolve to efficient 
computronium. What is
efficient computronium, and what is its emission signature? If it is 
difficult to detect, it may
comprise the missing mass.

def: computronium: matter organized to optimize computing capacity.
def: efficient computronium: computronium organized to optimize 
computations per Joule.

Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jul 15 00:50:05 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:50:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>

At 08:22 PM 7/14/2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means enough matter
>     to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the cosmos.
>2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other intelligent 
>life in
>      the cosmos?
>Perhaps these questions answer each other. ... most SI might evolve to 
>efficient computronium. What is efficient computronium, and what is its 
>emission signature? If it is difficult to detect, it may comprise the 
>missing mass.
>def: computronium: matter organized to optimize computing capacity.
>def: efficient computronium: computronium organized to optimize 
>computations per Joule.
>Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?

Robert Bradbury has posted on this topic many times on this list over the 
years.  I've often played the role of critic in responding to him.  It is a 
subtle question what exactly the goals of alien civilizations would be, and 
different goals lead to different computational priorities.  Also, there is 
the question of why such aliens are not trying to make use of all the stuff 
that we do see.



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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jul 15 00:50:11 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:50:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050714194916.01db7ec8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:22 PM 7/14/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:

>Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?

Robert Bradbury, extensively.

Not obviously here, but it's a starting point:

http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/

Damien Broderick 



From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 15 00:59:28 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:59:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> 
> Robert Bradbury has posted on this topic many times on this list over 
> the years.  I've often played the role of critic in responding to him.  
> It is a subtle question what exactly the goals of alien civilizations 
> would be,

If their early AI researchers were anything like ours, I suspect mostly 
paperclips.

> and different goals lead to different computational 
> priorities.

I don't see why different computational priorities should affect the material 
prediction, valid for an extremely wide range of goal systems: that 
superintelligences should convert available matter into configurations more 
useful than stars, which generate massive amounts of entropy without 
performing any computations...

> Also, there is the question of why such aliens are not 
> trying to make use of all the stuff that we do see.

...but this objection carries against the Fermi-Paradox explanation for dark 
matter / dark-matter explanation for the Fermi Paradox; I agree.

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


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jul 15 01:00:29 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:00:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>

Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred to me that hope
usually needs something more specific to latch on to than fear does.  You
might fear strangers in general at night, but you need to know something
specific about a person to feel hope about him.  You might fear death in
general, but you need to hear something specific about a medical treatment
to have hope in it.

Similarly it seems to me when descriptions of a future technology are very
vague, fear is much easier to generate than hope.  But when the description
of a technology becomes more specific, hope is easier to find.  Genetic
engineering in general easily inspires fear, but a specific genetic
technology that might eliminate a specific disease inspires more hope.  If
true, this suggests that a technology category will be seen more favorably
by people if they do not think much about it until more specific instances
are identified.

Thus, for example, it was likely a PR mistake for nanotech supporters to
raise public attention about nanotech well before any more specific
technologies were available for hope to latch on to.



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  Fri Jul 15 01:01:21 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:01:21 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin
	lied	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050714235441.40237.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050714235441.40237.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D70AE1.7050201@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>>
>>>>IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
>>>>him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
>>>invasion was illegal.
>>>

>>>...
>>>      
>>>
>>An analogy for -people like you-. 
>>    
>>
>
>I do believe I've been treated in a prejudicial or stereotypical
>manner.
>  
>

No you've been acting like a moronic pathological prevaricator, I tried 
to make things simple so you could understand while simultaneously 
taking us out of the context so there would be no felt need on your part 
to make new things up. 

>  
>
>>Say I say "I have a gun in my 
>>pocket."  You may be inclined to do what I ask of you if I say it in
>>a threatening voice.  Now say I say "I may have a gun in my pocket." 
>>You may be inclined to reply with "show me the gun, then we'll talk."
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>What kind of crazy person carries around a gun and threatens people
>>with maybe they have one?  The point, MAYBE is a lot less
>>threatening than DOES.
>>    
>>
>
>Which is why people don't claim they have a weapon when they don't
>unless they are crazy, even sociopathic, or absolutely positive there
>is no way you can verify their claim. If someone comes up behind you
>and sticks a pen against your back, claims it is a gun, and if you make
>one move you are dead, are you going to debate whether it's actually a
>pen or actually a gun if you can't verify without risking death?
>  
>

It was an analogy the point of which obviously escaped you. 

>In the case of Iraq, the picture that has seemed to emerge is that
>Saddam believed he had WMD developed, because his underlings told him
>so. 
>

I thought we agreed that you would stop making things up.

>Whether he actually did or not was irrelevant, he acted like he had
>them: he had mobile weapons labs built, he had chemical weapons spray
>planes made out of Mig jets (which have no use as crop dusters). 
>  
>

This is irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether Bush had any reliable 
evidence that Saddam had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons before 
we invaded.  On this point I think we are universally agreed that Bush 
had no such evidence or that if he did he's keeping it awfully close to 
his chest.

>>Maybe I'll get cancer.  Maybe I'll get run over by a truck.  Maybe a 
>>homocidal maniac will kill my in my sleep.  Maybe the sun will
>>explode.  
>>    
>>
>
>If you have a risk of cancer, you take precautions, change behavior.
>If, in the example of some women with virtually a 100% chance of breast
>cancer for heritable reasons, you may seriously consider having your
>breasts cut off as soon as your last kid is weaned, if not sooner, as
>many other women have done. If you have a high risk of prostate cancer,
>you get your prostate cut out at the very first sign of odd behavior by
>that organ.
>  
>

Oy vey, it's an ANALOGY.  A short story meant to illustrate a point in 
similarity.  I know now that it was a little too complicated for you.  
I'm sorry for trying.

>You might get run over by a truck, but you don't refuse to look both
>ways when crossing the street, and if you are smart, you will purchase
>and learn to use and carry a gun to protect yourself against homicidal
>maniacs (or move some place where they are less likely to be). A smart
>person takes intelligent preemptive actions to minimize risks to
>themselves. An idiot keeps doing the same old things, ignoring the
>risk, and blaming everybody else, especially those who warned them,
>when it actually happens...
>
>  
>
>>Maybe the Iraqi's have nuclear weapons.  You see how that goes.
>>
>>NONE OF THESE CONSTITUTE A MATTER FOR WAR.
>>    
>>
>
>Bullshit. If someone who is a documented nutter (like Kim Jong Il)
>

Are you in posession of documentation of Mr. Kim's nutter-ness or is 
this a non-professional non-technical use of the term.

As I see it Kim's the smart one here.  He knows that the US won't risk 
an actual nuclear conflict so he, probably, lied about having nuclear 
weapons in order to give himself time to actually get them.

Had Saddam ACTUALLY said he was already in possession of nuclear weapons 
and the ability to deliver them I guarantee we wouldn't have been 
foolhardy enough to put 100,000 troops on the ground within range of them.



>, or
>has a documented record of using WMD in the past on innocents (as
>Saddam does)
>
Of course, we gave them to him in the 80's to help him fight the Kurds 
and Iranians and helped him use them.  The disposition of the 
"leftovers" if there are any is unknown but after 10 years of weapons 
inspections even the UN inspectors sincerly and publicly doubted whether 
there was anything left at all.  This is very different from what Mr. 
Bush SAID which was that they KNEW they had them at the time of Bush's 
statements. 

> actually has them, particularly if they posess them in
>conflict with international agreements they've signed and ratified to
>not posess them (not just UN resolutions, cease fire agreements, but
>also the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), I am going to seriously
>consider it, particularly if those individuals have established records
>of funding terrorism (as Saddam does in offering $50k bounties to the
>families of homicide bombers), and sending assasination squads into my country.
>  
>

So if I might have a nuclear weapon (and I might!), you'll be sending 
over troops to come and get me and my 100,000 closest neighbors?

Ladies and gentlemen, on your left you'll see the rocky mountains and on 
the right the dry plains of idiotstanbul capital of dumbfuckistan.  Mr. 
Lorry is the dipshit who thinks he's going to be in charge one day.  
Heaven help us!.

Robbie Lindauer






From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 01:04:03 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:34:03 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05071308126d865d24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
	<200507131446.j6DEknR26268@tick.javien.com>
	<ee50357e05071308126d865d24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050714180465fdf845@mail.gmail.com>

On 14/07/05, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/05, spike wrote:
> > Ja, I read the specs and decided it wouldn't work *as a
> > motorcycle* but would still carry a lot of cool factor.  It
> > would be wicked cool, but not fast or cheap.  Gasoline
> > will be difficult to replace that way.  The good news is,
> > if all the peak oil jeremiahs are right, we can still run
> > some wicked fast and still highly fuel efficient motorcycles
> > on alcohol.  That would be a new day, if you go to work and
> > half the traffic on the road is on two wheels.  {8-]  spike
> >

I thought the hydrogen bike looked pretty cheap to run... US$3 for 100
miles, not too shabby, especially compared to a car.

> 
> You might like to go have a look at Zapworld, 501 Fourth Street, Santa
> Rosa, CA 95401
> 
> They' ve got electric scooters, electric pedal bikes and trikes and
> electric ATVs.
> They've got an electric folding pedal bike for your trunk on offer for 499 USD.
> <http://www.zapworld.com/products/BK_clearance.asp>
> 
> Nothing for zooming down the freeway yet, though.
> 
> BillK

I used to own a bike with a Zapworld engine, but it was stolen about
two years ago :-(
It was a DX kit: http://www.zapworld.com/products/dxkit_bike.asp
It absolutely kicked butt speed wise (for a bicycle), but to do a 1
hour ride (my commute to work) would require two of the heavy lead
acid batteries that it uses, meaning I had to carry a second battery
in backpack on or on a rack, and switch them half way, then recharge
them both at work (which took 8 hours).

I am still casting about for a replacement. I no longer have a two
hour commute, but it's still too far for a Segway I think, so I'm
wondering about my options at the moment.

btw, my major goal in getting a vehicle is to not be considered a
motor vehicle, and so be able to use bike paths, foot paths, etc. So
no petrol powered motor bikes. Believe it or not, there has been some
furor about electric bike type vehicles recently because grannies have
knocked people down on those electric trike things!

-- 
Emlyn

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


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jul 15 01:11:05 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:11:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>

At 08:59 PM 7/14/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>>It is a subtle question what exactly the goals of alien civilizations 
>>would be,
>>and different goals lead to different computational priorities.
>
>I don't see why different computational priorities should affect the 
>material prediction, valid for an extremely wide range of goal systems: 
>that superintelligences should convert available matter into 
>configurations more useful than stars, which generate massive amounts of 
>entropy without performing any computations...

Robert Bradbury assumed that each alien civilization had a fixed chunk of 
matter and repository of free energy, and wanted to extract as many CPU 
cycles out of those, no matter how long this took, and were not very 
interested in exchanging I/O with other civilizations.  These assumptions 
lead to very different optimal computation configurations than, for 
example, a rapidly expanding civilization that only cared about computation 
in order to support that expansion.  Such an expanding civilization would 
be much less patient, would want lots of I/O regarding colonization 
targets, and would want the computation to be located near in space and 
time to those efforts.



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 sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 15 01:30:21 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:30:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> At 08:59 PM 7/14/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
>>> It is a subtle question what exactly the goals of alien civilizations 
>>> would be, and different goals lead to different computational
>>> priorities.
>> 
>> I don't see why different computational priorities should affect the 
>> material prediction, valid for an extremely wide range of goal systems:
>> that superintelligences should convert available matter into 
>> configurations more useful than stars, which generate massive amounts of
>> entropy without performing any computations...
> 
> Robert Bradbury assumed that each alien civilization had a fixed chunk of
> matter and repository of free energy, and wanted to extract as many CPU
> cycles out of those, no matter how long this took, and were not very 
> interested in exchanging I/O with other civilizations.  These assumptions
> lead to very different optimal computation configurations than, for
> example, a rapidly expanding civilization that only cared about computation
> in order to support that expansion.  Such an expanding civilization would
> be much less patient, would want lots of I/O regarding colonization
> targets, and would want the computation to be located near in space and
> time to those efforts.

That seems to be based on a frequent-life model... which I suppose is 
appropriate, if one thinks there is a Fermi Paradox to explain.  I had been 
thinking more in terms of trying to grab as large a 3D sphere as possible 
before running into the borders of another expanding species.  If we assume 
that intelligent life originates at a sufficiently fast rate, without a 
gradual start in the maturation of worlds, that, even traveling at lightspeed, 
sufficiently many intelligent species mature simultaneously that each galaxy 
is divided up into many volumes... hm.  I suppose simple discount rates might 
then have an effect on the expected brightness of galaxies, even though other 
aspects of the utility function are irrelevant!  In that sense, I accept the 
correction.

Even so, what use are stars?

And with life 3.85 billion years old on Earth, and the Milky Way 100,000 
lightyears across, how likely is it that more than one intelligent species 
arises in a galaxy before the first species takes over the whole galaxy?

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul 15 02:07:45 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:07:45 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
References: <045501c5868b$859aad90$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<20050712042712.GA17971@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <004001c588e1$fdaade60$0d98e03c@homepc>

Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>> meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of any of those
>> "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>
> There's also wilful delusion, misrepresentation to self.  And choosing to
> listen to the Defense Dept. instead of the State when Defense says "we'll 
> be
> welcomed" and State says "uh, maybe not".
>
> As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
> http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Just a quick note Damien S. to let you know I did not overlook
this post.   I found your link interesting, writers that can get
close to people who want to tell their story, can tend to be
good (ie. informative and systematic if reluctant) witnesses as
to what the would-be story teller or public-persona builder
(the politician) was actually like, and thinking, at a certain point
in time, thanks.

Writers tend to know that of course and are often not super
eager to be called forward or subpoenaed as witnesses against
people in power, especially whilst they are still in power,
afterwards of course, 'everyone' has an inside story.

Brett Paatsch 




From dgc at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 02:04:43 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:04:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42D719BB.9080904@cox.net>

Thanks to Robin, Daimen, and Elizier for the pointers to Robert's work. 
Apparently,
I was off-list during much of this, and not paying attention for the 
rest. :-) 

I just read one of Robert's essays:
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/WSGD.html
He focuses on individual stars going dark, how this would happen, why we 
have been
biased against noticing, and how we could notice if we tried. In this 
particular essay he
does not relate this to either the Dark matter problem or the Fermi 
Paradox. It's possible
(even likely, given Robert's background) that he already considered both 
questions and
their relationship to his thesis.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jul 15 02:23:31 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:23:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D719BB.9080904@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D719BB.9080904@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050714212231.04163278@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Check out:

   http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506110


Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of SETI

Authors: 
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph//find/astro-ph/1/au:+Cirkovic_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>Milan 
M. Cirkovic, 
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph//find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bradbury_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>Robert 
J. Bradbury
Comments: 30 pages, 2 figures
Subj-class: Astrophysics; Physics and Society; Artificial Intelligence
Motivated by recent developments impacting our view of Fermi's paradox 
(absence of extraterrestrials and their manifestations from our past light 
cone), we suggest a reassessment of the problem itself, as well as of 
strategies employed by SETI projects so far. The need for such reevaluation 
is fueled not only by the failure of searches thus far, but also by great 
advances recently made in astrophysics, astrobiology, computer science and 
future studies, which have remained largely ignored in SETI practice. As an 
example of the new approach, we consider the effects of the observed 
metallicity and temperature gradients in the Milky Way on the spatial 
distribution of hypothetical advanced extraterrestrial intelligent 
communities. While, obviously, properties of such communities and their 
sociological and technological preferences are entirely unknown, we assume 
that (1) they operate in agreement with the known laws of physics, and (2) 
that at some point they typically become motivated by a meta-principle 
embodying the central role of information-processing; a prototype of the 
latter is the recently suggested Intelligence Principle of Steven J. Dick. 
There are specific conclusions of practical interest to be drawn from 
coupling of these reasonable assumptions with the astrophysical and 
astrochemical structure of the Galaxy. In particular, we suggest that the 
outer regions of the Galactic disk are most likely locations for advanced 
SETI targets, and that intelligent communities will tend to migrate outward 
through the Galaxy as their capacities of information-processing increase, 
for both thermodynamical and astrochemical reasons. This can also be 
regarded as a possible generalization of the Galactic Habitable Zone, 
concept currently much investigated in astrobiology.




From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 15 02:36:43 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:36:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <42D7213B.806@pobox.com>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> 
> I suppose simple discount rates might then have an effect on the 
> expected brightness of galaxies, even though other aspects of the 
> utility function are irrelevant!  In that sense, I accept the correction.

Maybe that's the real explanation for the different apparent magnitudes of 
"stars" and "galaxies"; they represent, not different stellar processes, but 
simply intelligent information-processing centers with different discount 
rates in their expected utility functions.  Perhaps future astronomers will 
utilize a scale of shortsightedness in place of the present system of stellar 
magnitudes.

(CCHI)

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 02:46:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050715024642.79787.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

There is extensive discussion in the archives, and Robert Bradbury has
some writings on it as well. He has been the primary advocate of the
posthuman ET explanation for dark matter in the astronomical community,
which has gained some credence, but still suffers from the common
astronomical allergy to any discussion of ET civilizations, with
measured tolerance for radio and laser SETI projects.

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> There are many fundamental questions to which we currently have no 
> scientific answers.
> 
> Two of the biggies:
> 1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means
> enough 
> matter
>      to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the
> cosmos.
> 2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other 
> intelligent life in
>       the cosmos?
> 
> Perhaps these questions answer each other. Dyson spheres have been 
> considered and rejected,
> but Dyson spheres are not the only (or even most likely) end result
> of 
> the evolution of
> intelligence. For example, most SI might evolve to efficient 
> computronium. What is
> efficient computronium, and what is its emission signature? If it is 
> difficult to detect, it may
> comprise the missing mass.
> 
> def: computronium: matter organized to optimize computing capacity.
> def: efficient computronium: computronium organized to optimize 
> computations per Joule.
> 
> Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dgc at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 02:51:10 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:51:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

>
> That seems to be based on a frequent-life model... which I suppose is 
> appropriate, if one thinks there is a Fermi Paradox to explain.  I had 
> been thinking more in terms of trying to grab as large a 3D sphere as 
> possible before running into the borders of another expanding 
> species.  If we assume that intelligent life originates at a 
> sufficiently fast rate, without a gradual start in the maturation of 
> worlds, that, even traveling at lightspeed, sufficiently many 
> intelligent species mature simultaneously that each galaxy is divided 
> up into many volumes... hm.  I suppose simple discount rates might 
> then have an effect on the expected brightness of galaxies, even 
> though other aspects of the utility function are irrelevant!  In that 
> sense, I accept the correction.
>
> Even so, what use are stars?
>
> And with life 3.85 billion years old on Earth, and the Milky Way 
> 100,000 lightyears across, how likely is it that more than one 
> intelligent species arises in a galaxy before the first species takes 
> over the whole galaxy?
>
An SI will expand beyond its natal solar system only if The NPV of the 
knowledge gained by use of the extrasolar computational power exceeds 
the NPV of the computational resources to be invested in the expansion. 
Example: the SI might expend an asteroid's worth of comptutronium to 
colonize a star system 4 light-years away.  Using a speed-of-light 
probe, at best is takes 4 years to initiate the colony, and at best the 
colony starts with a knowledge base that is four years old. The SI will 
not get any new input for at least eight years, and the new input will 
be four years old and will be based on an eight-year-old knowledge base. 
The SI may very well conclude that it will gain more knowledge by 
incorporating the asteroid's worth of compturonium within itself rather 
than launching the probe. If this is generally true, then we would not 
expect to see any expanding spheres. Instead, we will simply see systems 
going dark.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 03:19:29 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:19:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200507150319.j6F3JOR23001@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:59 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
> 
> Robin Hanson wrote:
...
> 
> > Also, there is the question of why such aliens are not
> > trying to make use of all the stuff that we do see.


Perhaps they are keeping it intentionally undeveloped, in 
a way analogous to our creation of a wildlife refuge.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 03:21:26 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:21:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <200507150321.j6F3LKR23260@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:00 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
> 
> Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred to me that
> hope
> usually needs something more specific to latch on to than fear does...
> 
> Thus, for example, it was likely a PR mistake for nanotech supporters to
> raise public attention about nanotech well before any more specific
> technologies were available for hope to latch on to.
> 
> Robin Hanson  


Robin!  This was the most profound insight I have seen
posted on ExI in many weeks.  Thanks.  

spike








From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jul 15 03:24:51 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:24:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714222354.029cb838@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 08:00 PM 7/14/2005, Robin wrote:

>Thus, for example, it was likely a PR mistake for nanotech supporters to
>raise public attention about nanotech well before any more specific
>technologies were available for hope to latch on to.

Interesting point.  Have you mentioned this point of view to Christine 
Peterson at Foresight Institute?


<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/20050714/1c6ab58c/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jul 15 03:25:58 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:25:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] welcome
In-Reply-To: <200507141445.j6EEjcR28935@tick.javien.com>
References: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl>
	<200507141445.j6EEjcR28935@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714222521.029cbac8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 09:45 AM 7/14/2005, Spike wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Evan Hamlin
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
> >
> > First, as this is my first post, I'll introduce myself. I'm Evan Hamlin,
> > pleased to "meet" all of you...
> > -Evan
> > "The world is more beautiful through tinted glass."
>
>Welcome Evan!  {8-]  spike

Hi there Evan.  Welcome -

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/20050714/6ba6f738/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 03:36:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On
	whatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <004001c588e1$fdaade60$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050715033646.66915.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Damien Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >
> >> meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of any
> of those
> >> "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons for invading
> Iraq.
> >
> > There's also wilful delusion, misrepresentation to self.  And
> choosing to
> > listen to the Defense Dept. instead of the State when Defense says
> >"we'll be welcomed" and State says "uh, maybe not".
> >
> > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
> > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
> 
> Just a quick note Damien S. to let you know I did not overlook
> this post.   I found your link interesting, writers that can get
> close to people who want to tell their story, can tend to be
> good (ie. informative and systematic if reluctant) witnesses as
> to what the would-be story teller or public-persona builder
> (the politician) was actually like, and thinking, at a certain point
> in time, thanks.
> 
> Writers tend to know that of course and are often not super
> eager to be called forward or subpoenaed as witnesses against
> people in power, especially whilst they are still in power,
> afterwards of course, 'everyone' has an inside story.

Keep in mind that GNN is produced by Pauly Shore's production company.
Thats even worse than depending on the Daily Show for accurate news journalism.

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  Fri Jul 15 04:07:23 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:07:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200507150407.j6F47HR28250@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> 
> Even so, what use are stars?
> 
> And with life 3.85 billion years old on Earth, and the Milky Way 100,000
> lightyears across, how likely is it that more than one intelligent species
> arises in a galaxy before the first species takes over the whole galaxy?
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/


Unlikely indeed, unless they are keeping a few percent of them
untouched just to see what will evolve there.

spike






From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 15 04:22:44 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:22:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <200507150407.j6F47HR28250@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507150407.j6F47HR28250@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42D73A14.7090404@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
>>
>>Even so, what use are stars?
>>
>>And with life 3.85 billion years old on Earth, and the Milky Way 100,000
>>lightyears across, how likely is it that more than one intelligent species
>>arises in a galaxy before the first species takes over the whole galaxy?
>>
>>--
>>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> 
> 
> Unlikely indeed, unless they are keeping a few percent of them
> untouched just to see what will evolve there.

Possible.  But certainly unfriendly (small 'f').

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


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 15 04:33:06 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:33:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050715043306.GA19786@ofb.net>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:00:29PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
> Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred to me that hope
> usually needs something more specific to latch on to than fear does.  You
> might fear strangers in general at night, but you need to know something

I'm not sure.  One might be nervous and primed to fear while walking alone at
night, but real full fear will require a target -- some moving shadow.  Right
now I'm thinking that emotions (as opposed to moods) don't exist in a vacuum,
but are emotions *about* something specific.

The something can be imagined, though, and it's often easy to imagine things
to be afraid of, especially if there's similarity to other things.  Small
particles of soot or asbestos are bad for the lungs, nanites are small
particles, it's easy to fear that nanites running around will be bad for our
lungs.  I'm not sure that's inaccurate, for that matter.

> of a technology becomes more specific, hope is easier to find.  Genetic
> engineering in general easily inspires fear, but a specific genetic

Do GMOs inspired fear, or disgust?  "Eww!  There's genes in my food!"

-xx- Damien X-) 


From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jul 15 03:36:02 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:36:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42D72F22.2020607@sasktel.net>

Perhaps the universe we see is a zoo or conservation/ecological  
preserve to enshrine the past and  remind
an ancient cosmological civilization of its  roots???



Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 08:22 PM 7/14/2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> 1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means 
>> enough matter
>>     to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the cosmos.
>> 2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other 
>> intelligent life in
>>      the cosmos?
>> Perhaps these questions answer each other. ... most SI might evolve 
>> to efficient computronium. What is efficient computronium, and what 
>> is its emission signature? If it is difficult to detect, it may 
>> comprise the missing mass.
>> def: computronium: matter organized to optimize computing capacity.
>> def: efficient computronium: computronium organized to optimize 
>> computations per Joule.
>> Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?
>
>
> Robert Bradbury has posted on this topic many times on this list over 
> the years.  I've often played the role of critic in responding to 
> him.  It is a subtle question what exactly the goals of alien 
> civilizations would be, and different goals lead to different 
> computational priorities.  Also, there is the question of why such 
> aliens are not trying to make use of all the stuff that we do see.
>
>
>
> 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 15 04:36:57 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:36:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050715043657.GB19786@ofb.net>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:22:48PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> There are many fundamental questions to which we currently have no 
> scientific answers.
> 
> Two of the biggies:
> 1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means enough 
> matter
>     to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the cosmos.
> 2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other 
> intelligent life in
>      the cosmos?
> 
> Perhaps these questions answer each other. Dyson spheres have been 
> considered and rejected,

I don't know the details, but my impression is that current models predict
that the amount of baryonic matter we see is about what is out there, e.g. the
missing mass is mostly not dark normal matter.  If it were, the models of 
nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang would give different results than we observe.

As for Eliezer's idea of stars really being information nodes: given that the
model, of stars being big clumps of hydrogen and contaminants which collapse
under gravity until they fuse, gives predictions which match observations
pretty damn well, I'd be leary of assuming anything else is going on.  Life
should be postulated for things we can't explain through simple physics and
chemistry, such as persistent oxygen atmospheres.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 15 04:59:26 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:59:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050715043657.GB19786@ofb.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<20050715043657.GB19786@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <42D742AE.6020102@pobox.com>

Damien Sullivan wrote:
> 
> As for Eliezer's idea of stars really being information nodes: given that the
> model, of stars being big clumps of hydrogen and contaminants which collapse
> under gravity until they fuse, gives predictions which match observations
> pretty damn well, I'd be leary of assuming anything else is going on.  Life
> should be postulated for things we can't explain through simple physics and
> chemistry, such as persistent oxygen atmospheres.

The "CCHI" in my message stands for "Close Captioned for the Humor Impaired" - 
I was joking.

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


From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 15 05:41:06 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:41:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Fear and Hope
Message-ID: <p06210201befcf98b9e40@[23.237.66.13]>

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu

>Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred to me that
>hope usually needs something more specific to latch on to than fear
>does.  You might fear strangers in general at night, but you need to
>know something specific about a person to feel hope about him.  You
>might fear death in general, but you need to hear something specific
>about a medical treatment to have hope in it.

>Similarly it seems to me when descriptions of a future technology are
>very vague, fear is much easier to generate than hope.  But when the
>description of a technology becomes more specific, hope is easier to
>find.


That is an interesting thought. Tendencies to vague fear might indeed
be easier than tendencies to vague hope, and I think it is useful
to know about tendencies to fearlessness too. I am curious to know how
common are fearless tendencies. And are tendencies to fearlessness
and vague fear culturally dependent?

My poll question:

If you were in the Pacific on a sailboat, and dropped anchor to a
relatively shallow depth *but you could not see the bottom*, in order
to take a rest in the calm sea and swim -

Would you be fearful of the unknown and unseen bodies swimming under
your body/feet ?

Amara


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 06:08:59 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:08:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715033646.66915.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507150609.j6F693R10116@tick.javien.com>

> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy.  Who
shall I write in for your vice president?

spike








From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 15 06:09:32 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:09:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
Message-ID: <p06210202befd01e19238@[23.237.66.13]>

Damien Sullivan phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu :
>I don't know the details, but my impression is that current models
>predict that the amount of baryonic matter we see is about what is out
>there, e.g. the missing mass is mostly not dark normal matter.  If it
>were, the models of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang would give
>different results than we observe.


I wrote in detail on this topic to Robert, Damien, Milan in January 2004,
and since the topic came up this year, I posted it here in February 2005:

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-February/013915.html

(being as far from cosmology as I could be, but I was condensing material
for my astronomy students at the time, so the references were handy)

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 never hurts to be conservative where the galactic plane is involved."
   -- Chris Fassnacht


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 06:20:34 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050714232024d8689@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> An SI will expand beyond its natal solar system only if The NPV of the
> knowledge gained by use of the extrasolar computational power exceeds
> the NPV of the computational resources to be invested in the expansion.
> Example: the SI might expend an asteroid's worth of comptutronium to
> colonize a star system 4 light-years away.  Using a speed-of-light
> probe, at best is takes 4 years to initiate the colony, and at best the
> colony starts with a knowledge base that is four years old. The SI will
> not get any new input for at least eight years, and the new input will
> be four years old and will be based on an eight-year-old knowledge base.
> The SI may very well conclude that it will gain more knowledge by
> incorporating the asteroid's worth of compturonium within itself rather
> than launching the probe. If this is generally true, then we would not
> expect to see any expanding spheres. Instead, we will simply see systems
> going dark.
> 

Agreed.

Another reason not to see expanding spheres is that expansion is a
youngsters thing. Any technological civilization will master life
extension and birth control early on. (And much else as well, of
course, nanotech, AI, species redesign, and so on). Then the
accountants take over. Unless we can assume magic physics to permit
much faster than light travel, then expansion is a waste of resources.
If you leave the home star you lose far more than you gain. Maybe send
robot probes to a few of the nearest stars, but that's all. Forced
emigration when the star dies is so far in the future, that it is
anybody's guess what a civilization might be doing by then.

BillK


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 06:25:44 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:25:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <20050715043306.GA19786@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <200507150625.j6F6PcR13540@tick.javien.com>


> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:00:29PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:

> > Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred 
> > to me that hope usually needs something more specific to 
> > latch on to than fear does...

As a possible extension of the idea, if we can somehow
create the hope of the masses making money for themselves, 
that is a hope that is more readily latched onto than even
the promise of defeating disease or extending life itself.  

We humans are funny that way.

spike




 



From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 15 06:28:07 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:28:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
Message-ID: <p06210203befd07adee3c@[23.237.66.13]>

>    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506110

>Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure
>of SETI

>Authors:
>Milan M. Cirkovic,
>Robert J. Bradbury

Also, note the topic here on the list 11/23/99-11/26/99,
'Why would Aliens Hide'. The archives are not online, so I will repost
what I have in my archive.

-------------------------------------------------


Re: Why Would Aliens Hide?

Eric Watt Forste (arkuat at idiom.com)
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:11:33 -0800


Robert Bradbury writes:
>  On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 Spudboy100 at aol.com wrote:
>  > Unless we gain positve evidence, Fermi and Tipler are right.
>  > We have met 'intelligent-life' and they is us.
>
>  Distinctly possible, but saying it doesn't explain *why* that is
>  the case.

Perhaps Universe is so young that we are the first kids on the block.

I have been looking around for data on what a chemist would call the
reaction rate of the production of metals in this and other galaxies.
Lighter metals such as carbon and oxygen are produced in medium-size
stars and distributed by planetary nebula ejection and by white-dwarf
novas. The heaviest elements are made and distributed only in
supernovas. There are several different kinds of events, and each has
a different characteristic rate, and the rate for each event varies
from galaxy to galaxy. As a result, I haven't been able to find any
good numbers yet. I did find a textbook of cosmochemistry that looked
promising, but if the numbers I'm looking for were in there, they were
deeply buried in mathematics that I have yet to do the homework for.

Another way to estimate these rates is to look for a metallicity
gradient in redshift. How much richer in metal are nearby (older)
galaxies with respect to distant (younger) galaxies? I haven't yet
done any research in this direction. I don't even know whether it is
more difficult to measure metallicity from distant-galaxy spectra than
from individual star spectra.

In the absence of this information, I'm comfortable with the
assumption that most planetary systems formed before 4.6 gigayears ago
(when ours formed) were below the metallicity threshold required for
the spontaneous development of self-reproducing molecules.

If any astrophysicists or cosmochemists on the list know where to get
to the data that bear on this question (Amara?), I'd love to learn
more about it.

--
arkuat
-- 

Re: Why Would Aliens Hide?

Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury at www.aeiveos.com)
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:14:53 -0800 (PST)

        Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
        [ Next ]In reply to: Eric Watt Forste Next in thread: Liam. A. Chu

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Eric Watt Forste wrote:

>  Perhaps Universe is so young that we are the first kids on the
>  block.

Doubtful, Kardashev points out in several of his articles that the age
of the universe is 2, perhaps 3 times the age of our solar system.

>
>  ... Lighter metals such as carbon and oxygen are produced in
>  medium-size stars and distributed by planetary nebula ejection and
>  by white-dwarf novas. The heaviest elements are made and distributed
>  only in supernovas. There are several different kinds of events,
>  and each has a different characteristic rate, and the rate for each
>  event varies from galaxy to galaxy.

The heavy metals get produced very rapidly, within a few hundred
million years of the formation of the galaxies (high H gas cloud
density leads to rapid formation of stars with M > 10 M_sun that go
supernova after very short lives).

>From Astronomy Today (1997):

      Star       Class     Mass     Luminosity      Lifetime
                         (M_sun)     (L_sun)        (years)
      Rigel      B8Ia       10         44000            20*10^6
      Sirus      A1V         2.3          23          1000*10^6
      A. Centuri G2V         1.1           1.4        7000*10^6
      Sun        G2V         1.0           1.0       10000*10^6
      P. Centuri M5V         0.1           0.6     1000000*10^6


So, the big stars burn very fast. Supernovas, I believe also throw out
a fair amount of C & O. I'm unsure of the relative contributions of
"life elements" by novas vs. SN but am fairly sure that you get
sufficient materials within the first couple of billion years to form
planetary systems that can support life. A more serious constraint
might be the gradual decline in nearby SN that would fatally damage
proto-genetic material. But we have discussed that extensively. And of
course Deinococcus radiodurans does show that life can be radition
tolerant.

>  I did find a textbook of
>  cosmochemistry that looked promising, but if the numbers I'm looking
>  for were in there, they were deeply buried in mathematics that I
>  have yet to do the homework for.

The best book, IMO, is "Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of
Galaxies" by Bernard E. J. Pagel, and you are right that the numbers
are probably buried in the math and a collection of astronomy papers.

>
>  Another way to estimate these rates is to look for a metallicity
>  gradient in redshift. How much richer in metal are nearby (older)
>  galaxies with respect to distant (younger) galaxies? I haven't yet
>  done any research in this direction. I don't even know whether it
>  is more difficult to measure metallicity from distant-galaxy spectra
>  than from individual star spectra.

It is more difficult, because the lines will be weaker and you will
need longer observation times. You probably also have an interesting
problem of an assortment of star ages in a galactic "point source" and
the line doppler shifting caused by stars rotating toward you and away
from you (in side on) galaxies. You may be limited to picking a
handful of stars of a specific spectral class and measuring the
average metal abundances in them. But since stars in our galaxy have
some really wide ranges of metal abundances (probably depending on
local space region history) extracting an overall accumulation of
metal profile for a galaxy seems really difficult.

This type of work has been done in globular clusters that seem to be
old (because the metal content is low). But this fails to consider
whether the metal content is low because they might have been mined.
If you need "rare" elements and are planning to be around for
trillions of years, it might make sense to construct "star-processing"
stations. You then run simulations of galactic orbital dynamics and
locate good sling-shot candidates whare a minor orbital tweek will
send the star out of the galaxy to one of the "star-processing"
stations (aka globular cluster). The stars we now see there are the
leftovers.

>
>  In the absence of this information, I'm comfortable with the
>  assumption that most planetary systems formed before 4.6 gigayears
>  ago (when ours formed) were below the metallicity threshold required
>  for the spontaneous development of self-reproducing molecules.

Bad bet, IMO. I'd push the threshold for planetary systems back to
8-10 Gyr. Keeping in mind that *if* star mining can occur on a large
scale, then the stellar age estimates based on metal accumulation will
be *underestimates*.

The problems the biotech people are going to have with the right and
left wing luddites are going to be small compared to the problems the
transhumanists are going to have getting the astrophysicists to
consider a "life-filled" universe.

Robert

-- 
To: extropians at extropy.org
From: Amara Graps <amara at amara.com>
Subject: Re: Why Would Aliens Hide?



Eric Watt Forste (arkuat at idiom.com) Tue, 23 Nov 1999 writes:

I'm not a cosmochemist, but I have some words that might help.

>I have been looking around for data on what a chemist would call the
>reaction rate of the production of metals in this and other
>galaxies.
>...

>Another way to estimate these rates is to look for a metallicity
>gradient in redshift. How much richer in metal are nearby (older)
>galaxies with respect to distant (younger) galaxies?


I did a quick search on the Web when I saw your question (I didn't
have time to try the NASA ADS, but I recommend that for you, using
some keywords like "metallicity production rate galaxies" or some
combination of it in the keywords field), and I found a paper:

"Metals and Dust in High Redshift Galaxies"
by Pettini, M., King,D., Smith, L., Lipman, K., Hunstead, R.

They report from observations of 30 distant QSOs that the epoch of
chemical enrichment in galaxies may have begun at z~2.5-3, which
corresponds to a look-back time of 14 Gyr (using expansion constants
H_0 = 50 km/s/Mpc, q_0 = 0.01), and that at z~2, the typical
metallicity of the universe was 1/15 of the solar value.

>Lighter metals such as carbon and oxygen are produced in medium-size
>stars and distributed by planetary nebula ejection and by
>white-dwarf novas. The heaviest elements are made and distributed
>only in supernovas. There are several different kinds of events, and
>each has a different characteristic rate, and the rate for each
>event varies from galaxy to galaxy.

That's what I used to think too ... but every once in a while I bump
into research where there seems to be some open questions about
whether stars can really produce all of the dust that we observe. In
a talk that I heard today at my institute, the conclusion was that
stars cannot produce all of the dust that we see in galactic disks.

And some years back, I found an interesting table in Gehrz's chapter
(pg 447) of the IAU #135 Interstellar Dust book: "Types of Dust
Grains in Stellar Outflows", that lays out dust production/dust
deficit:

Stellar Type    Input to Interstellar Medium, Relative to all Stars

M Stars (Miras)        35%
RLOH/IR stars          32%
Carbon stars           20%
Supernovae              8%
M supergiants           4%
Wolf-Rayet stars      0.5%
Planetary Nebulae     0.2%
Novae                 0.1%
RV Tauri stars        0.02%
O,B stars                0

Gehrz concludes in his last section titled: "The Ecology of Stardust in
the Galaxy" that:

1. M stars, RLOH/IR stars and M supergiants are the primary sources
of silicates, while carbon stars, WR stars and novae produce most of
the carbon and SiC. Novae, supernovae, and WR stars may be
responsible for most of the grains with chemical anomalies.

2. The current star formation rate implies that star formation is
depleting the interstellar medium (ISM) gas by some 3 to 10 solar
masses per year.

3. There is a deficit in stardust production/grain destruction.
Supernovae shock waves destroy ISM grains on very short time-scales
(Seab, 1987, _Interstellar Processes_, Hollenbach and Thronson ed.
Reidel) processing 10-30 solar masses per year and destroying
0.1-0.3 solar masses per year in dust. Gehrz estimates that
0.01-0.08 solar masses per year of dust is returned to the ISM by
stars. He feels that grain growth in dark clouds is an attractive
mechanism to make up the dust deficit.

(I pulled the above from my essay: "Cosmic Dust and its Evolution"
http://www.amara.com/ftpstuff/dustevolve.txt It might answer some of
your questions too.)

In the talk I heard today, I saw a similar production/deficit list
of dust sources in our galaxy from a paper (Jones, 1997, I don't
know the title but NASA ADS should help you), that indicates a
factor of 10 deficit in the production rate. Known sources of dust
input dust into our galaxy, but when observational measurements are
made of amounts of dust present in our galaxy, these known sources
of dust are not enough (I believe that I have this argument correct.
Please go check Jones' paper, though, to be sure.)

Some other open questions. (This was presented in the talk given
today too)

The interstellar grains that we've detected in-situ with the Ulysses
dust detector instrument indicates more interstellar dust, and
bigger grains than from  model predictions for our local
insterstellar medium neighborhood.

Other work using ISOPHOT infrared data of our galaxy are pointing to
the fact that we need a new population of large grains to explain
what we see in our galaxy, and that we need more gas, and that we
need larger grains (which qualitatively agrees with the above
in-situ observations).

So to recap we see more dust than what one would expect from current
models (I'm not an expert on interstellar medium models, so I can't
give any details about the models.)


I hope that this answers some of your questions (and raises new ones
:-) )

Amara

P.S.
I see a couple of  sections in a book that might help you:
"Chemical-Composition Gradients in the Disk" and
"Chemical-Composition Gradients in the Spheroidal Component", in the
book: _Galactic Astronomy_ by Mihalas and Binney, but this book is a
little bit old (1981), and probably Robert's suggestion for a
book is better.

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:04:03 +0100
From: Amara Graps <Amara.Graps at mpi-hd.mpg.de>
To: extropians at extropy.org
Subject: Re: Why Would Aliens Hide?


Eric Watt Forste (arkuat at idiom.com) Wed, 24 Nov 1999 writes:

>How do current elemental abundances observed in the interstellar
>medium of the galaxy compare to these pristine Solar system
>abundances? Has the interstellar medium been significantly enriched in
>the 4.6 Gyrs since the formation of the Sun? Where are the extra
>metals coming from if our models of stellar evolution and observations
>of actual stars cannot account for them?

I've had some more time to think about this.

I think the direction of research is that, the picture for what we
_used to think_ (say 10 years ago) for dust producing stars/etc is
changing. For example, Supernovae used to _not_ be thought of as a
heavy dust producer, but it looks like they produce a lot more dust
than we thought. (At least that's what I got out of the lecture a
couple of days ago.)

Also, there is plenty of evidence now that supernovae had an important
role in the formation of our solar system because of the physical
properties (shock fronts etc.) of the "bubbles" in our local
interstellar cloud that surround our solar system, and also because of
measurements of minerals in presolar grains of meterorites that could
only be formed by r,s,p processes in late-evolution stars.

>Have there been other
>processes of metal formation going on, or are our models of stellar
>evolution going to require considerably more adjustment before they
>synch up with the cosmochemical details we observe?

The models of stellar evolution are probably OK, maybe some tweaking
in the concepts of grain formation..

And we know that dust cannot simply condense out of the gas in the
interstellar medium because the density and temperatures are not
right.

The ISO observations of the amount of dust in our Galaxy being off by
about a factor 100 from what the scientists count (currently) as dust
sources is a problem.

The other observations that are off by a factor 10, may not be so
worrisome, because the discrepancy is possibly in the error bars, and
a factor of 10 off in astronomy is sometimes OK ;-)

I should direct you to a newly-published paper (1 Nov 1999, ApJ) that
gives a large overview of this topic. "

"Dust in the Local Interstellar Wind" by P. Frisch and a large list of
authors. She is an expert on our local interstellar medium and the
relationships between our local bubble and our Solar System.

In particular, look at:

Section 6.2: "Isotopic Compositions and Stellar Sources"

Section 6.4: "Presolar Silicates and GEMS"

And this Table 4: (I hope that this table doesn't get too mangled in
the email translation)

Table 4    Types of Presolar Grains in Primitive Meteorites

                   Abundance        Size      Isotopic
      Mineral        (PPM)       (micron)     Signature         Stellar Sources

   Diamond...         1400        0.002       Xe-HL              Type 
II supernovae


   SiC                 14        0.1-20       Enhancementsa 
C-rich AGB stars
   mainstream...                              in 13C, 14N, 22Ne,
                                              heavy trace elements

   Graphite...         10        0.8-12       Enhancements       Type 
II supernovae,
                                              in 12C, 18O, 
(Wolf-Rayet stars)
                                              extinct 44Ti


   Corundum...        0.3        0.3-5        Enhancements       Red 
giant, AGB stars
                                              in 17O,  Depletion
                                              in 18O



   SiC X              0.1        0.5-10       Enhancements        Type 
II supernovae
   grains...                                  in 12C, 15N,  28Si
                                              Extinct 26Al, 44Ti

   Silicon           0.002        ~1          Enhancements        Type 
II supernovae
   nitride...                                 in 12C, 15N, 28Si
                                              Extinct 26Al

a Enhancement values are given relative to the solar system isotopic
composition.


(I just discovered this paper this morning, and it's a long and detailed
paper, so I won't summarize it here.)

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/
********************************************************************
"Oh you damned observers, you always find extra things."
    -- Fred Hoyle [quoted by Richard Ellis at IAU Symposium 183]


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul 15 06:35:06 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:35:06 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <200507150609.j6F693R10116@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <008d01c58907$573896f0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Spike wrote:

>> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
>> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
> 
> Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
> the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy.  Who
> shall I write in for your vice president?

Well heck Spike there are just so many fine candidates its to
hard to pick :-) The most important thing is to keep incompetent
and or dishonourable oathbreaking lawbreaking people *out*
of the job that is "just one heartbeat away". 

Maybe John McCain. Maybe Teddy Kennedy. But these are 
just throw away suggestions on 5 seconds thought. It really 
doesn't matter so long as they are rational and not obviously
mentally defective and the impeachment process is up and 
working just as fine and as smooth as possible, which is what
I'm sort of  thinking about, impeachment processes that work
just as fine and just as smooth as possible.

Get the impeachment process working well enough and 
understood well enough and any bad apple President's
and vice presidents unworthy heads will just pop clean
off, legally and bloodlessly of course, with the simple weight
of public opinion on that finely prepared mechanism. 

Brett Paatsch



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 06:43:49 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:43:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] logic game
In-Reply-To: <p06210203befd07adee3c@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200507150643.j6F6hhR17345@tick.javien.com>


If you find yourself with a bit of time on your hands
and nothing to do, I discovered a cool and challenging
game one can do with a crossword puzzle.  Most daily
newspapers print a puzzle that is on the standard 15x15
grid.  It is too easy to challenge most here I suspect,
but try it without the grid.  Cut out the clues, get
a piece of graph paper and start working.  You can 
easily figure out where the first blocks need to go.  If
there is a 1 across and the next across clue is number 5,
then the first across word has 4 characters, and the
fifth square must be a block.  Continue thus.  You will
find that it starts easy but becomes diabolically 
difficult.  It also requires much more thought and
even some logic to figure out where the blocks go.  I
solved four of them without the grid yesterday.  I need
to get a life.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 15 06:47:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:47:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <008d01c58907$573896f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <200507150647.j6F6loR18327@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:35 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
> overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
> 
> Spike wrote:
> 
> >> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
> >> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
> >
> > Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
> > the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy...
> 
> ... It really
> doesn't matter so long as they are rational and not obviously
> mentally defective ...
> 
> Brett Paatsch

Brett, I am now thinking that anyone who would *want* that
job would need to be irrational and obviously mentally
defective.  Hmmm, I guess that's the problem.  

spike






From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul 15 07:06:13 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:06:13 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin liedoverIraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <200507150647.j6F6loR18327@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <00a001c5890b$aff98ca0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Spike wrote:
>> 
>> >> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
>> >> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
>> >
>> > Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
>> > the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy...
>> 
>> ... It really
>> doesn't matter so long as they are rational and not obviously
>> mentally defective ...
>> 
>> Brett Paatsch
> 
> Brett, I am now thinking that anyone who would *want* that
> job would need to be irrational and obviously mentally
> defective.  Hmmm, I guess that's the problem.  

Yup, if memory serves that paradox was recognized even when
Plato was writing The Republic.

ie. How do you get competent people to want to do the duties
and to take the opprobrium of leadership. 

There is a quote from Ecclesiastes that I think Rupert Murdoch
is fond of. Something like let us give thanks or praise for famous
men that allow men of ability to sleep safe in their beds. 

Brett



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Fri Jul 15 08:05:13 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:05:13 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Minarchism, Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism etc
Message-ID: <20050715080513.39290.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Rafal said:

"Funny, Marc is confusing objectivism and
anarcho-capitalism, rejecting
the referent of the latter using arguments from the
former, and
renouncing libertarianism as a form of
anarchocapitalism while
endorsing minarchism.

You OK, Marc?"


Rafal,

Once you seen one cult, all the other cults tend to
blur together in one's mind ;)

As to Minarchism, most Libertarians I know condemn as
'ideologically impure' any-one who thinks the
government has a role beyond regulating against force
and fraud.  I named quite a few goods and services in
the earlier thread which go beyond simple MInarchism. 
In fact, on the FSP forums even pure Minarchists are
sometimes condemned as 'traitors to the Libertarian
cause' by the anarcho-capitalists.

For heavens man, when you are going to finally snap
out of your anarcho-capitalist lunacy?



---

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

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Fri Jul 15 08:20:28 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:20:28 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715000007.64879.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715000007.64879.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507151017060.3523@zeus>

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
>>
>> The average of 100,000 specifically excluded Fallujah's surveyed
>> homes,
>> because the number of reported deaths was too high and it would have
>> skewed the results for the entire country much higher.
>
>I also believe the Lancet study overestimated because they did not come
>to a determination of how big the average Iraqi meant when you used the
>term "family". Being a tribal culture, the Iraqi idea of "family" is a
>whole lot larger than the nuclear family concept of the west. This
>could easily have introduced a magnitude of error into the study.

I can too come up with many plausible reasons that could give a higher or
lower result, depending on my current mood. Let's not throw things at
random. The standard deviation of the study was high enough that there's
already a couple of orders of magnitude of uncertainity (sp?)

Still, it's the *only*, as far as I know, real study on the matter. Apart
from counts like iraqbodycounts.com that just look at the press and then
can be taken as a lower bound estimate. There are no other numbers.

Alfio


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jul 15 08:56:52 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:56:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050714232024d8689@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<ee50357e050714232024d8689@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050715085652.GH25947@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:20:34AM +0100, BillK wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > An SI will expand beyond its natal solar system only if The NPV of the
> > knowledge gained by use of the extrasolar computational power exceeds
> > the NPV of the computational resources to be invested in the expansion.

You've got a postbiological ecology. A very large, very diverse population of
beings. A lot of the biomass (by the metric exaton) is not sentient, rather dumb, actually.

Why do you think that biomass won't crunch anything tasty within reach?
Many lightdays if not lightmonths of congealed star drek around.

> > Example: the SI might expend an asteroid's worth of comptutronium to
> > colonize a star system 4 light-years away.  Using a speed-of-light

Check your assumptions. Neither is SI a singleton, nor does it require a lot
of resources to send interstellar probes. We could send a relativistic one
with a little work a few years from now, we just wouldn't be able to brake it.

> > probe, at best is takes 4 years to initiate the colony, and at best the
> > colony starts with a knowledge base that is four years old. The SI will
> > not get any new input for at least eight years, and the new input will
> > be four years old and will be based on an eight-year-old knowledge base.
> > The SI may very well conclude that it will gain more knowledge by
> > incorporating the asteroid's worth of compturonium within itself rather
> > than launching the probe. If this is generally true, then we would not
> > expect to see any expanding spheres. Instead, we will simply see systems
> > going dark.
> > 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Another reason not to see expanding spheres is that expansion is a
> youngsters thing. Any technological civilization will master life

How you do you know that?

> extension and birth control early on. (And much else as well, of

Bacteria have birth control now? It doesn't seem to be working very well.

> course, nanotech, AI, species redesign, and so on). Then the
> accountants take over. Unless we can assume magic physics to permit

Strange, I always thought the demons and dragons take over, and eat the
accountants.

> much faster than light travel, then expansion is a waste of resources.

Having children is a waste of resources. Hey, biosphere: stop doing it,
already.

> If you leave the home star you lose far more than you gain. Maybe send

One part of the agar plate is exactly like the other part of the agar plate.
Except better, since unpopulated.

> robot probes to a few of the nearest stars, but that's all. Forced
> emigration when the star dies is so far in the future, that it is

I have a list of people who are very intent to cut and run as far as 
possible as soon as personal space travel is accessible.

> anybody's guess what a civilization might be doing by then.

I guess I'm not the only one who's seeing a certain irony in that statement.

-- 
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/20050715/0ff447aa/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jul 15 10:24:31 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:24:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] overposting and fuel cell bike
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050714180465fdf845@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc050712214232594152@mail.gmail.com>
	<200507131446.j6DEknR26268@tick.javien.com>
	<ee50357e05071308126d865d24@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc050714180465fdf845@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050715102431.GN25947@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:34:03AM +0930, Emlyn wrote:

> I thought the hydrogen bike looked pretty cheap to run... US$3 for 100
> miles, not too shabby, especially compared to a car.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/02/1958251&tid=232&tid=126

Modified Prius gets up to 180 Miles Per Gallon

Posted by timothy on Saturday April 02, @07:00PM

from the oh-what-I-wouldn't-give-for-that-in-my-subaru dept.
shupp writes "The NY Times (free reg. required) reports in that some folks
are not content with the no-plug-in rule that both Honda and Toyota endorse.
By modifying a Prius so that it can be plugged in, Ron Gremban of CalCars
states 'I've gotten anywhere from 65 to over 100 miles per gallon'. The
article also reports that 'EnergyCS, a small company that has collaborated
with CalCars, has modified another Prius with more sophisticated batteries;
they claim their Prius gets up to 180 mpg, and can travel more than 30 miles
on battery power.'"

In principle, a light EV recharged from the wall socket is really hard to
compete with, for a daily commute.

-- 
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/20050715/08d20852/attachment.bin>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jul 15 10:40:22 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:40:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <20050715043306.GA19786@ofb.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20050715043306.GA19786@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715063741.03246cf0@mail.gmu.edu>

At 12:33 AM 7/15/2005, Damien Sullivan wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:00:29PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
> > Perhaps this is obvious to others, but it recently occurred to me that hope
> > usually needs something more specific to latch on to than fear does.  You
> > might fear strangers in general at night, but you need to know something
>
>I'm not sure.  One might be nervous and primed to fear while walking alone at
>night, but real full fear will require a target -- some moving shadow.

OK, but if you are lost in the woods at night, all it takes is a weird sound
or an unknown shape to inspire fear, while hope requires far more and more
unusual detail, such as the visual outline of a cabin where you could stay.



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 eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jul 15 10:44:16 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:44:16 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050715104416.GQ25947@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:22:48PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> There are many fundamental questions to which we currently have no 
> scientific answers.
> 
> Two of the biggies:
> 1)  Dark matter: We have not been able to detect by other means enough 
> matter
>     to account for all of the gravitational effect we see in the cosmos.
> 2)  The Fermi Paradox: Why have we not detected signs of other 
> intelligent life in
>      the cosmos?

The simplest explanation for Fermi's paradox, as ever, that it isn't.
We aren't in anyone smart's light cone.

> Perhaps these questions answer each other. Dyson spheres have been 
> considered and rejected,

Not really, unless you're talking about solid spheres, and not circumstellar
habitat/node clouds.

> but Dyson spheres are not the only (or even most likely) end result of 
> the evolution of
> intelligence. For example, most SI might evolve to efficient 
> computronium. What is
> efficient computronium, and what is its emission signature? If it is 

You don't see the inner shells, which might or might not be hot enough to
emit visible blackbody. You see reradiated long-wavelength EM radiation on
the outer nodes.

> difficult to detect, it may
> comprise the missing mass.

Objects lighthours across radiating largely in FIR *are* difficult to detect.
Especially, if you're not looking for them.

> def: computronium: matter organized to optimize computing capacity.
> def: efficient computronium: computronium organized to optimize 
> computations per Joule.
> 
> Does anyone have references to prior speculation on this topic?

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/

I don't seem to be able to find the old list archives, which went back to
1996, or so.

I continue to be surprised that so many people who where there continue to
suffer from collective amnesia. 

-- 
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/20050715/6f9aa7c4/attachment.bin>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jul 15 10:52:13 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:52:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>

At 10:51 PM 7/14/2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>An SI will expand beyond its natal solar system only if The NPV of the 
>knowledge gained by use of the extrasolar computational power exceeds the 
>NPV of the computational resources to be invested in the expansion. 
>Example: the SI might expend an asteroid's worth of comptutronium to 
>colonize a star system 4 light-years away.  Using a speed-of-light probe, 
>at best is takes 4 years to initiate the colony, and at best the colony 
>starts with a knowledge base that is four years old. The SI will not get 
>any new input for at least eight years, and the new input will be four 
>years old and will be based on an eight-year-old knowledge base. The SI 
>may very well conclude that it will gain more knowledge by incorporating 
>the asteroid's worth of compturonium within itself rather than launching 
>the probe. If this is generally true, then we would not expect to see any 
>expanding spheres. Instead, we will simply see systems going dark.

This is a clear example, where, as I warned, predictions depend on your 
assumptions about the goals/priorities of the alien civilization.  You 
assume the only point of colonization is to spawn a computational 
sub-process, where you already have the needed inputs.  This gives very 
different predictions from a civilization whose goal is to colonize as far 
and fast as possible, for example.

A robust way to forecast alien goals/priorities is to just predict a wide 
divergence of such goals.


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 eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jul 15 10:57:55 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:57:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050715105755.GS25947@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:52:13AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:

> A robust way to forecast alien goals/priorities is to just predict a wide 
> divergence of such goals.

Nonexpansive trajectories are self-filtering, since not observable.

-- 
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/20050715/c38834f4/attachment.bin>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Jul 15 14:45:52 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:45:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
Message-ID: <001c01c5894b$e6f007d0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

"But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There 
are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. 
Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated 
to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, 
over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?  ... Clearly, 
several things are at work. One is that Europe is not a melting pot and has 
never adequately integrated its Muslim minorities, who, as The Financial 
Times put it, often find themselves 'cut off from their country, language 
and culture of origin' without being assimilated into Europe, making them 
easy prey for peddlers of a new jihadist identity. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15friedman.html?hp

July 15, 2005
A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
A few years ago I was visiting Bahrain and sitting with friends in a fish 
restaurant when news appeared on an overhead TV about Muslim terrorists, men 
and women, who had taken hostages in Russia. What struck me, though, was the 
instinctive reaction of the Bahraini businessman sitting next to me, who 
muttered under his breath, "Why are we in every story?" The "we" in question 
was Muslims.

The answer to that question is one of the most important issues in 
geopolitics today: Why are young Sunni Muslim males, from London to Riyadh 
and Bali to Baghdad, so willing to blow up themselves and others in the name 
of their religion? Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would 
be ludicrous to suggest that.

But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There 
are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. 
Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated 
to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, 
over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?

Neither we nor the Muslim world can run away from this question any longer. 
This is especially true when it comes to people like Muhammad Bouyeri - a 
Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin who last year tracked down the Dutch 
filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a critic of Islamic intolerance, on an Amsterdam 
street, shot him 15 times and slit his throat with a butcher knife. He told 
a Dutch court on the final day of his trial on Tuesday: "I take complete 
responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion."

Clearly, several things are at work. One is that Europe is not a melting pot 
and has never adequately integrated its Muslim minorities, who, as The 
Financial Times put it, often find themselves "cut off from their country, 
language and culture of origin" without being assimilated into Europe, 
making them easy prey for peddlers of a new jihadist identity.

Also at work is Sunni Islam's struggle with modernity. Islam has a long 
tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the 
supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam. Islam's self-identity is that 
it is the authentic and ideal expression of monotheism. Muslims are raised 
with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 
1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.

Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they 
are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being 
tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because 
while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to 
ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has 
choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic 
world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced 
than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0.

"Some of these young Muslim men are tempted by a civilization they consider 
morally inferior, and they are humiliated by the fact that, while having 
been taught their faith is supreme, other civilizations seem to be doing 
much better," said Raymond Stock, the Cairo-based biographer and translator 
of Naguib Mahfouz. "When the inner conflict becomes too great, some are 
turned by recruiters to seek the sick prestige of 'martyrdom' by fighting 
the allegedly unjust occupation of Muslim lands and the 'decadence' in our 
own."

This is not about the poverty of money. This is about the poverty of dignity 
and the rage it can trigger.

One of the London bombers was married, with a young child and another on the 
way. I can understand, but never accept, suicide bombing in Iraq or Israel 
as part of a nationalist struggle. But when a British Muslim citizen, 
nurtured by that society, just indiscriminately blows up his neighbors and 
leaves behind a baby and pregnant wife, to me he has to be in the grip of a 
dangerous cult or preacher - dangerous to his faith community and to the 
world.

How does that happen? Britain's Independent newspaper described one of the 
bombers, Hasib Hussain, as having recently undergone a sudden conversion 
"from a British Asian who dressed in Western clothes to a religious teenager 
who wore Islamic garb and only stopped to say salaam to fellow Muslims."

The secret of this story is in that conversion - and so is the crisis in 
Islam. The people and ideas that brought about that sudden conversion of 
Hasib Hussain and his pals - if not stopped by other Muslims - will end up 
converting every Muslim into a suspect and one of the world's great 
religions into a cult of death.






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 15:46:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <200507150407.j6F47HR28250@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050715154651.21410.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> > 
> > Even so, what use are stars?
> > 
> > And with life 3.85 billion years old on Earth, and the Milky Way
> 100,000
> > lightyears across, how likely is it that more than one intelligent
> species
> > arises in a galaxy before the first species takes over the whole
> galaxy?
> >  
> 
> Unlikely indeed, unless they are keeping a few percent of them
> untouched just to see what will evolve there.

I think the percentage is higher, and the expansion rate is much lower,
otherwise radiation and byproducts from drive exhausts should be
evident in the spectra of most galaxies, and furthermore, galaxies
would undergo exponential curves in conversion of hydrogen to helium 3
in excess of what would be expected by the star count.

Following long term trends of our own species, I project that posthuman
interstellar civilizations will be very environmentally concious and
will only occupy worlds (when they do occupy worlds), or disassemble
worlds, that are not life  bearing but are terraformable, or they will
occupy worlds that are not terraformable at all and unlikely to
encounter human-level or transhuman species unless those species
develop sufficient spaceflight to go out to find and meet them.

Most likely they will construct habitats from dust around orphan brown
dwarfs in interstellar space, both to be as hard to find (thermally
speaking) and as hard to reach as possible from G-class orbiting terran
worlds, which would cause only those species on the verge of
posthumanity themselves likely to find them.

Given what we've seen of extrasolar planets so far, with most being
super-jovians and brown dwarfs in highly eccentric orbits, and those
have only been detected so far by doppler shift of their primary, with
one loose brown dwarf being imaged directly so far, it seems clear that
even without dyson or matrioshka spheres around them, they are very
hard to find for beings at our level of development.

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  Fri Jul 15 16:07:13 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <008d01c58907$573896f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050715160713.89703.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Spike wrote:
> 
> >> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
> >> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
> > 
> > Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
> > the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy.  Who
> > shall I write in for your vice president?
> 
> Well heck Spike there are just so many fine candidates its to
> hard to pick :-) The most important thing is to keep incompetent
> and or dishonourable oathbreaking lawbreaking people *out*
> of the job that is "just one heartbeat away". 
> 
> Maybe John McCain. Maybe Teddy Kennedy. 

You think "Splash" Kennedy would make a "competent" and "honorable" and
"non-oathbreaking" and "non-lawbreaking" president? The guy who killed
Mary Jo Kopechne in a drunk car accident? Who stands up for the
character of his raping and murdering relatives (two rapists plus a
rapist-murderer)?

Put John McCain through annual anger management classes and he might
make a decent president.

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 nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Jul 15 16:28:47 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:28:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] welcome
References: <BAY107-F210BC63622A7D189013453FAD10@phx.gbl><200507141445.j6EEjcR28935@tick.javien.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714222521.029cbac8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00be01c5895a$4d3c3320$0200a8c0@Nano>

Nice to meet you too Evan! 


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
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] welcome


  At 09:45 AM 7/14/2005, Spike wrote:



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat -
    > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Evan Hamlin
    > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
    > 
    > First, as this is my first post, I'll introduce myself. I'm Evan Hamlin,
    > pleased to "meet" all of you...
    > -Evan
    > "The world is more beautiful through tinted glass."

    Welcome Evan!  {8-]  spike

  Hi there Evan.  Welcome -

  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/20050715/155f4207/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 16:31:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507151017060.3523@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050715163143.93936.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >I also believe the Lancet study overestimated because they did not
> come
> >to a determination of how big the average Iraqi meant when you used
> the
> >term "family". Being a tribal culture, the Iraqi idea of "family" is
> a
> >whole lot larger than the nuclear family concept of the west. This
> >could easily have introduced a magnitude of error into the study.
> 
> I can too come up with many plausible reasons that could give a
> higher or
> lower result, depending on my current mood. Let's not throw things at
> random. The standard deviation of the study was high enough that
> there's already a couple of orders of magnitude of uncertainity (sp?)
> 
> Still, it's the *only*, as far as I know, real study on the matter.
> Apart from counts like iraqbodycounts.com that just look at the
> press and then can be taken as a lower bound estimate. There are no
> other numbers.

On the contrary, the Red Cross estimated 10,000 deaths from the start
of hostilities through Feb 2004, so the above sites current count of 
22,000-25,000 seems a little high, but not excessively so. As the Red
Cross has several hundred people in-country and works closely to
support the Red Crescent, which has thousands of people all over Iraq,
I would trust their numbers.

What should be considered, though, is that most of these civilian
casualties are being committed by the same thugs who will go on
murdering civilians even if we left tomorrow, and were doing so before
we invaded. Rather than disappearing in the middle of the night or
being grabbed off the street to who-knows-where, they are being killed
in public, in front of other Iraqis, by the same thugs, so now nobody
can deny that the thugs are murderous bastards.

I also see in the newspaper today that a Pew study of muslim attitudes
shows that for the first time a majority are opposed to suicide bombing
of civilians and are opposed to bin Laden. I wonder if Osama pays as
much attention to the polls as western politicians...

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 15 16:35:13 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:35:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear and Hope
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715063741.03246cf0@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714205143.0316f788@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20050715043306.GA19786@ofb.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715063741.03246cf0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050715163513.GA20080@ofb.net>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:40:22AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:

> OK, but if you are lost in the woods at night, all it takes is a weird sound
> or an unknown shape to inspire fear, while hope requires far more and more
> unusual detail, such as the visual outline of a cabin where you could stay.

How about a yellow light, gleaming through the leaves?  I'd head for that.  Or
for the pre-electric age, a fire or the smell of smoke.  Well, you'd have to
decide whether it was embryonic forest fire or someone's hearth or chimney.
Or any human sound, apart from screams.

So, not so much detail.  I would agree that there are probably many more
stimuli which inspire fear than hope.  Probably because there are many more
things which can hurt than which can help.  Whether something completely
strange inspires fear, hope, or just curiosity probably depends on one's
expectations and temperament.

(I've been reading Paul Ekman's _Emotions Revealed_, on emotions with
universal facial expressions.  He says that fear and surprise weren't reliably
distinguishable in or by New Guineans, but are for modern literate people.  I
imagine that could reflect strange things tending to be bad things, for New
Guinean highlanders.)

-xx- Damien X-) 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 16:47:34 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050715164734.42103.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

> At 10:51 PM 7/14/2005, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> >An SI will expand beyond its natal solar system only if The NPV of
> >the knowledge gained by use of the extrasolar computational power
> >exceeds the NPV of the computational resources to be invested in
> >the expansion. 
> >Example: the SI might expend an asteroid's worth of comptutronium to
> >colonize a star system 4 light-years away.  Using a speed-of-light
> >probe, at best is takes 4 years to initiate the colony, and at best
> >the colony starts with a knowledge base that is four years old. The
> >SI will not get any new input for at least eight years, and the new
> >input will be four years old and will be based on an eight-year-old
> >knowledge base. The SI may very well conclude that it will gain
> > more knowledge by incorporating the asteroid's worth of
> > compturonium within itself rather than launching the probe.
> > If this is generally true, then we would not expect to see any 
> >expanding spheres. Instead, we will simply see systems going dark.
> 
> This is a clear example, where, as I warned, predictions depend on
> your assumptions about the goals/priorities of the alien
> civilization. 
> You assume the only point of colonization is to spawn a computational

> sub-process, where you already have the needed inputs. This gives
> very different predictions from a civilization whose goal is to
> colonize as far and fast as possible, for example.
> 
> A robust way to forecast alien goals/priorities is to just predict a
> wide divergence of such goals.

Quite so, Robin. But Dan's premise also fails a test of extropic logic,
which is that the marginal utility of a colony in another star system
is not just the computation happening in that star system, but also the
probes being spawned to other systems from there, and others in turn,
as an exponential budding process. Sure, the core SI takes a loss
computationally for the first few generations, but the exponential
growth quickly overtakes that, especially if each probe travels with a
supply of entangled particles or is otherwise able to establish some
sort of FTL network once they've reached a destination star system.

Furthermore, Dan's calculation leaves out the utility of new
information found at new star systems, assuming that every system is
going to be like every other. There is only so much that can be gleaned
from interferometry from one's home system. At some point, if you want
to know more, you have to go there.

Furthermore, his statement about 'sending robot probes' is a
contradiction with the rest of his comment. If you are going to send
anything as a posthuman civilization, a robot probe will be a person or persons...

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 15 16:57:21 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:57:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
In-Reply-To: <001c01c5894b$e6f007d0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <001c01c5894b$e6f007d0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050715165721.GB20080@ofb.net>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:45:52AM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> "But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There 
> are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. 
> Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated 
> to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, 
> over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?  ... Clearly, 

Except that he's wrong.  Suicide bombing as a modern tactic was pioneered by
the Tamil Tigers, a secular group of Hindu origins.

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/tamiltigers.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2098657.stm 

An article on the motivations of suicide bombins: military logic, not
religion:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/

   start quote What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common
   is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies
   to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists
   consider to be their homeland. end quote
   -- Robert Pape

Scott Atran has been writing about the psychology of suicide terrorism; here's
one sample:
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-03/departments/featdialogue/

"Nasra Hassan, who is a Pakistani relief worker working in Gaza for a number
of years, interviewed about 250 family members, recruiters, and survivors,
completely independently. She was not aware of Merari's work, and she found
exactly the same thing. Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University,
has done long-term studies with Hezbollah and Hamas. His research shows that
not only are suicide terrorists significantly more educated than their
peers, they are also significantly better off. According to Krueger, although
one-third of Palestinians live in poverty, only 13 percent of Palestinian
suicide bombers do; 57 percent of bombers have education beyond high school
versus 15 percent of the population of comparable age. "

"How on earth does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up,
together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?  A: Exactly the same way
that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for
their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or
any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved
"brothers" who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a
mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt
human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological
evolution."

There's also some unrelated stuff at the end on religion and environmental
protection.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 15 17:13:02 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:13:02 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	over	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715160713.89703.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715160713.89703.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D7EE9E.3060503@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>Maybe John McCain. Maybe Teddy Kennedy. 
>>    
>>
>
>You think "Splash" Kennedy would make a "competent" and "honorable" and
>"non-oathbreaking" and "non-lawbreaking" president? The guy who killed
>Mary Jo Kopechne in a drunk car accident? Who stands up for the
>character of his raping and murdering relatives (two rapists plus a
>rapist-murderer)?
>
>Put John McCain through annual anger management classes and he might
>make a decent president.
>  
>

You're right, Lorrey, you're the only choice.

Lorrey for vice President!


Robbie


(A small giggle rolls through the intelligent crowd as they calculate 
the probability of this relative to aliens using dark matter to provide 
computational material....)


From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 15 17:14:16 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:14:16 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715163143.93936.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715163143.93936.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D7EEE8.5050002@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I also believe the Lancet study overestimated because they did not
>>>      
>>>
>>come
>>    
>>
>>>to a determination of how big the average Iraqi meant when you used
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>term "family". Being a tribal culture, the Iraqi idea of "family" is
>>>      
>>>
>>a
>>    
>>
>>>whole lot larger than the nuclear family concept of the west. This
>>>could easily have introduced a magnitude of error into the study.
>>>      
>>>
>>I can too come up with many plausible reasons that could give a
>>higher or
>>lower result, depending on my current mood. Let's not throw things at
>>random. The standard deviation of the study was high enough that
>>there's already a couple of orders of magnitude of uncertainity (sp?)
>>
>>Still, it's the *only*, as far as I know, real study on the matter.
>>Apart from counts like iraqbodycounts.com that just look at the
>>press and then can be taken as a lower bound estimate. There are no
>>other numbers.
>>    
>>
>
>On the contrary, the Red Cross estimated 10,000 deaths from the start
>of hostilities through Feb 2004, so the above sites current count of 
>22,000-25,000 seems a little high, but not excessively so. As the Red
>Cross has several hundred people in-country and works closely to
>support the Red Crescent, which has thousands of people all over Iraq,
>I would trust their numbers.
>  
>

Why do you feel the need to provide appologetics services for the Bush 
administration without pay?

Robbie Lindauer




From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 17:39:59 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:39:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/05, Robin Hanson wrote:
> This is a clear example, where, as I warned, predictions depend on your
> assumptions about the goals/priorities of the alien civilization.  You
> assume the only point of colonization is to spawn a computational
> sub-process, where you already have the needed inputs.  This gives very
> different predictions from a civilization whose goal is to colonize as far
> and fast as possible, for example.
> 
> A robust way to forecast alien goals/priorities is to just predict a wide
> divergence of such goals.
> 

Well, all things are possible, but some are more likely than others.
A civilization whose goal is to colonize as far and fast as possible
seems the most unlikely. Like, where is it? You only need one, ever,
in the universe.

My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to
colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a bunch
of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever they
go. How immature is that?
We are not talking about Bush III's latest ten year plan here.

These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
centuries to go to another star system?

It is even debatable whether they will remain long in this physical
universe or start creating universes of their own. ;)

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 17:53:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
In-Reply-To: <20050715165721.GB20080@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050715175330.5843.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:45:52AM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> > "But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni
> Muslims. There 
> > are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry
> Africans. 
> > Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and
> motivated 
> > to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other
> Muslims, 
> > over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?  ...
> Clearly, 
> 
> Except that he's wrong.  Suicide bombing as a modern tactic was
> pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, a secular group of Hindu origins.
> 
> http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/tamiltigers.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2098657.stm 

Specifically, the Tamil Tigers are claimed to have pioneered the
explosive belt that is now in use by al Qaeda, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic
Jihad, and other groups. However, this itself is in doubt, as such
belts were in use as far back as the Vietnam War, when the Viet Cong
engaged in suicide attacks in downtown Saigon.

The originators of the technology are irrelevant. The important
questioin is who is the primary user of the technology today. 

> 
> An article on the motivations of suicide bombins: military logic, not
> religion:
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/
> 
>    " What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in
> common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern
> democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the
> terrorists consider to be their homeland. "
>    -- Robert Pape

Pape's opinions are under serious attack because he seems to dismiss
the religious motives of the attackers as irrelevant, yet at the same
time claims that the preception of the attackers that their homeland is
being 'invaded' is based on the religion of the invaders, i.e.
christian, atheist, etc... He is trying to have his cake and eat it
too.

If religion were irrelevant, then there shouldn't be such a striking
monoculture of religious leanings or heritage of suicide bombers.
Whether one is ferverently religious or not is irrelevant to whether
one considers oneself muslim or of other religious extraction.

What has been going on is the mosques and madrassas of the muslim world
have been taken over by radical wahhabists promoting a theology of hate
and death to impressionable muslims. The fact is that at least two of
the four named bombers in Britain were British muslims who had recently
spent time in Pakistan undergoing 'religious' study, and at least three
of the four became associated through soccer matches. It isn't
impossible to imagine that one can infect another with religous memes
outside a madrassa, and it appears they all travelled significant
distances to attend a particular mosque that was known for advocating
radical teachings, ignoring mosques that were closer to home but were
more tame and mainstream.

As for the socioeconomic commentary, it is clear that only well-off
families can afford to send their kids to school, and well off muslim
families that care about their kids are also more likely to send their
kids to madrassas as well. It is a selection effect, not a determinant.

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


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


From hal at finney.org  Fri Jul 15 17:04:12 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
Message-ID: <20050715170412.98BB157E8C@finney.org>

As I understand it, astronomers have pretty much ruled out the possibility
that dark matter is composed of massive, star and planet sized objects.
Of course they were not thinking in terms of stellar engineering but
in more prosaic possibilities like brown dwarfs and rogue planets.
But still I think the evidence against them would apply to ETI as well.

The debate was framed as MACHOs, Massive Compact Halo Objects, vs WIMPs,
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.  MACHOs are astronomical sized
bodies, while WIMPs are subatomic particles, possibly ones based on
supersymmetry such as the hypothetical neutralino.

There were a number of observational efforts mounted in the late 1990s to
try to observe MACHOs via their eclipsing effects against remote galaxies,
but they generally failed.  There were not nearly enough MACHOs observed
to account for dark matter.  This has pretty much ruled out the MACHO
theory and now WIMPs prevail.  The absence of experimental evidence for
WIMPs has so far not managed to defeat that theory.

I have also seen claims that early universe simulations do not produce
enough baryonic (conventional) matter to account for all the dark matter,
hence it can't be MACHOs.

Another problem with the ETI theory is that if we looked back into the
past, older galaxies would presumably not yet have been transformed by
life, so their "dark matter" would still be light.  But we don't see that.

All in all I think this theory is pretty much a non starter, as is any
theory IMO that assumes that the universe we see is full of massive
stellar engineering activities.  The ancients looked out on nature and
saw a world full of intelligence, tree sprites and sun gods.  It's a
natural instinct we have, to abhor a world empty of thought.  But so
far it's all we've found, and at this point we should continue to assume
that is how things are until we see good evidence to the contrary.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 17:57:32 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D7EEE8.5050002@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050715175732.87778.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Why do you feel the need to provide appologetics services for the
> Bush administration without pay?

Why do you feel the need to provide an outlet for stalinist propaganda
groups and their sick conspiracy theories?

I realize you still have your skirts in a bunch over the election,
given you are allegedly a christian democrat who wildly supported Kerry
(according to your posts at The TIP), but geesh, why don't you MoveOn????

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  Fri Jul 15 18:11:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050715181128.26488.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, all things are possible, but some are more likely than others.
> A civilization whose goal is to colonize as far and fast as possible
> seems the most unlikely. Like, where is it? You only need one, ever,
> in the universe.
> 
> My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to
> colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a
> bunch of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever
> they go. How immature is that?
> We are not talking about Bush III's latest ten year plan here.

The more intelligent one is, the more important is ones sense of
playfulness. An important factor of immortality is that one takes as
long to mature as possible, and never give up ones youthful attitudes.
Stodgy curmudgeonly immortals don't last long, IMHO.

> These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
> 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
> to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
> that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get
> if they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> centuries to go to another star system?
> 
> It is even debatable whether they will remain long in this physical
> universe or start creating universes of their own. ;)

Its evident you didn't get the point of Eugene' joke. How do you know
what they'll do? I concede that the ultimate environmentalism for a
posthuman civ would be to stay on one's home planet and not mess up the
rest of the universe in its natural form, but realistically, if there
are more than one SI, then the differentiation of goals between them
(or even if there is only one SI, who is to say it won't have multiple
personalities with multiple goals, all the better to keep oneself
company through eternity).

Having read Charles Stross' 2004 novel, Iron Sunrise, though, I find he
presents a much more realistic picture, IMHO: in that, so what if there
is one SI? The Eschaton is the Eschaton, and thou shalt not fuck with
the timeline of It's historical light cone. Other than that, you can do
pretty much whatever you want. There is life after the Singularity for
everybody who doesn't happen to transcend, and there will be a lot of
such people. Whether it happens to be in the current universe
simulation, or in another one so as we can't tell the difference is
really irrelevant to the plot of the future. The SI might do everyone
the favor of warping 90% of us to other planets to cut down on the
risks of overpopulation and resource depletion here, or just make us
all think that happened when It really just disassembled planet Earth
into computronium and uploaded everybody. Whaddaguy.

Those who haven't read this novel, I highly recommend it. Charlie did
some good work here (attaboy, Charlie!)

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  Fri Jul 15 18:15:45 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:15:45 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715175732.87778.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715175732.87778.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D7FD51.4040504@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Why do you feel the need to provide appologetics services for the
>>Bush administration without pay?
>>    
>>
>
>Why do you feel the need to provide an outlet for stalinist propaganda
>groups and their sick conspiracy theories?
>  
>

First, this isn't an answer to my question.

To answer yours:

I don't.  Most of the articles posted on thetip.org are either from AP 
or NYT or Reuters or the Guardian or the London Times with a decent 
amount of independant commentary.  For factual issues, AP/Reuters are 
the preferred sources.  Are you claiming that AP/Reuters/Times/Guardian 
are Stalinist Propaganda Groups?

>I realize you still have your skirts in a bunch over the election,
>  
>
Well, the first election was illegally decided.  Technically the supreme 
court is supposed to defer to the states in the matter who alone are 
given the right to govern their elections.  There were significant 
irregularities in the second as well both of them led to a theft 
perpetrated on the American People.  Why do I say so, well, because it's 
true.

>given you are allegedly a christian democrat who wildly supported Kerry
>(according to your posts at The TIP), but geesh, why don't you MoveOn????
>  
>

Actually, I'm a libertarian (it says so on thetip if you'd been able to 
read).  I'm just a -real- libertarian.  The kind that believes that 
people should be free from the oppression of a large government enforced 
by military might.  Hence my disdain for you pretenders taking over the 
leadership of the libertarian party making it over in the image of the 
modern conservative revolution.


Robbie Lindauer



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jul 15 18:34:57 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:34:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:39:59PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Well, all things are possible, but some are more likely than others.
> A civilization whose goal is to colonize as far and fast as possible
> seems the most unlikely. Like, where is it? You only need one, ever,

Precisely. There isn't any.

> in the universe.

No, you need to be in their light cone. The clock starting ticking with
sufficient metallicity, which takes time to enrich. Which is very different
from "one, ever, in the universe". The farther you look, the older stuff you
see. The lower the probability. And what of smart critters? Solar system is
probably lousy with life, but can you detect it, even if you know where to
look?

Are you genuinely surprised that a detector can always observe detect itself,
even if the detector density is damn low? And that observation only tells you
at at least one detector exists, and nothing beyond that, until you can find a
causally unentangled another sample?

> My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to

My view is exactly opposite, natch.

> colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a bunch

Star Trek? Your value of Singularity must be low, low, awfully low.

> of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever they
> go. How immature is that?

Life is always immature, regardless how old it is. 

> We are not talking about Bush III's latest ten year plan here.
> 
> These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to

Why must postbiology be immortal? It doesn't figure, if the fitness function
fluctuates wildly. Why should mushrooms and mice be not disposable?

> 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
> to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web

Current bacteria already operate at the nanoscale level. (Okay, low
functionality concentration, but still).

> that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
> they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> centuries to go to another star system?

Kudzu has no problem going places, absolutely. It never gets bored, too.

> It is even debatable whether they will remain long in this physical
> universe or start creating universes of their own. ;)

If rapture strikes, will it also transcend the kudzu? All of it?

-- 
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/20050715/6c69ec69/attachment.bin>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Fri Jul 15 19:04:48 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:04:48 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715163143.93936.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715163143.93936.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507152103210.26160@zeus>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>On the contrary, the Red Cross estimated 10,000 deaths from the start
>of hostilities through Feb 2004, so the above sites current count of
>22,000-25,000 seems a little high, but not excessively so. As the Red
>Cross has several hundred people in-country and works closely to
>support the Red Crescent, which has thousands of people all over Iraq,
>I would trust their numbers.

So now the question becomes why the estimates differ so much. I briefly
googled to find the methods used by the Red Cross in their estimate, but
didn't find them.

Alfio


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 20:19:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D7FD51.4040504@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050715201907.98872.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:> 
> Actually, I'm a libertarian (it says so on thetip if you'd been able
> to read). I'm just a -real- libertarian. The kind that believes that 
> people should be free from the oppression of a large government
> enforced by military might. Hence my disdain for you pretenders
> taking over the leadership of the libertarian party making it over
> in the image of the modern conservative revolution.

Ah, you are one of those left wing pacifist isolationists who can't
tolerate any opinion but your own. No true libertarian would have
campaigned or voted for Kerry.

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  Fri Jul 15 20:37:55 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:55 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715201907.98872.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715201907.98872.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D81EA3.7070303@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:> 
>  
>
>>Actually, I'm a libertarian (it says so on thetip if you'd been able
>>to read). I'm just a -real- libertarian. The kind that believes that 
>>people should be free from the oppression of a large government
>>enforced by military might. Hence my disdain for you pretenders
>>taking over the leadership of the libertarian party making it over
>>in the image of the modern conservative revolution.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, you are one of those left wing pacifist isolationists who can't
>tolerate any opinion but your own. No true libertarian would have
>campaigned or voted for Kerry.
>  
>

You remain one of the reasons why the Libertarians are a joke party.  I 
invite you again to resign as soon as possible.

R


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jul 15 20:49:39 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:49:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Englishman in New York
Message-ID: <42D82163.7070107@mindspring.com>

  http://pdberger.com/?p=394\

Englishman in New York
11 Jul 2005 01:59 pm

On London

I have been preoccupied over the past few days with a tangle of 
questions and thoughts connected by the London bombing. Not thoughts 
of the why they did it, how they did it, or who did it variety. I 
have been wondering why and how this has affected me. Selfish, I 
know. But also, it is the only way I can feel myself a part of this 
whole, sorry situation.

My thoughts and ideas about the War on Terror, US Foreign Policy, and 
European Foreign Policy (if it can be called or characterized as 
such) has been in a state of flux for the past six months or longer. 
It is no coincidence that the last four books to enter my apartment 
were Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc, Christopher Hitchens' Love, 
Poverty, and War, Scott Anderson's The Man Who Tried to Save the 
World, and Bob Dylan's Chronicles (Chronicles, the exception, I hope 
proves the rule).

Warning: there follows a list of gratuitous admissions.

1. I have been on two anti-war/anti-Bush marches in New York (2003/2004)
2. I believed that the September 11 attacks on America were the 
ghosts of US     foreign policy coming back to haunt it.
3. On September 11, 2001, and on July 8, 2005, (and on all the 
bombings in between) I acted as though it had nothing to do with me.

The first admission is no source of shame. I still believe that the 
way the US invaded Iraq was wrong; the Bush administration falsely 
linked Saddam and September 11 [Wrong, Bucko, but you've got time to 
learn that, too--BW], the UN was brushed aside and terribly weakened, 
the electorate in the US and the UK was misled on the road to war, 
and plans for running the country post Saddam were not thought 
through.

Hussein was a dictator. I support his removal just as I would the 
removal of Robert Mugabe. But if you have to lie to your electorate 
in order to go to war, then perhaps you are not going to war for the 
right reasons in the first place.
On the second admission I confess that I feel woefully uneducated. 
There is a school of thought which points to "US imperialism" and 
draws a winding line from the mountains of Afghanistan during the 
1980s to the man behind the attacks on September 11. They view the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, US backed despots in the Middle East 
and the presence of US troops and oil interests there, as the obvious 
explanation for these people's hatred of Western society. Among the 
second school of thought, writers like Christopher Hitchens point to 
the rise of Islamofascism over the past 40 years and argue that 
Islamic terrorists would attack Western Democracies no matter what:

But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, 
and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate 
about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals 
don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do 
like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific 
inquiry, its separation of religion from the state.

The contrast between these two world views has been my main 
preoccupation during the past few days. I spent so long believing in 
the first school of thought, and the shift that I have made towards 
the second camp has been so gradual, that I think it has been 
perceptible to everybody except myself. While not wholeheartedly 
agreeing with School Number 2, I can no longer agree with School 
Number 1. I am in the unfortunate position of not knowing anything 
anymore-of being somewhere in between.

If living in New York has had one major effect during the past year 
and a half, it is to open my eyes to a different world view. To put 
it another way. When I immersed myself in Russia for five years 
between 1995 and 2000, it opened my left eye. Living in America is 
opening my right eye. And my vision is still pretty much a blur.

The BBC that I used to love for its impartiality, I have 
"discovered," is far from impartial. [NO KIDDIN? BW] I don't love it 
any less for this. And I think that the license fee is the surest way 
keep the world's greatest (and I mean this) news/current affairs 
institution at its best. But I do wish that they would admit that 
news output is only as impartial as the people who produce it. And I 
am yet to meet an impartial human being--especially an impartial 
journalist.

Likewise, the great British Press, the envy of the world, contains a 
mass of half-truths, deliberate omissions, undeclared interests, and 
regurgitated press releases. It chases its tail to produce almost a 
dozen national newspapers that carry the same story, albeit of 
varying lengths, each and every day. And regional journalism, at 
least as I knew it, has been reduced to filling space.
The result is not a lie on the scale of Pravda. But it is still a 
false world view masquerading as the truth.

So, after 12 months of living in New York is it any surprise that 
Israel starts to look a little less evil? And that Europe starts to 
look a little more parochial? That the US starts to look a little 
more like it is trying to solve some of the world's problems, and 
that it is doing so despite the sometimes unfair criticism of its 
allies? If in England it always looked like the US was the playground 
bully, then from the US it looks a lot more like an embattled 
headteacher in a problem school.

So what does any of this have to do with me?

Like many Englanders abroad I received the phone calls and emails 
last Friday. I reproduce one below:

'Paul, heard from your London friends? Hope they are all safe.
So after having been abroad for both the 9/11 attacks as a UK resident, and
today's London attacks as a New Yorker, do you still feel somewhat distanced
from the reality? I remember you said that you felt indifferent, maybe even
unfazed in 2001.'

Indifferent and unfazed are exactly the qualities I expressed 
throughout Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I don't have to express them 
any more because we are past the point when people will ask. But what 
bothered me was the fact that while I expressed both qualities to a 
frustrating degree in front of my wife, I was in fact neither 
indifferent nor unfazed within.

The reason for this is at the heart of the gradual metamorphosis I 
have just attempted to explain. On September 11, I thought I knew the 
reasons why the attacks had taken place. And it was not my fault. 
Moreover, it was somebody else's fault - the US's - and they were 
reaping what they had sown. But in the past 12 months I have slowly 
come to understand that the worldview I held was tainted by a media 
that sees the problems in the world (dictatorship in Iraq, 
authoritarianism/terrorism in the Middle East, the 
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, global warming) as being the fault of 
the United States. All of this from a country and a continent that 
seems to have done little itself to try to redress the balance in a 
world which it has corrupted/manipulated to a gargantuan degree 
during the past 100 years.

"We know that," comes the cry. "But the US has the power to do so 
much good and yet it chooses to do the opposite."

Really? Should the US have stayed out of Kosovo? Should it have 
stayed out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Should it leave North Korea and 
Iran to their own devices? Is it the US alone that has not done 
enough to stop the killing in Darfur? Or is Britain, Europe, Africa, 
just as much to blame? Why are we not rushing headlong into Zimbabwe 
to get rid of Robert Mugabe? Is it worse to do something? Or is it 
worse to do nothing?

At this moment, I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has done 
more than most to help the US get rid of the Taliban and Saddam 
Hussein. And I think that it would do other Europeans some good to 
think again about what their countries have achieved, if anything, to 
try to stem the tide of dictatorships and terrorism around the world. 
They should wonder whether they are really asking themselves the hard 
questions. Or whether they are shrugging their shoulders and blaming 
America because that is what they have been brought up to do.
Would the world be a safer place if the people who bombed Bali, New 
York, Madrid, and London, were in power in Africa and the Middle 
East? If not, how do we stop them? If we lived in Israel would we 
believe that a return to our 1967 borders would mean the chance of a 
life lived in peace? If not, how can we ensure that for them?

This weekend I took my first trip to Washington DC, where I had to 
suffer the Smithsonian National Museum of American History's terrible 
exhibition The Price of Freedom: Americans at War. If it had been 
simplified any further it would have just had the words "The Good 
Guys Won and the Bad Guys Lost. We were the good guys." under each 
exhibit. I was further sickened by the prevalence of "Freedom is not 
free" T-shirts being sported by passers-by on the Mall, and by one 
woman's remark at a service station on the freeway who said "It seems 
like all the coaches in the free world have stopped here at once."

The sooner Americans detach themselves from the delusion that they 
are the sole arbiters of freedom and democracy in the world the 
better. Countless countries could give America a lesson in those two 
subjects, especially on human rights.
But by the same token, Europe and the rest of the world must accept 
that far from being playground bullies, Americans are actually 
do-gooders with very heavy hands. A few decades ago, they would have 
backed any despotic ruler if it meant they could have their way. 
Well, they learned their lesson. Nowadays they hope that planting 
democracy in the Middle East will reap its rewards for generations to 
come. It's time they were lent a more willing hand.



-- 
"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 brentn at freeshell.org  Fri Jul 15 22:24:50 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:24:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <42D81EA3.7070303@aol.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-42800190F57F11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/15/05 10:37) Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

>You remain one of the reasons why the Libertarians are a joke party.  I 
>invite you again to resign as soon as possible.


As a corroborating aside, I will point out that the willingness of the 'capital-L" Libertarians to tie their so-called principles in knots to support the current GOP's big-government, police-state politics is just a symptom of the underlying pathos of the party. Until the LP wakes up and realizes that its no longer the Reagan era, they will be missing the opportunity to influence and shape the American political debate. As it is, they are content to simply be Republicans who like pot and prostitutes.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 15 22:33:16 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:33:16 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - What's wrong with the actual libertarian
	party.
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-42800190F57F11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <r02010500-1038-42800190F57F11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <42D839AC.4060505@aol.com>

Brent Neal wrote:

> (7/15/05 10:37) Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>You remain one of the reasons why the Libertarians are a joke party.  I 
>>invite you again to resign as soon as possible.
>>    
>>
>
>
>As a corroborating aside, I will point out that the willingness of the 'capital-L" Libertarians to tie their so-called principles in knots to support the current GOP's big-government, police-state politics is just a symptom of the underlying pathos of the party. Until the LP wakes up and realizes that its no longer the Reagan era, they will be missing the opportunity to influence and shape the American political debate. As it is, they are content to simply be Republicans who like pot and prostitutes.
>  
>

Don't forget gerbils and druidism. "not that there's anything wrong with 
that"

Robbie Lindauer


From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 15 23:05:16 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:05:16 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation for Lorrey to Defend Rove
In-Reply-To: <42D839AC.4060505@aol.com>
References: <r02010500-1038-42800190F57F11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
	<42D839AC.4060505@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42D8412C.3090908@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Lorrey:

Could you fill us in about what the insane are going to be saying now.

I've come up with my top-ten-list:

1)  It's not really illegal.
2)  Rove didn't do it "on purpose".
3)  Valerie -deserved it- whether or not it was legal is not the issue.
4)  It's really Hadley's fault, we should promote him again.
5)  If it was illegal, it was really a partisan law designed to encumber 
the president, we should retroactively revoke it.
6)  It depends on what you mean by "told".
7)  Anyone who would believe that the President's Press Secretary would 
break the law by revealing top secret information in order to punish a 
political enemy must be some kind of communist conspiracy nut.
8)  Hey look over there (run out of the room).
9)  Rove is a career public servant, patriot and a national hero.  It's 
embarassing for the democrats to be attacking such a loyal and 
dependable public servant for the obvious and purely political reason 
that they lost the last election fair and square.
10) "Jane you ignorant slut."

Can you top that?  I'm looking for help and figured you'd be the first 
person I should ask.

Thanks,

Robbie Lindauer


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 23:19:12 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-42800190F57F11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050715231912.53677.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> As a corroborating aside, I will point out that the
> willingness of the 'capital-L" Libertarians to tie
> their so-called principles in knots to support the
> current GOP's big-government, police-state politics
> is just a symptom of the underlying pathos of the
> party. Until the LP wakes up and realizes that its
> no longer the Reagan era, they will be missing the
> opportunity to influence and shape the American
> political debate. As it is, they are content to
> simply be Republicans who like pot and prostitutes.

I am a green party member that likes guns and dislikes
some (but not all) welfare programs but votes democrat
because of the whole police state trip the GOP has
been going on as well as their constant attacking of
biotech. What does that make me? 

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 15 23:39:57 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:39:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
In-Reply-To: <20050715175330.5843.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715165721.GB20080@ofb.net>
	<20050715175330.5843.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050715233957.GA14617@seniti.ugcs.caltech.edu>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Specifically, the Tamil Tigers are claimed to have pioneered the
> explosive belt that is now in use by al Qaeda, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic
> Jihad, and other groups. However, this itself is in doubt, as such
> belts were in use as far back as the Vietnam War, when the Viet Cong
> engaged in suicide attacks in downtown Saigon.

Well, the Viet Cong are even less Muslim than the Tamil Tigers.

And Pape seems to exclude the kamikaze bombers because they were backed by a
government, but I think he doesn't need to.  His basic claim is that suicide
attacks aren't abnormal or dependent on weird religious ideas, but on group
support, typically motivated by perceived military logic.  WW II Japan would
fit in nicely.

> The originators of the technology are irrelevant. The important
> questioin is who is the primary user of the technology today. 

Muslims, at least while things in Sri Lanks are peaceful.  But is that because
they're Muslim, or because the people who right now feel most aggrieved and
without other means of attack happen to be Muslim?

> Pape's opinions are under serious attack because he seems to dismiss
> the religious motives of the attackers as irrelevant, yet at the same

   Religion may be the prime motivation for some individual suicide
   bombers, Pape admits, and some groups may be religiously based,
   including al Qaeda.

> time claims that the preception of the attackers that their homeland is
> being 'invaded' is based on the religion of the invaders, i.e.
> christian, atheist, etc... He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

I don't think so.  The religion is a social label, a group ID.  It can be
invoked as such without depending on the beliefs behind it, so that the
bombers aren't bombing because they really believe there'll be 72 virgins
waiting for them, but simply because they feel their group is under attack and
this is how they can defend it.  

And "Crusader" isn't just "Christian", but "Christians invading our lands".

> If religion were irrelevant, then there shouldn't be such a striking
> monoculture of religious leanings or heritage of suicide bombers.

This "monoculture" *after* you added Viet Cong to the list of suicide
bombers...

I see mention of Tamil suicide bombings in mid-2000.  Since then there's been
a ceasefire.  This "monoculture" seems contingent and recent, not essentialist
to me: the tactic was pioneered by one or two groups (Viet Cong, Tigers), then
has spread to a particularly aggrieved population (Arabs).  It hasn't spread
to Christians; how many Christians have need of such tactcs?  Most are at
peace, or else have other means of combat.  Africa is full of people at more
or less equal levels, with the people who could really use such tactics --
such as in Zimbabwe -- perhaps too poor to afford the bombs, or lacking the
social cohesion to encourage suicide bombers.

   What has Pape most worried at the moment is Iraq. That nation will
   soon overtake Sri Lanka as the site of the highest number of suicide
   terrorist attacks.

So a plurality of suicide attacks have in fact not been Muslim or Arab at all.
When that changes, it will be after a few years of intense attacks in Iraq,
during which time the Tamil Tigers have had a ceasefire.

> spent time in Pakistan undergoing 'religious' study, and at least three
> of the four became associated through soccer matches. It isn't
> impossible to imagine that one can infect another with religous memes
> outside a madrassa, and it appears they all travelled significant

It also isn't impossible to imagine that the relevant memes spread aren't ones
of supernatural belief but of group identification and grievance.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From brentn at freeshell.org  Fri Jul 15 23:44:33 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:44:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050715231912.53677.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-65D93631F58A11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/15/05 16:19) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>I am a green party member that likes guns and dislikes
>some (but not all) welfare programs but votes democrat
>because of the whole police state trip the GOP has
>been going on as well as their constant attacking of
>biotech. What does that make me? 


More mainstream than most of the GOP?

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Jul 15 23:59:30 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:59:30 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050715160713.89703.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000901c58999$3daa4de0$0d98e03c@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> Spike wrote:
>> 
>> >> > > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
>> >> > > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
>> > 
>> > Those who have indulged in Monday morning quarterbacking
>> > the U.S. presidency sure make that job sound easy.  Who
>> > shall I write in for your vice president?
>> 
>> Well heck Spike there are just so many fine candidates its to
>> hard to pick :-) The most important thing is to keep incompetent
>> and or dishonourable oathbreaking lawbreaking people *out*
>> of the job that is "just one heartbeat away". 
>> 
>> Maybe John McCain. Maybe Teddy Kennedy. 
> 
> You think "Splash" Kennedy would make a "competent" and
> "honorable" and "non-oathbreaking" and "non-lawbreaking" 
> president? 

As I said Mike I only gave the question about 5 seconds thought.
If "Splash" as you are calling him is unelectable simply pick another.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat so I named one each of
what I am confident are many fine Republican politicians and 
Democrats.
  
One thing I *like* about Kennedy is that I think he said somewhere
that the doctrine of preemption is dead. I think he is somewhat
overoptimistic on that. But its a noble sentiment and a very very
worthy goal. I can hardly think of a more dangerous doctrine in
the hands of an administration in a era of terror. The doctrine of
preemption may preempt you and me right out of our legal rights.
 
I suspect that our very genes 'know' the logic of tit for tat and that
those that want to use the doctrine of preemption when the stakes
are actual human lives are publicly declaring that they want to be
able to have the occassional free slug with impunity. We'll kill a 
few innocents as well as the bad uns, but it doesn't matter, let God
or Allah sort em out. And oh killing is such great sport and it makes
such great television. <I am being ironic if any newbies are reading
this. >

Brett Paatsch



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 16 01:00:38 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
In-Reply-To: <20050715233957.GA14617@seniti.ugcs.caltech.edu>
Message-ID: <20050716010038.60333.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> 
> And Pape seems to exclude the kamikaze bombers
> because they were backed by a
> government, but I think he doesn't need to.  His
> basic claim is that suicide
> attacks aren't abnormal or dependent on weird
> religious ideas, but on group
> support, typically motivated by perceived military
> logic.  WW II Japan would
> fit in nicely.


Actually though kamikaze bombers were
religiously/spiritually/culturally motivated. The
tradition is based in large part on Bushido/Zen
Buddhism with some holdovers from ancient Shintoism.
The Zen Buddhism/Bushido influence is one wherein it
is perceived that for a warrior, death must not be
something one tries to avoid but is instead something
that one faces squarely. There is an old saying that
any one warrior can defeat another of even greater
skill if one is willing to die in the process. Add to
that the cultural tradition of honor, wherein it
preferable to die in the course of a mission than to
fail the mission. The ancient animistic religion of
Shintoism lent the name Kamikaze to the bomber pilots.
Kamikazi means "spirit of the wind". It derives from
ancient times, when Japan was caught completely by
surprise by an invading fleet of Mongols. The Japanese
saw their doom approaching and they could not do
anything about it. Then out of nowhere, a typhoon set
in and dashed the Mongolian ships to pieces before
they could make landfall. They attributed this stroke
of luck as a boon from Kami Kaze the "spirit of the
wind". By calling themselves Kamikaze, the pilots were
essentially settling a debt the nation of Japan owed
to the gods of the wind.  

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  Sat Jul 16 01:06:24 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-65D93631F58A11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050716010624.8188.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> More mainstream than most of the GOP?
> 

But that doesn't answer my question. I want to know
what party I most identify with. Every party I have
examined would force me to compromise something I
believe in to "fit in". The greens are a waste of
time. The communists are just plain unrealistic. The
democrats are too statist. The republicans are too
jingoist and "holier than thou". And if this list is
any indication, I don't even know what the
Libertarians are. I guess my friends hit the nail on
the head when they call me a Stuartarian.


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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 16 01:41:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation for Lorrey to Defend Rove
In-Reply-To: <42D8412C.3090908@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050716014115.31021.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If Rove broke a law, he should be prosecuted. 

Contrary to the dems and the media claims, from what I've heard,
Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent and had not been for some
time prior to Rove's disclosure. She wasn't overseas anywhere, she had
been bumped up to domestic analyst in the DC area. So the applicable
law, which covers protecting undercover agents, informants, and
double-agents from being discovered, may not be stretched to cover this
particular instance. We'll have to see what the courts decide.

Now, if we are going to be picking nits, how about pursuing Valerie
Plame for nepotism in hiring her husband? And when is that prosecution
of John Kerry going to happen for his aiding and comforting the enemy,
as well as participating in a vote by the VVAW on assasinating US
Senators?

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

> Dear Mr. Lorrey:
> 
> Could you fill us in about what the insane are going to be saying
> now.
> 
> I've come up with my top-ten-list:
> 
> 1)  It's not really illegal.
> 2)  Rove didn't do it "on purpose".
> 3)  Valerie -deserved it- whether or not it was legal is not the
> issue.
> 4)  It's really Hadley's fault, we should promote him again.
> 5)  If it was illegal, it was really a partisan law designed to
> encumber 
> the president, we should retroactively revoke it.
> 6)  It depends on what you mean by "told".
> 7)  Anyone who would believe that the President's Press Secretary
> would 
> break the law by revealing top secret information in order to punish
> a 
> political enemy must be some kind of communist conspiracy nut.
> 8)  Hey look over there (run out of the room).
> 9)  Rove is a career public servant, patriot and a national hero. 
> It's 
> embarassing for the democrats to be attacking such a loyal and 
> dependable public servant for the obvious and purely political reason
> 
> that they lost the last election fair and square.
> 10) "Jane you ignorant slut."
> 
> Can you top that?  I'm looking for help and figured you'd be the
> first 
> person I should ask.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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
"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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul 16 02:15:46 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:15:46 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050715033646.66915.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006201c589ac$46ae1080$0d98e03c@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> Damien Sullivan wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> >
>> >> meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of
>> >> any of those "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons
>> >> for invading Iraq.
>> >
>> > There's also wilful delusion, misrepresentation to self.  And
>> > choosing to listen to the Defense Dept. instead of the State
>> > when Defense says "we'll be welcomed" and State says 
>> > "uh, maybe not".
>> >
>> > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
>> > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
>> 
>> Just a quick note Damien S. to let you know I did not overlook
>> this post.   I found your link interesting, writers that can get
>> close to people who want to tell their story, can tend to be
>> good (ie. informative and systematic if reluctant) witnesses as
>> to what the would-be story teller or public-persona builder
>> (the politician) was actually like, and thinking, at a certain point
>> in time, thanks.
>> 
>> Writers tend to know that of course and are often not super
>> eager to be called forward or subpoenaed as witnesses against
>> people in power, especially whilst they are still in power,
>> afterwards of course, 'everyone' has an inside story.
> 
> Keep in mind that GNN is produced by Pauly Shore's production
> company. Thats even worse than depending on the Daily Show 
> for accurate news journalism.

Okay thanks for the warning. I've never heard of Pauly Shore or 
the Daily Show they must be American phenomenon. 

With respect to the link that Damien S. provided though, yes it
happens to be on the GNN site. But that doesn't seem relevant
to me. 

The Author's name, Russ Baker, is right there at the top of it.

At the bottom Russ Baker is said to be an award-winnning 
independent journalist who has been published in The New York
Times, The Nation, Washington Post, The Telegraph (UK), 
Sydney Morning-Herald, and Der Spiegal, among many others.

So, GNN's credibility or Paul Shorey's isn't the issue, unless they
are pretending that what was not really written by Russ Baker was.

This is easily solved. Ask Russ Baker did he right the article.

Would you like to ask him or shall I ?

I will happily ask his if I can get hold of an email address or
any sort of contact point. Authors are not usually reluctant to
claim credit for their work or to slow to deny that what has
been attributed to them falsely was not them.

Would you like to ask him?

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 16 02:36:09 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:36:09 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Invitation for Lorrey to Defend Rove
In-Reply-To: <20050716014115.31021.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050716014115.31021.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D87299.9090908@aol.com>

Sorry, that was covered under #1 on the top ten list.

What you lack in intelligence you don't make up for in originality.

I've determined that you're too easy a target.  Making fun of "official 
party-head libertarians" is like shooting fish in a bucket.

May your life be pleasant and please, please, please do the world a 
favor and resign from politics, take up knitting or something.

Robbie Lindauer

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>If Rove broke a law, he should be prosecuted. 
>
>Contrary to the dems and the media claims, from what I've heard,
>Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent and had not been for some
>time prior to Rove's disclosure. She wasn't overseas anywhere, she had
>been bumped up to domestic analyst in the DC area. So the applicable
>law, which covers protecting undercover agents, informants, and
>double-agents from being discovered, may not be stretched to cover this
>particular instance. We'll have to see what the courts decide.
>
>Now, if we are going to be picking nits, how about pursuing Valerie
>Plame for nepotism in hiring her husband? And when is that prosecution
>of John Kerry going to happen for his aiding and comforting the enemy,
>as well as participating in a vote by the VVAW on assasinating US
>Senators?
>
>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Dear Mr. Lorrey:
>>
>>Could you fill us in about what the insane are going to be saying
>>now.
>>
>>I've come up with my top-ten-list:
>>
>>1)  It's not really illegal.
>>2)  Rove didn't do it "on purpose".
>>3)  Valerie -deserved it- whether or not it was legal is not the
>>issue.
>>4)  It's really Hadley's fault, we should promote him again.
>>5)  If it was illegal, it was really a partisan law designed to
>>encumber 
>>the president, we should retroactively revoke it.
>>6)  It depends on what you mean by "told".
>>7)  Anyone who would believe that the President's Press Secretary
>>would 
>>break the law by revealing top secret information in order to punish
>>a 
>>political enemy must be some kind of communist conspiracy nut.
>>8)  Hey look over there (run out of the room).
>>9)  Rove is a career public servant, patriot and a national hero. 
>>It's 
>>embarassing for the democrats to be attacking such a loyal and 
>>dependable public servant for the obvious and purely political reason
>>
>>that they lost the last election fair and square.
>>10) "Jane you ignorant slut."
>>
>>Can you top that?  I'm looking for help and figured you'd be the
>>first 
>>person I should ask.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>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
>"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 brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 16 03:49:29 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:49:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050716010624.8188.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-9CCBFE88F5AC11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/15/05 18:06) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>But that doesn't answer my question. I want to know
>what party I most identify with. Every party I have
>examined would force me to compromise something I
>believe in to "fit in". The greens are a waste of
>time. The communists are just plain unrealistic. The
>democrats are too statist. The republicans are too
>jingoist and "holier than thou". And if this list is
>any indication, I don't even know what the
>Libertarians are. I guess my friends hit the nail on
>the head when they call me a Stuartarian.


Let me turn the question back on you. Why do you want to identify with a political party? 

In my time, I've been registered Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat.  But I vote for whoever I feel most comfortable with, no matter what their party is.  From what you said, it sounds like you probably do too. So why do you care?

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 16 04:48:48 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-9CCBFE88F5AC11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050716044849.26857.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Let me turn the question back on you. Why do you
> want to identify with a political party? 
> 
> In my time, I've been registered Libertarian,
> Republican, and Democrat.  But I vote for whoever I
> feel most comfortable with, no matter what their
> party is.  From what you said, it sounds like you
> probably do too. So why do you care?

Because these days, it seems that voting for one party
or another is not quite enough. What makes the
Republicans so strong right now is that they do far
more than vote. If they are reporters they write every
story with a strong republican slant. If they are
judges, they rule down party lines. If they are
businessmen, they pour tons of their hard earned money
into campaign funds. If they are net-geeks, they set
up Republican blogs that try to discredit everything
the other party says. If they are rabble rousers, they
launch pro-war protests to counter the anti-war
protests of the left. Politics in the U.S. seems to
have changed drastically from what it was even a
decade ago, when most Americans were politically
active for one day in November. I almost feel that if
I can't somehow work my political views into every
facet of my life, I am in danger of losing what little
say I have in government. But in order for me to be
that passionate, that biased, I need a cause I can
believe in. And so far no party fits the bill for me. 
     How long before teachers start grading their
students based on their party affiliation? "Sorry
Johnny but your dad is a communist, so you get a D."
How long before scientific grant funding commitees and
peer review occur down party lines? It would kill
American science, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
started happening. Why are the stakes so much higher
today than they were a mere decade ago? Why are so
many people just discarding any semblence of
objectivity and sportsmanship to the side? What
happened? Was it 9-11? Was it practically vote by vote
coverage on election night? When did the people of
America stop trusting one another enough to even
listen to what someone who thinks differently has to
say? Is it all part of Bin Ladin's master plan? When
is it going to escalate into violence? It did in the
last days of the roman empire. Gangs roaming the
street strong arming the voters into voting for one
consul or tribune or another. I can almost see that
happening here in the America. I mean look at this
list for example. No compromise, no meeting of minds,
just all out verbal brawls. Everything I say is the
truth... Everything you say is brainwashed propaganda
because YOU SIR or MADAM are a party
schill/stalinist/facist/moron. Everybody is
complaining about the same problems and yet everybody
is convinced it is the other party's fault. Who do I
blame, when I don't know who the OTHER party is? 

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  Sat Jul 16 05:10:11 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:10:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15933078,00.html

Let your body do the downloading
Leo Lewis
15jul05

IF you spend hours downloading songs to your iPod, the days of fiddling 
around with wires are coming to an end.

A Japanese company has discovered that the best cables may be your arms and 
legs.

According to NTT Laboratories, your whole body is the perfect conductor for 
electronic data, meaning that information such as music and films could be 
downloaded in seconds via your elbow.

NTT, and the team of scientists that invented the "Red Tacton" system, 
envisage a future in which the human body acts as a non-stop conduit for 
information.

Wireless networks and devices, often hampered by intermittent service, will 
eventually be replaced, NTT says, by "human area networks".

The developers are convinced the new technology will be "highly disruptive" 
- undermining existing wireless industries.

Field tests are under way, and the first commercial appearance of Red 
Tacton is expected next year.

The Red Tacton chips will be embedded in machines and contain a transmitter 
and receiver built to send and accept data stored in a digital format.

The chip then takes any type of file, such as an MP3 music file or email, 
and converts it into a format that takes the form of digital pulses that 
can be passed and read through a human being's electric field. The chip in 
the receiving device reads these tiny changes and converts the file back 
into its original form.

With Red Tacton sensors miniaturised and built into every type of device 
and product, the list of potential uses is endless, said Hideki Sakamoto of 
NTT.

By simply touching an advertising poster, for example, product information 
and an order form could be sent to your laptop.

Shake hands with a new contact, and every detail that would normally appear 
on a business card will leap across your arms and download itself to your 
mobile phone.

Because the data transfer between Red Tacton machines involves no dial-up 
or logging-in, the transfer of information is virtually instantaneous.

The Times



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 05:13:41 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:13:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Minarchism, Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism etc
In-Reply-To: <20050715080513.39290.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050715080513.39290.qmail@web31509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc6050715221348a546c2@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> 
> Once you seen one cult, all the other cults tend to
> blur together in one's mind ;)

### I'd say, once you stop thinking like an economist, your mind gets
too blurry to tell the dfference.

-------------------------------------
> 
> As to Minarchism, most Libertarians I know condemn as
> 'ideologically impure' any-one who thinks the
> government has a role beyond regulating against force
> and fraud.  I named quite a few goods and services in
> the earlier thread which go beyond simple MInarchism.
> In fact, on the FSP forums even pure Minarchists are
> sometimes condemned as 'traitors to the Libertarian
> cause' by the anarcho-capitalists.

### I'll have to move over there and help kick some traitors' butts.

-------------------------------------------

> 
> For heavens man, when you are going to finally snap
> out of your anarcho-capitalist lunacy?
> 
### Never. I am in the vanguard of the forces of light and goodness,
the harbinger of greatness to come, the peace-loving, the smart, the
true, anarcho-capitalist forever.

How can you, the fallen one, an apostate, upbraid me?

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 05:19:52 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:19:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bugging Max More
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605071522207752c71e@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe my questions to Max got lost in the flurry of post in the
"Authenticity..." thread, so I'd like to pose them again. I am
genuinely interested in the answers.

Here is a part of my earlier post directed at Max:

Max wrote:
> You don't have to like my (rather modest) change in views, but it is
> important to me to resolve these conflicting perceptions.

### Max, I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on the differences
between your current views and libertarianism. I greatly admire your
work, and it is possible I could yet again learn something new from
you. I am an anarcho-capitalist now, thanks in part to discussions on
this list.

<snip>

Is your disavowal of libertarianism due to a fundamental change of
your personal philosophy, an elaboration of it, or perhaps an
adaptation of methods to existing circumstances?

Rafal


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul 16 05:20:03 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:20:03 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c589c6$05a66cd0$0d98e03c@homepc>

> A Japanese company has discovered that the best cables may be your arms 
> and legs.

Hype.

Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul 16 08:55:11 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:55:11 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] From Bob Woodwards book Plan of Attack
Message-ID: <011301c589e4$13791ba0$0d98e03c@homepc>

The following are the last few pages of the epilogue of Bob Woodward's book written March 1, 2004. and so, before George W Bush was re-elected

and before a new Iraqi government had been established, if indeed it can said to be established even now. 



I got a lot out of the book, because I wanted to know the mind of George W Bush and some of the key players in his administration about the Iraq war and I thought Bob Woodward of  'Watergate' and of The Washington Post would tell the story accurately. He was able to inview the people including the president personally. Others may be interested also, and may want to read the book. I recommend it.  I think it might become an interesting historical document if George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are impeached. 



--------------



On February 5, 2004, the one-year anniversary of Powell's WMD presentation to the U.N., he [George Tenet CIA director] made a rare speech at Georgetown University.

 

"We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said of the WMD search, directly disputing Kay's public statement. "Any call I make today is necessarily provisional. Why? Because we need more time and we need more data." He said that they had discovered that Iraq had research and development, intent and capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. Halfway through the speech he acknowledged they had not found biological or chemical weapons.

 

The CIA was reviewing and examining everything in order to improve its performance, and had discovered that one of their sources had "fabricated" information, Tenet said. He noted that the CIA's human spies had provided the information that had led to the capture of some top al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and had played a key role in uncovering the secret nuclear proliferation network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear program who had helped Libya, Iran and North Korea with their nuclear programs. During the ongoing investigations and reviews, they would have to be careful he warned. "We cannot afford an environment to develop where analysts are afraid to make a call, where judgments are held back because analysts fear they will be wrong."

 

In a sense, Tenet was asking that there be little or no price to pay for being wrong. Given the aftermath of 9/11 and the ongoing al Qaeda threat, the CIA had adopted a mentality of warning-at-any-cost. For years the problem had been getting the attention of the policy makers and the public. Of course, it was one thing to be wrong about warning of an attack on the United States. Tenet and all the senior officials in the CIA were certain al Qaeda would attack again. Deputy Director for Operations James Pavitt told associates in early 2004, "We'll still get hit again. We'll still get a massive hit of some kind. Absolutely. Absolutely." But, he added, "If five years passes, six years, seven years passes and we don't have one, I will be perfectly satisfied and comfortable having been wrong." But being wrong about information that Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons - the basis for war - could hardly leave anyone satisfied and comfortable.

 

As Tenet went over the intelligence again and again, he acknowledged to associates that the CIA and he should have stated up front in the NIE and in other intelligence that the evidence was not ironclad, that it did not include a smoking gun.

 

"HOLY SHIT!" Powell said to himself as he read a copy of Tenet's speech. Here was the CIA director saying that the aluminum tubes they had previously been so confident were for use as centrifuges for enriching uranium were possibly for regular artillery shells. Powell remembered that he had challenged them on this before his U.N. presentation a year ago. John McLaughlin had gone into a long recitation about the thickness of the walls of the tubes and the spinning rates, arguing they had to be for centrifuges. Now Tenet was saying, "We have additional data to collect and more sources to question," and his agency "may have overestimated" the progress Saddam was making on development of nuclear weapons. Powell felt let down. 

 

Tenet was backing away from previous assertions of certainty on the alleged mobile biological labs. The CIA had earlier said it had five human sources for the claim, Powell remembered. Now Tenet was saying there was no consensus : "And I must tell you that we are finding discrepancies in some claims made by human sources about mobile biological weapons production before the war."

 

Powell let out another holy shit! He knew very well that Tenet had told the president "in brash New York language," as Powell once put it, that the case on WMD was a "slam dunk".

 

The president was the most visible manifestation of someone who had bought in. Powell was the second most visible, and he realized he was expendable. He knew that Tenet felt bad, and that as director he was looking out for the CIA. But this was a real mess. Powell found himself now asking the most intense and penetrating questions about anything the CIA said or told him. 

 

Powell did not share Armitage's concern that the two of them had been enablers for the Cheney-Rumsfeld hard-line policies. When he sorted out all the issues Powell felt that the State Department had done a good job and did not get sufficient credit for some of its successes such as improved relationships with China and Russia. 

 

Whenever anyone suggested that Powell should have pangs of conscience on the war, Powell said he had done everything in his power. In August 2002 he had nearly broken his spear, laying before the president all the difficulties of a war - the potential consequences and downsides. It was at a time when he thought the president was not getting the whole picture. He had warned the president. It was the president's decision, not his. Now the United States owned Iraq. Bush owned it. But Powell felt he had done his job. 

 

After Tenet's speech, the president had one message for this intelligence chief. "You did a great job," Bush told Tenet in a phone call.

 

For Rice, the process of going to war had been hard, and, she though, it should be hard. The aftermath was troubling, particularly the failure to find WMD.

 

She knew that intelligence is not fact. From all her years dealing with intelligence, going back to her time watching Russia on Bush senior's NSC staff, she was keenly aware that they relied on intelligence when they didn't know something. Though the CIA's intelligence on Iraq WMD was among the most categorical she had ever seen, intelligence has limitations as the basis for policy. It is more suggestive, reflecting possibilities and shadows rather than certainties. She had personally quizzed the agency's

national intelligence officer on the conclusions about Iraq WMD, asking at one point if 

the assertions were a fact or a judgment.

 

"It is a judgment," the officer had said.

 

As national security advisor, Rice did not dare to influence the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate, but given her closeness and status with Bush, if anyone could have warned the president to moderate his own categorical statements about WMD, it was Rice.

 

But Cheney had effectively preempted that issue on August 26, 2002, when he declared that there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD. And the president had soon followed with his own statements of certainty even before the CIA's October NIE was issued.

 

As the WMD controversy grew in 2004, the president expressed his concerns to Rice. To air all the CIA's problems could have two negatives he wanted to avoid. First, the controversy would lead to congressional investigations like the Church and Pike Committees in 1975-1976 that revealed CIA spying on U.S. citizens, drug testing and assassination plots on foreign leaders. He did not want a new witch hunt, mindful of the history of investigations that he believed had demoralized the workforce and made the CIA risk-averse for a long time. Second, Bush did not want a future president hampered if there was a need to take preemptive action against another threat.

 

At 1.30 p.m. Friday, February 6, the president appeared in the press briefing room to announce what was now old news. He said he would appoint a nine-member commission to look at American intelligence capabilities and the intelligent about WMD worldwide.

It was to determine why some prewar intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD had not been confirmed on the ground. Bush praised the people who work for the intelligence agencies as "dedicated professionals engaged in difficult and complex work. America's enemies are secretive. They are ruthless and they are resourceful. And in tracking and disrupting their activities our nation must bring to bear every tool and advantage at our command."

 

Then the president added, "Members if the commission will issue their report by March 31st, 2005."

 

One theme that emerged repeated in all the hours I spent interviewing the president and the hundreds of hours I spent interviewing others close to him or involved in the Iraq War decisions is Bush's conviction that he had made the right decision.

 

In the second interview with him, December 11, 2003, the president said he had once told Rice, " 'I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right.' I was going to act. And if it could cost the presidency, I fully realized that. But I felt so strongly that it was the right thing to do that I was prepared to do so."

 

I asked if, as he had said at one of the meetings in the run-up to the war: "I would like to be a two-term president, but if I am a one-term president, so be it."

 

"That's right," the president replied. "That is my attitude. Absolutely right." He noted that things could have gone wrong on the ground, in the run-up, or they could have become trapped with endless U.N. weapons inspections.

 

"And if this decision costs you the election?" I asked.

 

"The presidency - that's the way it is," Bush said. "Fully prepared to live with it."

 

That day, after two hours, we stood in the Oval Office and started to walk out. Darkness was beginning to settle in outside. The upcoming presidential election would perhaps be the most immediate judgment on the war, but certainly not the last. How would history judges his Iraq War? I asked.

 

It would be impossible to get the meaning right in the short run, the president said, adding he thought it would take about ten years to understand the impact and true significance of the war. 

 

There will probably be cycles, I said. As Karl Rove believes, I reminded him, all history gets measured by outcomes.

 

Bush smiled. "History," he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead."

-----





Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050716/2f79f499/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jul 16 11:05:53 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:05:53 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?Onwhatbasis?
References: <20050715033646.66915.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<006201c589ac$46ae1080$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <014e01c589f6$552ab6f0$0d98e03c@homepc>

>>> Damien Sullivan wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> meaning the US, or the Bush administration, (I'm not part of
>>> >> any of those "we") deliberately lied or misrepresented the reasons
>>> >> for invading Iraq.
>>> >
>>> > There's also wilful delusion, misrepresentation to self.  And
>>> > choosing to listen to the Defense Dept. instead of the State
>>> > when Defense says "we'll be welcomed" and State says 
>>> > "uh, maybe not".
>>> >
>>> > As for Bush's intentions, this might be disturbing:
>>> > http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
>>> 
>>> Just a quick note Damien S. to let you know I did not overlook
>>> this post.   I found your link interesting, writers that can get
>>> close to people who want to tell their story, can tend to be
>>> good (ie. informative and systematic if reluctant) witnesses as
>>> to what the would-be story teller or public-persona builder
>>> (the politician) was actually like, and thinking, at a certain point
>>> in time, thanks.
>>> 
>>> Writers tend to know that of course and are often not super
>>> eager to be called forward or subpoenaed as witnesses against
>>> people in power, especially whilst they are still in power,
>>> afterwards of course, 'everyone' has an inside story.
>> 
>> Keep in mind that GNN is produced by Pauly Shore's production
>> company. Thats even worse than depending on the Daily Show 
>> for accurate news journalism.
> 
> Okay thanks for the warning. I've never heard of Pauly Shore or 
> the Daily Show they must be American phenomenon. 
> 
> With respect to the link that Damien S. provided though, yes it
> happens to be on the GNN site. But that doesn't seem relevant
> to me. 
> 
> The Author's name, Russ Baker, is right there at the top of it.
> 
> At the bottom Russ Baker is said to be an award-winnning 
> independent journalist who has been published in The New York
> Times, The Nation, Washington Post, The Telegraph (UK), 
> Sydney Morning-Herald, and Der Spiegal, among many others.
> 
> So, GNN's credibility or Paul Shorey's isn't the issue, unless they
> are pretending that what was not really written by Russ Baker was.
> 
> This is easily solved. Ask Russ Baker did he right the article.
> 
> Would you like to ask him or shall I ?
> 
> I will happily ask his if I can get hold of an email address or
> any sort of contact point. Authors are not usually reluctant to
> claim credit for their work or to slow to deny that what has
> been attributed to them falsely was not them.
> 
> Would you like to ask him?

Just to let you know Mike. Russ Baker has confirmed to me
that he is the author, so it would seem that the credibility of
GNN and Paul Shorey are irrelevant.

Brett Paatsch 




From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 17:09:37 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:09:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Quantum Leaps: Science, Art and Creativity
Message-ID: <470a3c520507161009137392ad@mail.gmail.com>

Two Brain Waves blog entries on the colloquium Quantum Leaps: Science, Art 
and Creativity <http://www.magictheatre.org/pages/programs_pop.htm>. First 
blog entry<http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/archives/2005/07/13/art_science_and_creativity_to_take_a_quantum_leap_tonight.php>:
The colloquium - featuring leading scientists sharing their experiences and 
visions with an audience of artists and other creative thinkers - is 
designed to to convey the significance, excitement and drama inherent in a 
wide range of scientific endevours and discoveries, and to inspire new 
creative works exploring the worlds of science and technology.
Second blog entry<http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/archives/2005/07/14/magic_and_science_just_an_angstrom_apart.php>:
What separates artists and experimental scientists? Not much. This was the 
conclusion of last nights' Quantum Leaps panel discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050716/d01daea4/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 16 17:22:42 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:22:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <87B26EA2-0206-4BF2-8C13-090BEE198D4B@bonfireproductions.com>



Both?

This is the nth time I've heard this type of story, about the human  
body conducting digital info. I had even heard Microsoft tried to  
patent it.

IBM developed the "personal area network" so long ago I can't even  
remember. It was the same thing. Handshakes between individuals  
passed business card info, etc. etc. Up through borderline 'toothing'  
applications.


]3



On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15933078,00.html
>
> Let your body do the downloading
> Leo Lewis
> 15jul05
>
> IF you spend hours downloading songs to your iPod, the days of  
> fiddling around with wires are coming to an end.
>
> A Japanese company has discovered that the best cables may be your  
> arms and legs.
>
> According to NTT Laboratories, your whole body is the perfect  
> conductor for electronic data, meaning that information such as  
> music and films could be downloaded in seconds via your elbow.
>
> NTT, and the team of scientists that invented the "Red Tacton"  
> system, envisage a future in which the human body acts as a non- 
> stop conduit for information.
>
> Wireless networks and devices, often hampered by intermittent  
> service, will eventually be replaced, NTT says, by "human area  
> networks".
>
> The developers are convinced the new technology will be "highly  
> disruptive" - undermining existing wireless industries.
>
> Field tests are under way, and the first commercial appearance of  
> Red Tacton is expected next year.
>
> The Red Tacton chips will be embedded in machines and contain a  
> transmitter and receiver built to send and accept data stored in a  
> digital format.
>
> The chip then takes any type of file, such as an MP3 music file or  
> email, and converts it into a format that takes the form of digital  
> pulses that can be passed and read through a human being's electric  
> field. The chip in the receiving device reads these tiny changes  
> and converts the file back into its original form.
>
> With Red Tacton sensors miniaturised and built into every type of  
> device and product, the list of potential uses is endless, said  
> Hideki Sakamoto of NTT.
>
> By simply touching an advertising poster, for example, product  
> information and an order form could be sent to your laptop.
>
> Shake hands with a new contact, and every detail that would  
> normally appear on a business card will leap across your arms and  
> download itself to your mobile phone.
>
> Because the data transfer between Red Tacton machines involves no  
> dial-up or logging-in, the transfer of information is virtually  
> instantaneous.
>
> The Times
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 16 17:26:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-9CCBFE88F5AC11D9B2A3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050716172649.86718.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/15/05 18:06) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >But that doesn't answer my question. I want to know
> >what party I most identify with. Every party I have
> >examined would force me to compromise something I
> >believe in to "fit in". The greens are a waste of
> >time. The communists are just plain unrealistic. The
> >democrats are too statist. The republicans are too
> >jingoist and "holier than thou". And if this list is
> >any indication, I don't even know what the
> >Libertarians are. I guess my friends hit the nail on
> >the head when they call me a Stuartarian.
> 
> 
> Let me turn the question back on you. Why do you want to identify
> with a political party? 
> 
> In my time, I've been registered Libertarian, Republican, and
> Democrat.  But I vote for whoever I feel most comfortable with, no
> matter what their party is.  From what you said, it sounds like you
> probably do too. So why do you care?

An excellent point. However, you shouldn't feel the need to find a
party that you agree with 100% on everything. If everyone felt that
way, we'd have hundreds of political parties and everyone would have to
take the WSPQ or something like it to figure out where they stand from
election to election. Shile such a scenario is not necessarily a bad
thing, it can be quite confusing and you'd have orthodoxy police in
every group to make sure you believed in this but not this (i.e. people
like Lindauer everywhere) making politics even less pleasant than it
already is.

There is a reason why people like Lindauer are not running political
parties, and that is because the point of parties is to get votes and
get meaningful things accomplished, not pontificate pompously on
orthodox fundamentalist political philosophy and run Star Chamber
inquisitions on every members political reliability, while never
accomplishing anything of merit. Such stalinist exclusionary behavior
hardly becomes someone who claims to be a libertarian, but then again,
Lindauer spouts stalinist political propaganda with abandon as well, so
who knows his real motives.

For a long time on this list, I've been considered a 'strong' or
hard-core libertarian by many members (SIAI even described me as such
in the lead-in to my 3 Laws Unsafe essay). While my ideals of how
things 'ought' to be are right up there in the peak of extreme
libertarianism, my realism of dealing with the world as it is, and
reaching out to people all over the libertarian terrain, as well as my
willingness to determine my own position from first principles rather
than dogmatically sipping the kool-aid of certain libertarian writers,
distinguishes me from intolerant schmucks like Lindauer has shown
himself to be.

For instance, I would never go into a online community that a
libertarian I disagreed with held a long history in and start
agressively attacking him, saying he wasn't a libertarian, and
demanding he get out of politics. The smear and attack campaign that
Lindauer and his fellow kool-aid sippers have undertaken since I
started my blog has spilled over here on this list. I'm sorry if other
list members are having their list experience damaged, but I'm not
responsible for Lindauers bad behavior, and I hope the membership will
support my right to advocate practical current day policies that rest
on any valid point in the broad libertarian terrain, that covers nearly
a quarter of the political spectrum, and still call myself a
libertarian.

I will not respond to Lindauers attacks from here on. He is now in my
kill file. 

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  Sat Jul 16 17:45:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050716044849.26857.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050716174508.50412.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Because these days, it seems that voting for one party
> or another is not quite enough. What makes the
> Republicans so strong right now is that they do far
> more than vote. If they are reporters they write every
> story with a strong republican slant. If they are
> judges, they rule down party lines. If they are
> businessmen, they pour tons of their hard earned money
> into campaign funds. If they are net-geeks, they set
> up Republican blogs that try to discredit everything
> the other party says. If they are rabble rousers, they
> launch pro-war protests to counter the anti-war
> protests of the left. Politics in the U.S. seems to
> have changed drastically from what it was even a
> decade ago, when most Americans were politically
> active for one day in November. I almost feel that if
> I can't somehow work my political views into every
> facet of my life, I am in danger of losing what little
> say I have in government. But in order for me to be
> that passionate, that biased, I need a cause I can
> believe in. And so far no party fits the bill for me. 

Stuart, I've felt the same way about the Democrats since childhood.
Growing up here in New England, it has always been the Democrats who
were the overbearing presence, who dedicated massive amounts of time
and money to their cause, even here in NH. The GOP here has always
treated politics as a sport and never objected or complained no matter
how eggregiously the Democrats committed vote fraud, primarily because
the Dems always play the "they're being mean" card.

>      How long before teachers start grading their
> students based on their party affiliation? "Sorry
> Johnny but your dad is a communist, so you get a D."

While I had the highest SAT scores in my class in high school, my
grades were always below my top-level peers, because of my then
libertarian/conservative leanings, particularly in english classes,
where I tended to have the shop steward of the NEA local as my teacher
quite often. She hated my papers on 1984, Lord of the Flies, Brave New
World, Animal Farm, and other novels attacking militant collectivism,
and graded me poorly, while a neighbor of mine, who was a Dartmouth
prof, thought they were college-level work.

> How long before scientific grant funding commitees and
> peer review occur down party lines? It would kill
> American science, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
> started happening. Why are the stakes so much higher
> today than they were a mere decade ago? 

As I posted here a while back, a relative of mine found his academic
career at a foreign university under attack from socialists
specifically because of posts of mine to this list. The conditions you
worry about are already here, but it isn't conservatives who are
practicing them.

> Why are so
> many people just discarding any semblence of
> objectivity and sportsmanship to the side? What
> happened? Was it 9-11? Was it practically vote by vote
> coverage on election night? When did the people of
> America stop trusting one another enough to even
> listen to what someone who thinks differently has to
> say? Is it all part of Bin Ladin's master plan? When
> is it going to escalate into violence? 

9-11 was a particularly large attack in an conflict that has been
escalating since the fall of the USSR. The international collectivist
left is pissed at the US for its victory, much as the German
brownshirts were pissed over Germany's loss in WWI. They have not given
up their ideals or seen the error of their ways and are now blaming
similar patsies, which may explain why the left has become so
anti-semite in recent years. 

> It did in the
> last days of the roman empire. Gangs roaming the
> street strong arming the voters into voting for one
> consul or tribune or another. I can almost see that
> happening here in the America. I mean look at this
> list for example. No compromise, no meeting of minds,
> just all out verbal brawls. Everything I say is the
> truth... Everything you say is brainwashed propaganda
> because YOU SIR or MADAM are a party
> schill/stalinist/facist/moron. Everybody is
> complaining about the same problems and yet everybody
> is convinced it is the other party's fault. Who do I
> blame, when I don't know who the OTHER party is? 

Investigate, as I have. Find out what the real groups are, who the
players are in those groups, what their real agenda is and what their
propaganda looks like. When I make statements here, it isn't because of
any kool-aid sipping, it is because I've found out the facts myself,
not buying the dogma that others rely on like a religion. I too have
wanted to know what was really going on, to find out what the truth
actually is, who is lying and how and why.

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  Sat Jul 16 17:51:29 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Minarchism, Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism etc
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc6050715221348a546c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050716175129.44541.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/15/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > As to Minarchism, most Libertarians I know condemn as
> > 'ideologically impure' any-one who thinks the
> > government has a role beyond regulating against force
> > and fraud.  I named quite a few goods and services in
> > the earlier thread which go beyond simple MInarchism.
> > In fact, on the FSP forums even pure Minarchists are
> > sometimes condemned as 'traitors to the Libertarian
> > cause' by the anarcho-capitalists.
> 
> ### I'll have to move over there and help kick some traitors' butts.

Actually, the biggest impedance to membership growth has been
do-nothing forum fleas mounting witch-hunt litmus tests. It does
nothing to sell the project.

You only spread libertarianism if you get to know people who are not
strictly ancap fundamentalists. Sticking within your tribe for libbers
is as bad a mistake as liberal intellectuals make in never getting to
know anybody outside their chattering class.

> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > For heavens man, when you are going to finally snap
> > out of your anarcho-capitalist lunacy?
> > 
> ### Never. I am in the vanguard of the forces of light and goodness,
> the harbinger of greatness to come, the peace-loving, the smart, the
> true, anarcho-capitalist forever.
> 
> How can you, the fallen one, an apostate, upbraid me?

There is a difference between snapping out of one's anarcho-capitalism
and learning to use it as a guide, not a straight-jacket.

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  Sat Jul 16 18:02:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <87B26EA2-0206-4BF2-8C13-090BEE198D4B@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050716180300.94794.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> Both?
> 
> This is the nth time I've heard this type of story, about the human  
> body conducting digital info. I had even heard Microsoft tried to  
> patent it.
> 
> IBM developed the "personal area network" so long ago I can't even  
> remember. It was the same thing. Handshakes between individuals  
> passed business card info, etc. etc. Up through borderline 'toothing'
> applications.

I believe everybody runs into a liability issue: the science on
interfering in the human electric field is so murky and filled with
chicken-little bogosity (take the cellphone radiation issue, for
example), that anybody who comes out with this technology is sure to
come under continuous lawsuit from people claiming all their ailments,
real or imagined, are from the PAN devices.

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 16 20:16:36 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:16:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <87B26EA2-0206-4BF2-8C13-090BEE198D4B@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<87B26EA2-0206-4BF2-8C13-090BEE198D4B@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <52C877B9-DDB1-4004-8FB6-5A84BB75A651@mac.com>

Yep.  So where can I buy some of the needed hardware?  Does anyone  
have pointers to papers giving some details?

- samantha

On Jul 16, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
>
> Both?
>
> This is the nth time I've heard this type of story, about the human  
> body conducting digital info. I had even heard Microsoft tried to  
> patent it.
>
> IBM developed the "personal area network" so long ago I can't even  
> remember. It was the same thing. Handshakes between individuals  
> passed business card info, etc. etc. Up through borderline  
> 'toothing' applications.
>
>
> ]3
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/ 
>> 0,5942,15933078,00.html
>>
>> Let your body do the downloading
>> Leo Lewis
>> 15jul05
>>
>> IF you spend hours downloading songs to your iPod, the days of  
>> fiddling around with wires are coming to an end.
>>
>> A Japanese company has discovered that the best cables may be your  
>> arms and legs.
>>
>> According to NTT Laboratories, your whole body is the perfect  
>> conductor for electronic data, meaning that information such as  
>> music and films could be downloaded in seconds via your elbow.
>>
>> NTT, and the team of scientists that invented the "Red Tacton"  
>> system, envisage a future in which the human body acts as a non- 
>> stop conduit for information.
>>
>> Wireless networks and devices, often hampered by intermittent  
>> service, will eventually be replaced, NTT says, by "human area  
>> networks".
>>
>> The developers are convinced the new technology will be "highly  
>> disruptive" - undermining existing wireless industries.
>>
>> Field tests are under way, and the first commercial appearance of  
>> Red Tacton is expected next year.
>>
>> The Red Tacton chips will be embedded in machines and contain a  
>> transmitter and receiver built to send and accept data stored in a  
>> digital format.
>>
>> The chip then takes any type of file, such as an MP3 music file or  
>> email, and converts it into a format that takes the form of  
>> digital pulses that can be passed and read through a human being's  
>> electric field. The chip in the receiving device reads these tiny  
>> changes and converts the file back into its original form.
>>
>> With Red Tacton sensors miniaturised and built into every type of  
>> device and product, the list of potential uses is endless, said  
>> Hideki Sakamoto of NTT.
>>
>> By simply touching an advertising poster, for example, product  
>> information and an order form could be sent to your laptop.
>>
>> Shake hands with a new contact, and every detail that would  
>> normally appear on a business card will leap across your arms and  
>> download itself to your mobile phone.
>>
>> Because the data transfer between Red Tacton machines involves no  
>> dial-up or logging-in, the transfer of information is virtually  
>> instantaneous.
>>
>> The Times
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul 16 22:36:33 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:36:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050716044849.26857.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050716044849.26857.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D98BF1.4000500@humanenhancement.com>

You seem to think that Democrats don't do exactly the same thing you 
describe...

Partisanship outside the ballot box is hardly a Republican monopoly. 
Indeed, Democrats have been practicing it for far longer than the 
Republicans. It just took the GOP 30 years or so to catch up, and now 
that they have, Democrats seem to think it's suddenly unfair.

Joseph

The Avantguardian wrote:

> What makes the
>Republicans so strong right now is that they do far
>more than vote. If they are reporters they write every
>story with a strong republican slant. If they are
>judges, they rule down party lines. If they are
>businessmen, they pour tons of their hard earned money
>into campaign funds. If they are net-geeks, they set
>up Republican blogs that try to discredit everything
>the other party says. If they are rabble rousers, they
>launch pro-war protests to counter the anti-war
>protests of the left. 
>  
>


From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Jul 16 22:44:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:44:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over
	Iraq?	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050716174508.50412.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050716174508.50412.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42D98DCC.3080300@sasktel.net>

I sit here in Canada  , just about on the USA border  wondering if  I 
can be objective.

If I were to venture yet another conspiracy theory, I would say that 
deep in the bowels of strategic thinking
there are advisors to the USA military who saw an opportunity in 9-11.

The technological trends we discuss are as well known to these guys and 
given their position I would hope even more so
than regular astute individuals.

I am suggesting that the policy people were in a position to advise and 
even manipulate the leader.
The creation of a global war based on philosophy  was seen as doable and 
to those planners
even beneficial.

With convergence in  technology underway  they might think that 
convergence of politics and philosophy
might be useful.  As well the USA economy might benefit from a new 
challenge, a war of global scale.

The winner levels the economic playing  field.
The USSR cold war collapse had left a vacuum.

In the end of this act of the play only 2 world views will remain the 
Euro/American/west Asian world and the far eastern/chinese world.

So bush lied because he was in the belief that is was the right thing to do.
He is neither a fool not a genius so what else could you expect.

And as all this is happening  Singapore/Japand/China/et. al.  are left 
alone to move into second position as a global
philosophical leader.

If all goes well there will be a technological solution VIA AI or global 
knowledge network and not yet another
protracted war of sorts before a single global philosophy develops.

Is this too simplistic?








From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 00:18:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050715104416.GQ25947@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050717001800.20161.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> The simplest explanation for Fermi's paradox, as
> ever, that it isn't.
> We aren't in anyone smart's light cone.

I absolutely agree with this. There is no paradox, not
yet at any rate. My back of the envelope calculations
based on our galactic geometry indicate that since its
inception aproximately 50 years ago, SETI has
"scanned" something like 0.003 percent or less of any
hypothesized "habitable zone" composed of stars in the
galactic disk of similar metallicity to sol. Moreover,
until we have a sample size larger than 1, we would be
safest in assuming that sol was neither prococious nor
tardy in developing intelligent life. Thus on average
ET civilizations, should be about as advanced as we
are now. These two factors together indicate that it
may be a great many years before the great silence is
broken.     


> > def: computronium: matter organized to optimize
> computing capacity.

Well, I am not sure what the the theoretical or real
limits on Moore's Law might be but it will take a long
time to catch up to biology. As far as I, as a
biologist, am concerned, DNA IS computronium at a
staggering information capacity/density of 340
exa-bytes (EB = 10^18 bytes) per cubic centimeter.
Just add water. :)


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 Jul 17 00:31:05 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Movie Review: "Immortal"
Message-ID: <20050717003105.20637.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>

I just watched a bizarre Sci-Fi with a mixture of
transhuman and new-age themes called "Immortal" by
Enki something or another. My initial feelings on it
were mixed. It is certainly visually stimulating with
a mixture of CGI animation and cinematography that is,
while not seamless, nonetheless bizarre and
facinating. At first, I thought the acting was
horrible, but as the movie progressed, I came to the
conclusion it is portraying a posthuman society in
which emotion is not expressed in normal human fashion
but is instead just different enough to keep the
viewer off balance. If you want a disturbing vision of
a posthuman future, watch it. Then let me know what
you think. Don't expect Lucas level special effects,
but a bizarre and interesting story along posthuman
lines. 

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 hal at finney.org  Sat Jul 16 23:44:19 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
Message-ID: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>

Seems like a lot of the problems we face could be solved if there were
some reasonable scheme to compensate people for negative externalities.

In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit conferred/imposed on
a third party to a transaction, which is not considered by the parties
engaging in the transaction.  A classic negative externality is pollution;
the factory making products and the people buying the products don't care
that the factory is adding pollutants to the air or water.  People living
near the factory do care but the costs this imposes on them are not
reflected in the transactions between the factory and its customers.

The classic positive externality is beekeeping, which may benefit
neighboring farmers by adding pollinators for their crops.  But this
benefit is not considered by the beekeeper or the people who buy his
honey.

Negative externalities are often a cause for opposition to various
proposals that might well have a net positive effect.  This manifests
in the classic NIMBY syndrome, "not in my back yard".

I live in Santa Barbara, California, an oil producing region.  But it is
also a center of the environmental movement and there is considerable
local opposition to oil operations.  Santa Barbara was the site of a
major oil spill in 1969 after an accident at an offshore oil platform.
It fouled the beaches for months and killed many birds and sea animals.

Recently there has been a proposal to build an offshore LNG (liquified
natural gas) unloading terminal 40 miles south, off of Oxnard.  There are
only a few LNG terminals in the whole U.S. and we are definitely going
to need more.  This too is causing strong local opposition due to fears
that the flammable gas could cause disastrous accidents or even be a
focus of terrorism.

A simpler story happened locally, when a lady tried to get a permit to
run a day care operation out of her home.  There is a strong shortage of
day care in the area with many businesses having waiting lists of five
years or longer.  (By that time your kid doesn't need day care any more.)
She passed all the inspections, but the neighbors are fighting it.
They live on a quiet residential street and having a business operating
next door will negatively impact them due to the extra traffic and noise.

It's the same thing in each case - negative externalities.  And these are
legitimate complaints.  Why should neighbors have to bear uncompensated
costs when the larger community benefits?

Ideally, those who receive the negative externalities could be compensated
for them, out of the benefits and profits from the activity.  If the
positives don't outweigh the negatives, then the activity shouldn't go on,
because it is a net negative.  But if the activity is a net positive,
the profits will more than pay for the externality costs and the whole
thing makes economic sense.

This means that charging for externalities is actually an economic
improvement, as it insures that only projects go forward which are
economically rational.  But it also means that if externalities are not
paid for, excess benefits appear and go into the pockets of the people
engaging in the activity; so of course they will oppose proposals to
compensate for externalities.

One of the problems with compensation is that it is difficult to come up
with a formula for a fair compensation level.  Once the possibility is
opened, of course each person has an incentive to exaggerate the negative
impact he feels in order to negotiate a higher level of compensation.
And meanwhile the proponents of the activity are lobbying to reduce
or eliminate compensation.  In the face of these opposing forces the
political process is unlikely to hit upon an economically optimal level
of compensation.

There are various other ideas which have been proposed.  Economists have
identified what are called "incentive compatible" mechanisms for these
kinds of issues, where people have an incentive to tell the truth.
For example, perhaps the community could vote between two alternatives,
either don't start the activity, or else start it up and use a given
compensation schedule.  Multiple votes could be held with different
compensation schedules and the one which caused people in all areas to
split 50-50 on the two options would be the fairest one.

There was a seminal paper by Groves and Ledyard for allocating public
goods that could probably also work with negative externalities (which
are like negative public goods).  There has been more work on this and
it is a somewhat active area of research.

It's also possible that a futures market could work, similar to Idea
Futures.  People could buy real estate futures that were conditional on
either the activity being started or not.  Then the price differential
between the futures contracts would be an objective measure of the
loss in property values due to the activity, which would then determine
compensation levels.

These are all rather esoteric ideas, but even a simpler and cruder
approach would seem to be a step forward over the present method, which
is basically for the two sides to yell at each other until somebody
backs down.  We're going to need offshore oil drilling and many other
measures as well in order to satisfy our energy needs.  It seems obvious
that paying the communities which are impacted by the wells should go
a long way towards quelling the opposition which will otherwise hold
these efforts up for years, until we hit some kind of crisis.  It's
the same way with other NIMBY problems.

The truth is, the NIMBYs have a point.  They should be compensated,
when all the rest of us gain an advantage by doing harm to them.
Doing this will be more fair, it will improve economic efficiency,
and it will reduce resistance to much needed development projects.

Hal


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Sun Jul 17 01:07:53 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:07:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Movie Review: "Immortal"
In-Reply-To: <20050717003105.20637.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F160C784DE6400A0A400FFBB4D20@phx.gbl>

The Director/Writer's name is Enki Bilal. He's done a bunch of graphic 
novels for Huminoids (a French publishing company with a US subsidiary joint 
venture with DC Comics).

I felt the same way about the movie. I sort of trudged my way through the 
first half and it got pretty interesting toward the end.

A piece of trivia is that this is one of two movies competing for the title 
of completely set-free/total green screen (I think the other is Sky 
Captain). There's only 2-3 human actors, all the rest are CGI.

BAL

>From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
>To: ExI-Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Movie Review: "Immortal"
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I just watched a bizarre Sci-Fi with a mixture of
>transhuman and new-age themes called "Immortal" by
>Enki something or another. My initial feelings on it
>were mixed. It is certainly visually stimulating with
>a mixture of CGI animation and cinematography that is,
>while not seamless, nonetheless bizarre and
>facinating. At first, I thought the acting was
>horrible, but as the movie progressed, I came to the
>conclusion it is portraying a posthuman society in
>which emotion is not expressed in normal human fashion
>but is instead just different enough to keep the
>viewer off balance. If you want a disturbing vision of
>a posthuman future, watch it. Then let me know what
>you think. Don't expect Lucas level special effects,
>but a bizarre and interesting story along posthuman
>lines.
>
>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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 02:13:54 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:13:54 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
References: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <006401c58a75$2e8a7600$0d98e03c@homepc>


Hal Finney wrote:

> Negative externalities are often a cause for opposition to various
> proposals that might well have a net positive effect.  This manifests
> in the classic NIMBY syndrome, "not in my back yard".

Right. But a logical early question has to be external to what economic
system. Currently all economic activities that humans are engaged in
extend only about as far out as our satelights.  So we could look at
Earth as biosphere 1 and apply economic ways of thinking to that
system. The virtue of such an approach is that nothing much is an
externality any more to the system, and everyones backyard plus
frontyard is the size of Terra.

> Ideally, those who receive the negative externalities could be
> compensated for them, out of the benefits and profits from the activity. 
> If the
> positives don't outweigh the negatives, then the activity shouldn't go on,
> because it is a net negative.  But if the activity is a net positive,
> the profits will more than pay for the externality costs and the whole
> thing makes economic sense.

> This means that charging for externalities is actually an economic
> improvement, as it insures that only projects go forward which are
> economically rational.  But it also means that if externalities are not
> paid for, excess benefits appear and go into the pockets of the people
> engaging in the activity; so of course they will oppose proposals to
> compensate for externalities.

I'm reading, "it also means that" above, as, "on the other hand". Unless
your examples have now become your only point of reference in which
case you analyis seems to be changing is point of reference for not pinning
down the answer to the question, "external to what"?

> One of the problems with compensation is that it is difficult to come up
> with a formula for a fair compensation level. *1 Once the possibility is
> opened, of course each person has an incentive to exaggerate the negative
> impact he feels in order to negotiate a higher level of compensation.  *2
> And meanwhile the proponents of the activity are lobbying to reduce
> or eliminate compensation. *3  In the face of these opposing forces the
> political process is unlikely to hit upon an economically optimal level
> of compensation. *4

*1 because the question hasn't been asked and cogently answered
"external to what"?

*2 assuming a determinator (like a government, which at present
are only national not global, hence many of the problems of pinning down
externalities, to whom does the Pacific Islander appeal when his house
goes under water due to externalities of global warming ? What
congressmen can he write or lobby?).

*3 yes indeed, and those that happen to be citizens of powerful
countries get better representation from the politicians that depend
on their votes.

*4. Which political process? The current one, I agree. But the political
process in the form of institutions and governments is itself in a state of
change.

> There are various other ideas which have been proposed.  Economists have
> identified what are called "incentive compatible" mechanisms for these
> kinds of issues, where people have an incentive to tell the truth.
> For example, perhaps the community could vote between two alternatives,
> either don't start the activity, or else start it up and use a given
> compensation schedule. *5  Multiple votes could be held with different
> compensation schedules and the one which caused people in all areas to
> split 50-50 on the two options would be the fairest one.  *6

*5 "the community" again key question related to the earlier one. Who
are the members of the community. Those defined out are themselves
externalities because of the logic of political economy.

*6 sure but only after the community membership is defined.

> There was a seminal paper by Groves and Ledyard for allocating public
> goods that could probably also work with negative externalities (which
> are like negative public goods).  There has been more work on this and
> it is a somewhat active area of research.

Okay.

> It's also possible that a futures market could work, similar to Idea
> Futures.  People could buy real estate futures that were conditional on
> either the activity being started or not.  Then the price differential
> between the futures contracts would be an objective measure of the
> loss in property values due to the activity, which would then determine
> compensation levels.

Presupposed a legal framework over the real estate. Okay but again
is it one legal framework for the globe or not. The answer will itself
raise sorts of externalities as legality flows downward from government
and governments are elected by community members with voting
rights, so you need a community definition.

> These are all rather esoteric ideas, but even a simpler and cruder
> approach would seem to be a step forward over the present method, which
> is basically for the two sides to yell at each other until somebody
> backs down.  We're going to need offshore oil drilling and many other
> measures as well in order to satisfy our energy needs.  It seems obvious
> that paying the communities which are impacted by the wells should go
> a long way towards quelling the opposition which will otherwise hold
> these efforts up for years, until we hit some kind of crisis.  It's
> the same way with other NIMBY problems.

Ah you've gone parochial, your just operating within a californian, and
USian mindset. That sees your externalities exported to places where
those affected can't influence the politicians and US courts as easily as
the US citizens.

> The truth is, the NIMBYs have a point. *7 They should be compensated,
> when all the rest of us gain an advantage by doing harm to them. *8
> Doing this will be more fair, it will improve economic efficiency,
> and it will reduce resistance to much needed development projects.

*7 They do.

*8 Seems they should.   But who you mean by "us" whiteman ;-)

Always a pleasure Hal,

Brett Paatsch





From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 02:31:27 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:31:27 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
References: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <007701c58a77$a24a0b30$0d98e03c@homepc>

PS: Terrorism may be usefully considered as a phenomenon arising
from not applying the economic way of thinking about externalities
far enough beyond one's parochial settings.  

We'll delay dropping the trade barriers against cheap food producing
countries just a little longer. We'll hand out our free trade agreements
unilaterally not multilaterally to our friends and supporters and not to
those nasties who don't like us when we use foreign policy to get
ourselves elected.

Its a form of the pollution that washes back onto the beach. When
citizens and governments get that then the real war on terrorism 
can begin. 

Brett Paatsch

  



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 04:03:50 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:03:50 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A first cut logical struct. for impeachings - a high
	level how to doc
Message-ID: <008401c58a84$89ea0a60$0d98e03c@homepc>

Just some musings I'd like to put on public record.

-----

On the accused - the impeachee    

It is argued.

1) That he knew the relevant law beforehand.  
            (see records of public statements)
        
2) That he was specifically and personally duty and oath 
    bound to uphold that law.
            (see US Constitution, UN Charter, US and UN Resolutions)

3) That he then broke that law.
            (see facts)

4) That he knows he broke that law. 
            (mens re - criminal intent)

5) That he is unremorseful and would break that law again!
  
    (And is a clear and present danger whilst remaining
    at large and is likely to act to avoid impeachment, 
    intimidate witnesses and destroy evidence) 

Prospective impeachees:

1 George W Bush
2 Dick Cheney
3 Donald Rumsfeld  
4.
5.

Prospective impeachers:

  Any number of fine American patriots 

Means:
  1 Popular movement caused by disatisfaction with consequences
 
(those with an interest in impeachment occurring might say so
publicly, as such is political, and non violent form of expression.
Likely these might be terms traitors and terrorist appeasers which
aint so so best to have a clear stand on public record of being
pro-rule of law)

  2 then House
  3 then Senate

On the evidence:

- Documents are better than witness testimony.
- Witness testimony is better if corroborated and first hand.
- Better strategically to not name all documents and witnesses beforehand
  for their own protection.
- Rare original or early copies of evidence to be protected, copies
 made and widely distributed to avoid destruction.

On witnesses: 
   Candidate witnesses

Compile list so that candidate witnesses good health and wellbeing can
be monitored (for their own safety) perhaps by international media.  

Include current and former staffers, generals, media reporters,
diplomats, foreign heads of state (?). 

>From list of candidate witnesses only some would actually be called
by senate to bear witness. 

-----

Hmm, its rough, but a start and can be fleshed out later. Impeachment
is both legal and political. A populace that does not care will not 
uphold its own laws. But time and events can make wrongs done
become clearer and the political will can build. Legally, the facts are
the facts.  

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050717/fdcbf0f2/attachment.html>

From peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 05:29:46 2005
From: peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com (Peter Brooks)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
Message-ID: <20050717052946.57161.qmail@web33110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm not nearly up to your speed, so would you please
be patient with me.

Thank You,
Peter


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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 05:53:44 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:53:44 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
Message-ID: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>

IQ not the key to a happy life
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945311%255E30417,00.html

Money can't buy you happiness, and now it seems brains can't either.

..."might be because smarter people were more likely to be aware of 
alternative lifestyles, or to have higher expectations or aspirations, the
authors suggested.

'...the quality of social networks was likely to play a far bigger role, 
he said. "People value you more for your contribution, rather than
whether you are smart" he said.'

---

So let's feel free to have some no pressure friendly once in a while, with
newbies welcome ;-)

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050717/43a52403/attachment.html>

From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Jul 17 06:01:34 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:01:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050717060134.GA23433@ofb.net>

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> IQ not the key to a happy life
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945311%255E30417,00.html

  Ian Hickie, executive director of the Brain and Mind
  Research Institute at Sydney University, said it was
  fashionable among neurologists to think that individual brain
  characteristics could influence happiness. 
  
  However, the quality of social networks was likely to play a
  far bigger role, he said. "People value you more for your
  contribution, rather than whether you are smart," he said. 

I was under the impression that the "individual brain characteristics"
posited were not intelligence but were personality traits, such as baseline
happiness.  

-xx- Damien X-) 


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Sun Jul 17 06:07:08 2005
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:07:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
In-Reply-To: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <42D9F58C.6010706@mydruthers.com>

> Seems like a lot of the problems we face could be solved if there
> were some reasonable scheme to compensate people for negative
> externalities.

There has been a fair amount of discussion in the blogs I read about an 
idea called Dominant Assurance Contracts.

This is based on an old idea called Assurance Contracts, in which 
individuals sign up to fund a public good.  If enough people join in all 
the pledges are collected; otherwise, everyone gets their money back. 
This idea has actually been implemented at fundable.org.  Alex Tabarrok 
(who writes for the blog Marginal Revolution at marginalrevolution.com) 
extended this several years ago.  In his proposed Dominant Assurance 
Contracts

      if the group goal is not met then everyone who offered
      to contribute is given their money back plus a bonus.
      It turns out that it then becomes a dominant strategy to
      contribute and the public good is always provided!

The most recent blogging on the subject is by Mike Linksvayer: 
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2005/07/08/

Kragen Sitaker has been pushing the idea, and wrote up a long 
description on his "thinking out loud" list:
http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2005-June/000783.html

They've also been written up at wikipedia: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts

I put a copy of this message on my new blog so it'll get linked into 
that discussion.

Chris
-- 
It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so
easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
-- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy.

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org
http://mydruthers.com


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 07:41:40 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050717074140.33384.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> IQ not the key to a happy life
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945311%255E30417,00.html
> 
> Money can't buy you happiness, and now it seems
> brains can't either.
> 
> ..."might be because smarter people were more likely
> to be aware of 
> alternative lifestyles, or to have higher
> expectations or aspirations, the
> authors suggested.
> 
> '...the quality of social networks was likely to
> play a far bigger role, 
> he said. "People value you more for your
> contribution, rather than
> whether you are smart" he said.'
> 

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that
increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."
                  -Ecclesiastes 1:18 


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 pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 08:01:44 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:01:44 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <470a3c520507170101212ebacd@mail.gmail.com>

But perhaps happiness can buy you money, in the sense that, other
factors being equal, a positive attitude toward your life in this
world helps you make money, for example it facilitates other's
confidence and trust. A positive attitude can also buy you brains in
the sense that you can spend your time in self development instead of
wasting it in self pity.
G.

On 7/17/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>        
> IQ not the key to a happy life 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945311%255E30417,00.html 
>   
> Money can't buy you happiness, and now it seems  brains can't either.


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 09:28:47 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:47 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics firm to open S. Fla. facility
Message-ID: <470a3c52050717022848a7e618@mail.gmail.com>

Miami Herald <http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12136706.htm>: After a 
rejection by Boca Raton, Boynton Beach has given the go-ahead to a cryonics 
company that intends to freeze the dead, then ship the bodies for permanent 
storage in Arizona.
A company associated with the Arizona firm that froze the head of baseball 
legend Ted Williams will open a cryonics facility in Boynton Beach, less 
than two years after being rejected in Boca Raton.
Suspended Animation expects to open in August, in an industrial strip just 
off Interstate 95.
The unproven and often-criticized science of cryonics supposes that dead 
people can be frozen and then -- months or years later -- be brought back to 
life. Suspended Animation hopes to develop equipment and transport 
''clients'' who have agreed in writing to be frozen cryonically.
''We're about defeating mortality,'' said Charles Platt, 60, a science 
fiction writer with no medical background who will manage the lab. Platt was 
Alcor's Chief Operating Officer.
The South Florida lab will primarily act as a kind of ambulance service for 
the dead, Platt said. It will not store bodies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050717/199a1751/attachment.html>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sun Jul 17 10:04:40 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:04:40 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050717001800.20161.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050717001800.20161.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507171154530.21969@zeus>

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:

>Well, I am not sure what the the theoretical or real
>limits on Moore's Law might be but it will take a long
>time to catch up to biology. As far as I, as a
>biologist, am concerned, DNA IS computronium at a
>staggering information capacity/density of 340
>exa-bytes (EB = 10^18 bytes) per cubic centimeter.
>Just add water. :)

Does this figure only takes into account the DNA molecule, or all the
supporting proteins around as well? The minimum unit would be something
like a small cell, or maybe a nucleus.

Alfio


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 10:14:16 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:14:16 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
References: <20050717052946.57161.qmail@web33110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <015d01c58ab8$4a03dd70$0d98e03c@homepc>

Peter Brooks wrote:

> I'm not nearly up to your speed, so would you please
> be patient with me.

So who are you? What do you want?

Brett Paatsch



From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 10:36:34 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:36:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
Message-ID: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>

The Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary
Principle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle>has been
proposed for deletion on the basis of the allegation that not many
people support or have paid attention to it. The entry should be expanded 
and supporters should vote to keep it on Wikipedia. My vote: *Keep*. it is 
an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the
Precautionary_Principle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle>,
this article provides a needed balance.
>From the entry: Dr. Max More <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_More>, 
philosopher, authored the text for the
ethical<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical>principle that stipulates
the following:
* People's freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even 
critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive 
measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available 
science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the 
restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor measures 
that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that 
have a high expectation value. Protect people's freedom to experiment, 
innovate, and progress.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050717/4c2255ed/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 12:11:06 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507171154530.21969@zeus>
Message-ID: <20050717121106.18213.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> >Well, I am not sure what the the theoretical or
> real
> >limits on Moore's Law might be but it will take a
> long
> >time to catch up to biology. As far as I, as a
> >biologist, am concerned, DNA IS computronium at a
> >staggering information capacity/density of 340
> >exa-bytes (EB = 10^18 bytes) per cubic centimeter.
> >Just add water. :)
> 
> Does this figure only takes into account the DNA
> molecule, or all the
> supporting proteins around as well? The minimum unit
> would be something
> like a small cell, or maybe a nucleus.

No, it is just the figure for B-DNA with its hydration
spine. It assumes it is maximally packed in a volume.
This is of course multiple strands. To have all that
info on a single strand would take somewhat more
volume due to limited tensile strength although DNA is
incredibly flexible. Even in a normal human cell
nucleus with two copies of every chromosome, there is
1.6 gigabytes of info packed into 6.5 X 10^-11 cubic
centimeters, that comes to a density of a paltry 25
exabytes per cubic centimeter. But I wasn't talking
about a cell, I was talking about DNA as a
computational medium in general. Naked DNA in solution
has been used to solve the "traveling salesman
problem". Feel free to google for refs.

Ciaou. :)
 

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  Sun Jul 17 13:21:20 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
In-Reply-To: <015d01c58ab8$4a03dd70$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050717132120.43639.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Peter Brooks wrote:
> 
> > I'm not nearly up to your speed, so would you
> please
> > be patient with me.
> 
> So who are you? What do you want?
> 

Well my guess would be that he is Peter Brooks and he
wants you to be patient. ;)


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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 14:04:01 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:04:01 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
References: <20050717132120.43639.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017401c58ad8$622e07c0$0d98e03c@homepc>

> Well my guess would be that he is Peter Brooks and he
> wants you to be patient. ;)

Ya meanie Stu, I think ya've stolen his line. And he sounded
kinda shy to begin with. 

There are apparently multiple Peter Brookses. Google and 
you'll see what I mean.  

So peace and patience, to all Peter Brookses, and those that
luv their furtive, reticent 'souls'. 

Brett 



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 14:21:24 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:21:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
References: <20050717052946.57161.qmail@web33110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <019101c58ada$d029ef80$0d98e03c@homepc>

http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk/

Hey I liked some of these. 

Brett



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jul 17 14:23:54 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:23:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0505100113a17cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<e88b73ce0505100113a17cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050717092307.028af550@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 03:13 AM 5/10/2005, you wrote:
>On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> >  I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy
> > + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward
> > compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights.
> >
> >  Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations
> > between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
> > rights?
>
>I'm reminded a little of the "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention":
>
>http://everything2.com/?node=The+Golden+Arches+theory+of+conflict+prevention
>http://slate.msn.com/id/25365/


Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree?

Natasha

>_______________________________________________
>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/20050717/6befd993/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jul 17 14:25:58 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:25:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary
  Principle
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Keep!

But, what is the exact procedure for keeping?

Thanks,
Natasha

At 05:36 AM 7/17/2005, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>The Wikipedia entry on the 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle>Proactionary 
>Principle has been proposed for deletion on the basis of the allegation 
>that not many people support or have paid attention to it. The entry 
>should be expanded and supporters should vote to keep it on Wikipedia. My 
>vote: Keep. it is an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle>Precautionary_Principle, 
>this article provides a needed balance.
> >From the entry: Dr. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_More>Max More, 
> philosopher, authored the text for the 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical>ethical principle that stipulates 
> the following: People's freedom to innovate technologically is highly 
> valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives 
> when restrictive measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities 
> according to available science, not popular perception. Account for both 
> the costs of the restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities 
> foregone. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and 
> magnitude of impacts, and that have a high expectation value. Protect 
> people's freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress.
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050717/419fdb70/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jul 17 15:16:09 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:16:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520507170101212ebacd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00bc01c58a93$e439dc70$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<470a3c520507170101212ebacd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050717101039.01d05120@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>On 7/17/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > IQ not the key to a happy life
> > 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945311%255E30417,00.html 
>
> >
> > Money can't buy you happiness, and now it seems  brains can't either.

The claim isn't that smart old people are *more* unhappy than stupid old 
people (although they might be):

<Researchers say clever people are no more likely to be happy in their old 
age than anybody else. >

"Better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig," as the proverb has it. 
How much better, then, to be an unhappy Socrates than an unhappy pig. 



From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 15:30:34 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:30:34 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071708301ab3cf17@mail.gmail.com>

The vote is actually a discussion page, one has to edit the discussion
page (several people have done that today and voted to keep the
entry). One has to know how to do wiki edits (easy).

On 7/17/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>   Keep!  
> 
>  But, what is the exact procedure for keeping?
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Natasha


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 15:32:54 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:32:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205071708301ab3cf17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<470a3c5205071708301ab3cf17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050717083246c092d2@mail.gmail.com>

This is the vote/discussion page to edit. Not sure if one can vote
without a wikipedia account.

On 7/17/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> The vote is actually a discussion page, one has to edit the discussion
> page (several people have done that today and voted to keep the
> entry). One has to know how to do wiki edits (easy).
> 
> On 7/17/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> >   Keep!
> >
> >  But, what is the exact procedure for keeping?
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  Natasha
>


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 15:33:14 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:33:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050717083246c092d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<470a3c5205071708301ab3cf17@mail.gmail.com>
	<470a3c52050717083246c092d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071708337d76fd14@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry, here is the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Proactionary_Principle

On 7/17/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the vote/discussion page to edit. Not sure if one can vote
> without a wikipedia account.
> 
> On 7/17/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The vote is actually a discussion page, one has to edit the discussion
> > page (several people have done that today and voted to keep the
> > entry). One has to know how to do wiki edits (easy).
> >
> > On 7/17/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > >   Keep!
> > >
> > >  But, what is the exact procedure for keeping?
> > >
> > >  Thanks,
> > >  Natasha
> >
>


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 15:50:08 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:50:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050430161323.02b616a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520507170850407e0046@mail.gmail.com>

Can be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human rights: yes.
Are necessarily a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
rights: definitely no, can also be a driving force behind suppressing
worldwide human rights. Depends on a lot of factors.
G.

On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization, democracy
> + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and capitalism lean toward
> compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights.
> 
> Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial relations
> between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
> rights?
> 
> Natasha


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sun Jul 17 16:22:27 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:22:27 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary  Principle
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050717092516.028ae738@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0507171817140.24093@zeus>

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

>Keep!
>
>But, what is the exact procedure for keeping?
>
>Thanks,
>Natasha

One must edit the wiki page for the deletion proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Proactionary_Principle

and write a "Keep" vote signing with his/her username and date.

So a wikipedia user account is necessary. Also, votes from just-registered
accounts are suspicious, becuase usually it's just someone who is creating
multiple accounts for himself to have more votes. Often such votes are
discarded.

One such vote is already on the page. Since the majority of the votes is
already on the Keep side, and that a 2/3 majority is needed to delete a
page, I would suggest to refrain from voting now to avoid giving a bad
impression.

Alfio


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 17 16:20:29 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:20:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ not key to happiness
In-Reply-To: <20050717074140.33384.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050717074140.33384.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A1097C04-3629-4137-B77A-DEDCF80671E3@mac.com>

Please define "happiness".  Is happiness the supergoal?   Or is this  
just another tabloid tidbit in the morning mail to comfort those who  
aren't particularly bright, wealthy or whatever else is said to not  
lead to "happiness"?

- s



From dgc at cox.net  Sun Jul 17 16:47:37 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:47:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050717121106.18213.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050717121106.18213.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Well, I am not sure what the the theoretical or
>>>      
>>>
>>real
>>    
>>
>>>limits on Moore's Law might be but it will take a
>>>      
>>>
>>long
>>    
>>
>>>time to catch up to biology. As far as I, as a
>>>biologist, am concerned, DNA IS computronium at a
>>>staggering information capacity/density of 340
>>>exa-bytes (EB = 10^18 bytes) per cubic centimeter.
>>>Just add water. :)
>>>      
>>>
>>Does this figure only takes into account the DNA
>>molecule, or all the
>>supporting proteins around as well? The minimum unit
>>would be something
>>like a small cell, or maybe a nucleus.
>>    
>>
>
>No, it is just the figure for B-DNA with its hydration
>spine. It assumes it is maximally packed in a volume.
>This is of course multiple strands. To have all that
>info on a single strand would take somewhat more
>volume due to limited tensile strength although DNA is
>incredibly flexible. Even in a normal human cell
>nucleus with two copies of every chromosome, there is
>1.6 gigabytes of info packed into 6.5 X 10^-11 cubic
>centimeters, that comes to a density of a paltry 25
>exabytes per cubic centimeter. But I wasn't talking
>about a cell, I was talking about DNA as a
>computational medium in general. Naked DNA in solution
>has been used to solve the "traveling salesman
>problem". Feel free to google for refs.
>
>Ciaou. :)
> 
>
>  
>
A computing system needs storage, logic, and infrastructure. An
efficient system maximizes some computing metric with respect to
mass.

I'm assuming that an SI is a computing system.

Our solar system's existing intelligent computing system is an
evolved system that does not yet have much ability to  direct
its own further design, This is another way of saying that
our singularity has not yet occurred. Our evolved system makes
use of DNA for storage and a protein-based, chemistry-driven
nanotechnology for logic and top-level infrastructure. It is an
amazing achievement given no intelligent design, but it is horribly
inefficient at the system level. Almost the entire available mass of the
system is concentrated in the sun, and is unused except as the
first stage of a horribly inefficient power source for the computing
elements. Almost all of the power is lost to space. Of the trivial
percentage that reaches Earth, almost all is re-radiated to space 
immediately,
without effect. Of the tiny percentage that is captured in bio-systems, 
almost
all is used to build plants, and only a tiny percentage of this biomass will
ultimately be used to feed humans. Of the part used to feed humans, almost
all is used to build and power infrastructure rather than to support
computation.

I think an SI will be able to make a few improvements. I think the logical
extrapolation is to a system that has converted its mass into efficient
computronium. My guess is that nanomechanical systems will be the
most efficient.




From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Jul 17 16:00:48 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:00:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] conspiracy theories
Message-ID: <42DA80B0.6020502@sasktel.net>

Many believe that there are just a small number of people who globaly 
pull a lot  of the big strings.
There are diverse views as to who this group might be, and how they 
might operate.

Whether it is the G8 and some organized linkages via MI6, CIA, et al  
with  some high level
association to  business interests one could speculate ad infinitum.

Here is one view  that came as spam  today.
 from:  chemicalrecord at terra.es

Most politicians and religious leaders are members of secret societies. 
Masonry and the Vatican control the power of the world. These societies and 
the Vatican practice satanism. They have created international terrorism 
with the purpose of creating the third World War. They want to make it 
appear that all conflicts have been caused by conflicts and divisions 
between world countries and religions to establish a one world government 
and religion ruled by a leader who will claim to be the prophesied Messiah 
and to rule by divine authority. They will quote Bible verses to deceive 
people into thinking this is the Kingdom of God, and they will make all 
kind of signs and wonders. The UFO phenomenon and New Age Movement have 
been created for this purpose. This is the kingdom of the beast prophesied 
in the Bible in which all nations will gather. All people will worship the 
beast and all true followers of Yeshua will be persecuted. The aliens are 
fallen angels and hybrids, the gods worshipped by the ancient 
civilizations. Of course they will present great benefits to the population 
and they will relase new technologies and promises of peace and prosperity 
but do not believe their lies, this will be a fascist government, where all 
the people will be implanted with mind control chips and the useless eaters 
put to death. But their days are numbered and his kingdom is a passing 
illusion. They have planted many lies to keep us away from the truth. God 
is not of any religion or denomination, because all are controlled and have 
substituted God because they claim to be the Truth, the Way and the Life. 
God is in our heart and teaches us individually, we must only understand 
and do what He commands. The Only Way is Yahshua the Messiah. What the 
majority believes is always the lie. Where the carcass is (false Christ), 
the vultures will gather (multitudes). <<http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/>

>> <<http://www.sherryshriner.com/>> <<http://www.mt.net/~watcher/>> 
>  
>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050717/eb551a00/attachment.html>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jul 17 17:58:26 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:58:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99cfc4b217dba32d79cbead674f18d9d@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 17, 2005, at 6:36 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> The Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle has been proposed  
> for deletion on the basis of the allegation that not many people  
> support or have paid attention to it. The entry should be expanded and  
> supporters should vote to keep it on Wikipedia. My vote: Keep. it is  
> an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the  
> Precautionary_Principle, this article provides a needed balance.
>  >From the entry: Dr. Max More, philosopher, authored the text for the  
> ethical principle that stipulates the following:  People's freedom to  
> innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to  
> humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive measures  
> are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available  
> science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the  
> restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor  
> measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of  
> impacts, and that have a high expectation value. Protect people's  
> freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress.

It is a simple matter to Google for this term, exluding the authors and  
wikipedia, to see hundreds of references to it by various organizations  
and projects.
See  
<http://www.google.com/search? 
num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Proactionary+Principle%22+- 
site%3Aextropy.org+-site%3Aextropy.com+-site%3Awikipedia.org+- 
site%3Amaxmore.com&btnG=Search>

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



From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 18:04:15 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:04:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:39:59PM +0100, BillK wrote:
> 
> > Well, all things are possible, but some are more likely than others.
> > A civilization whose goal is to colonize as far and fast as possible
> > seems the most unlikely. Like, where is it? You only need one, ever,
> > in the universe.
> 
> Precisely. There isn't any.
> 
> No, you need to be in their light cone. The clock starting ticking with
> sufficient metallicity, which takes time to enrich. Which is very different
> from "one, ever, in the universe". The farther you look, the older stuff you
> see. The lower the probability. And what of smart critters? Solar system is
> probably lousy with life, but can you detect it, even if you know where to
> look?
> 

'Light cone' ??? The diameter of the Milky Way is 160 thousand light
years. If any technological civ decides to colonise our galaxy, then
depending on the assumptions, it will only take from a few 100,000
years at c, up to a few million years to physically colonize the whole
Milky Way. This is a tiny, tiny portion of the lifetime of our galaxy.
Fermi knew this, that's why it is a paradox for him.

That is also one of the reasons I have for thinking that galaxy
colonisation is not an objective for post-singularity civs.

> Are you genuinely surprised that a detector can always observe detect itself,
> even if the detector density is damn low? And that observation only tells you
> at at least one detector exists, and nothing beyond that, until you can find a
> causally unentangled another sample?
> 
> > My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to
> 
> My view is exactly opposite, natch.
> 

OK, so where are they? 
Are you making the even more unlikely claim that we are the first, or only? 
Or are you claiming that we are unable to recognise post-singularity
civs and they are, in fact, all around us?


> > colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a bunch
> 
> Star Trek? Your value of Singularity must be low, low, awfully low.

I said *not* star trek type civs.   :)


> 
> > of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever they
> > go. How immature is that?
> 
> Life is always immature, regardless how old it is.
> 
> > We are not talking about Bush III's latest ten year plan here.
> >
> > These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
> 
> Why must postbiology be immortal? It doesn't figure, if the fitness function
> fluctuates wildly. Why should mushrooms and mice be not disposable?
> 
> > 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
> > to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
> 
> Current bacteria already operate at the nanoscale level. (Okay, low
> functionality concentration, but still).
> 
> > that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
> > they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> > likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> > centuries to go to another star system?
> 
> Kudzu has no problem going places, absolutely. It never gets bored, too.
> 
> > It is even debatable whether they will remain long in this physical
> > universe or start creating universes of their own. ;)
> 
> If rapture strikes, will it also transcend the kudzu? All of it?
> 


Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I doubt if they have
the capability to colonise the galaxy. I am talking about
post-singularity intelligence which can redesign itself. Immortality
is one obvious result.

Due to the vast age of the Milky Way, if they are not here, then either: 
a) they don't want to be here, (a consequence of post-singularity
intelligence) or
b) the singularity *always* kills civs, or 
c) we cannot see them all around us.

I go with a).

BillK


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 19:23:54 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] be patient with me, please
In-Reply-To: <017401c58ad8$622e07c0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050717192354.44955.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com>

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

> There are apparently multiple Peter Brookses. Google
> and 
> you'll see what I mean.  
> 
> So peace and patience, to all Peter Brookses, and
> those that
> luv their furtive, reticent 'souls'. 
> 
> Brett 

My guess would be the Mssr. Brooks, having taken the
step of subscribing to the list, was performing a test
of his posting functionality.  

Notwithstanding his putative mysteriousness and
reticence, would it be possible to use some of the
information in the "full" email header to determine
which of the various Peter Brooks we may have the
honor of engaging?
  
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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 19:25:45 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Progress on the synaptic understanding front
In-Reply-To: <20050715090001.840.qmail@rho.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20050717192546.18796.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/hhmi-tsi071405.php

The synapse is a shotgun

New model challenges textbook definition

Researchers have constructed a new detailed map of the
three-dimensional terrain of a synapse -- the junction
between neurons which are critical for communication
in the brain and nervous system. The "nano-map," which
shows the tiny spines and valleys resolved at
nanometer scale, or one-billionth of a meter, has
already proven its worth in changing scientists' views
of the synaptic landscape.

Best, Jeff Davis

   The known is finite, the unknown infinite; 
   intellectually we stand on an islet in the 
   midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
   Our business in every generation is to 
   reclaim a little more land.
                    T.H. Huxley, 1887

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


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jul 17 20:37:51 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:51 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com><42D701D8.9030306@cox.net><6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu><42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu><42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
	<42D7249E.1070501@cox.net><6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu><ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com><20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008e01c58b0f$67dcefb0$42b51b97@administxl09yj>

From: "BillK" 
> I am talking about post-singularity intelligence 
> which can redesign itself. 

That intelligence seems to be like the Newtonian
Maker and Lord of all things, so ...

"Since every particle of space is always, 
and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, 
certainly the Maker and Lord of all things 
cannot be never and nowhere."




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jul 17 21:12:31 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:12:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050717211231.GZ4317@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 07:04:15PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> 'Light cone' ??? The diameter of the Milky Way is 160 thousand light
> years. If any technological civ decides to colonise our galaxy, then
> depending on the assumptions, it will only take from a few 100,000
> years at c, up to a few million years to physically colonize the whole
> Milky Way. This is a tiny, tiny portion of the lifetime of our galaxy.

The light cone issue is relevant for 5-6 orders of magnitude larger scale.
Nobody sees large spherical voids at supercluster scale. There might be
isolated sightings of dark galaxies. I don't think they're brilliant, because
it implies intergalactic void is a tough barrier to cross, which doesn't make
sense.

> Fermi knew this, that's why it is a paradox for him.

I think Fermi's point was that he didn't think there was anybody smart out there.
He didn't think it was a paradox, others thought it was, and put his name on
it.

> That is also one of the reasons I have for thinking that galaxy
> colonisation is not an objective for post-singularity civs.

You haven't given me any reasons, just said that it's as easy to blanket out
a galaxy as it is a single star. I agree. You think they're not expansive, I
think they're not there. Which explanation is simpler?

> > Are you genuinely surprised that a detector can always observe detect itself,
> > even if the detector density is damn low? And that observation only tells you
> > at at least one detector exists, and nothing beyond that, until you can find a
> > causally unentangled another sample?
> > 
> > > My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to
> > 
> > My view is exactly opposite, natch.
> > 
> 
> OK, so where are they? 

Again: we're not in anybody's smart light cone. There's nobody out there we
can see yet. I pity poor presmarties in our light cone, though. They'll never
know what'll hit them.

> Are you making the even more unlikely claim that we are the first, or only? 

Anthropic principle says you can't infer a probability from a single sample,
the one being you. A single instance of intelligence in the entire universe
will reliably detect itself, each time. Cogito, ergo sum.

> Or are you claiming that we are unable to recognise post-singularity
> civs and they are, in fact, all around us?

No. I told you you should see them on GYr scale (and in fact, if you could
see them, you'd be dead soon after, or you'd never happened at all, which 
is a negative anthropic principle factor).

> Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I doubt if they have
> the capability to colonise the galaxy. I am talking about

It's a metaphor. The postbiological equivalent of primitive life. We'd be
right there at home among the mice and kudzu.

> post-singularity intelligence which can redesign itself. Immortality
> is one obvious result.

Nobody can monopolize control of the physical layer. Immortality looks good
on paper, until your neighbour eats you.

This isn't a single SI, or a monoclone thereof.

> Due to the vast age of the Milky Way, if they are not here, then either: 
> a) they don't want to be here, (a consequence of post-singularity

Anything nonexpansive is irrelevant. Anything expansive you see for a
gigalightyear distances.

> intelligence) or
> b) the singularity *always* kills civs, or 

What is the kill mechanism to reliably blanket a light day-month postbiology
ecosystem, every time? I can't think of any. You can't recall the chain
letter, that keeps on giving itself.

> c) we cannot see them all around us.

Do you think this is air you're breathing? (I do think this is air you're
breathing).

> I go with a).

I go we transcend now, and see for ourselves. My take is we initiate a
relativistic expansive wave which will only get canceled by another one, or
until dark energy sets an end to it.

-- 
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/20050717/d8d32a58/attachment.bin>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jul 17 21:58:17 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:58:17 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <021901c58b1a$a39cf3f0$0d98e03c@homepc>

How does the proactionary principle stand in relation to the
doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang? Jeckle
and Hyde?

We know where we can find the proactionary principle 
described, but where oh where has the definitive
articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone? 

Be interesting to see the principle and the doctrine compared
and contrasted. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050718/c6e10cc1/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 22:15:55 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:15:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050717151340f0329b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050717211231.GZ4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e050717151340f0329b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0507171515382ad495@mail.gmail.com>

From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET


On 7/17/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 07:04:15PM +0100, BillK wrote:
>
> > 'Light cone' ??? The diameter of the Milky Way is 160 thousand light
> > years. If any technological civ decides to colonise our galaxy, then
> > depending on the assumptions, it will only take from a few 100,000
> > years at c, up to a few million years to physically colonize the whole
> > Milky Way. This is a tiny, tiny portion of the lifetime of our galaxy.
>
> The light cone issue is relevant for 5-6 orders of magnitude larger scale.
> Nobody sees large spherical voids at supercluster scale. There might be
> isolated sightings of dark galaxies. I don't think they're brilliant, because
> it implies intergalactic void is a tough barrier to cross, which doesn't make
> sense.
>

Other galaxies are irrelevant. Estimates say the Milky Way has around
100 billion stars. That's 100,000,000,000. Maybe as many as 400
billion. Quite sufficient for my purposes, thank you.

Galaxies are usually millions of light years apart, with a few
well-known exceptions. Forget about other galaxies.


> > That is also one of the reasons I have for thinking that galaxy
> > colonisation is not an objective for post-singularity civs.
>
> You haven't given me any reasons, just said that it's as easy to blanket out
> a galaxy as it is a single star. I agree. You think they're not expansive, I
> think they're not there. Which explanation is simpler?


Actually I could agree with this. We *might* be the only, or first,
intelligent life in our galaxy. But we have a huge number of stars,
most much older than our sun. So I reckon the odds are against it.
Life seems to *want* to create itself in this universe.


> >
> > OK, so where are they?
>
> Again: we're not in anybody's smart light cone. There's nobody out there we
> can see yet. I pity poor presmarties in our light cone, though. They'll never
> know what'll hit them.
>

Again, light cones are irrelevant for our galaxy. Any expansive
post-singularity civ will relatively quickly be all over the galaxy.


> No. I told you you should see them on GYr scale (and in fact, if you could
> see them, you'd be dead soon after, or you'd never happened at all, which
> is a negative anthropic principle factor).

This is just a distraction. If the 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy
haven't produced an expansive civ to fill our galaxy, then I don't
care what might be going on in other galaxies. You are not increasing
the odds much by adding more galaxies, millions of light years away.


> Anything nonexpansive is irrelevant. Anything expansive you see for a
> gigalightyear distances.

That's the point! They are all nonexpansive in our galaxy, or they
would be all over us already.  Gigalightyear distances are
gigalightyears in the past (and irrelevant anyway).

>
> > intelligence) or
> > b) the singularity *always* kills civs, or
>
> What is the kill mechanism to reliably blanket a light day-month postbiology
> ecosystem, every time? I can't think of any. You can't recall the chain
> letter, that keeps on giving itself.
>

I hope you're correct here. :)


>
> I go we transcend now, and see for ourselves. My take is we initiate a
> relativistic expansive wave which will only get canceled by another one, or
> until dark energy sets an end to it.
>


If we did hit the singularity and decide to expand we would have
100,000,000,000 stars in our own galaxy to inspect shortly thereafter.
But I believe a transcendent civ will have *much* better things to do
than go on a centuries long plane trip.

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 18 00:07:25 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:07:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <021901c58b1a$a39cf3f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
	<021901c58b1a$a39cf3f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <15540F8A-3509-4F67-A655-811D413C81E4@mac.com>

Utterly unrelated.

On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> How does the proactionary principle stand in relation to the
> doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang? Jeckle
> and Hyde?
>
> We know where we can find the proactionary principle
> described, but where oh where has the definitive
> articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone?
>
> Be interesting to see the principle and the doctrine compared
> and contrasted.
>
> Brett Paatsch
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050717/99d7eac7/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jul 18 00:26:04 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:26:04 +1000
Subject: Proactionary vs preemptory was Re: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry
	etc..
References: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com><021901c58b1a$a39cf3f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
	<15540F8A-3509-4F67-A655-811D413C81E4@mac.com>
Message-ID: <025901c58b2f$48757c30$0d98e03c@homepc>

Samantha wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >
> > How does the proactionary principle stand in relation to the
> > doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang? Jeckle
> > and Hyde?
>>
>> We know where we can find the proactionary principle
>> described, but where oh where has the definitive
>> articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone? 
>>
>> Be interesting to see the principle and the doctrine compared
>> and contrasted. 
>
>
> Utterly unrelated.


Would *you* share with me and/or us how *you* see them as 
different? I would like to hear your personal views if, or when you
have time. 

I haven't found an authoritative articulation of the doctrine of 
preemption yet. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050718/b4db52df/attachment.html>

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Mon Jul 18 00:32:00 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:32:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
In-Reply-To: <42D9F58C.6010706@mydruthers.com>
References: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
	<42D9F58C.6010706@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <20050718003200.GA61339@or.pair.com>

Hal Finney wrote:
> There was a seminal paper by Groves and Ledyard for allocating public
> goods that could probably also work with negative externalities (which
> are like negative public goods).  There has been more work on this and
> it is a somewhat active area of research.

This one?

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/144.pdf

Not amenable to skimming (by me anyway), but it seems that they
have a mechanism for communicating preferences for public goods to
the government where the incentive is to communicate your true
preferences.  Taxation might be based on revealed preferences as
well in their system.  The gist of how it would work is perhaps
captured in on page 23 (my summary):

A message to the government consists of the amounts an individual
would like to add or subtract to others' requests for each public
good.  These messages determine resource allocation towards public
goods.  The same messages also determine individual taxes, which
are somehow proportional to the cost of the public goods requested
and the deviation from the average of others' requests.

Anyone know of a readable summary of how this (which I've probably
horribly misunderstood) would work in practice and of subsequent
research?

> It's also possible that a futures market could work, similar to Idea
> Futures.  People could buy real estate futures that were conditional on
> either the activity being started or not.  Then the price differential
> between the futures contracts would be an objective measure of the
> loss in property values due to the activity, which would then determine
> compensation levels.

That's a neat application.

Chris Hibbert wrote:
> Dominant Assurance Contracts

DACs could be used to create deed restrictions (I'll give up my
right to run a daycare center on my property if the neighbors can
raise $X).  I don't immediately see how they can be used to compensate
for negative externalities, which in many cases will be more efficient
than preventing (e.g., deed restriction) or mitigating (e.g., spend
more to make offshore platform less likely to fail) negative
externalities.


I don't recall where I read about it, but one scheme to facilitate
development and compensate for negative externalities goes something
like this:

Ask each resident or property owner how much they would have to be
paid to allow a (e.g.) nuclear plant to be built within some distances
from their locations, say 1km, 10km, 50km.  Given this information
nuclear plant entrepreneur can decide where to build the plant and
pay each entity the amount asked given the distance of the chosen
location.  I don't recall how this system got people to reveal their
true preferences or dealt with liars and holdouts (I require a
payment of $1 trillion for construction of a nuclear power plant
anywhere on earth).

Anyone know where I might have read this?

Hal Finney:
> The truth is, the NIMBYs have a point.  They should be compensated,
> when all the rest of us gain an advantage by doing harm to them.
> Doing this will be more fair, it will improve economic efficiency,
> and it will reduce resistance to much needed development projects.

They have a point, but one that is easily overemphasized.  Just
about anything one does is going to have negative externalities for
someone.  My guess is that a solid foundation of property rights
that prevent nuisance negative externality claims is far more
important than ensuring that significant negative externalities are
compensated for.  More efficient means of determining and compensating
for negative externalities would still be nice.

I'd liken this point to one I like to make about public goods
(admittedly just my intuition, but a very strong one) -- their
underprovision is overestimated, while rent seeking that goes along
with providing public goods through coercive means is severely
underestimated.  Still, more efficient means of providing public
goods and determining which ones to provide (e.g., DACs, perhaps
futarchy and "incentive compatible" mechanisms) are always welcome.

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 02:37:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
In-Reply-To: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050718023758.21033.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

re: negative externalities: one can (and I believe it once was in
court) argue that pollution near a factory is compensation for the
factory owner creating employment opportunities there, vs somewhere
else. When people show they don't want the trade off, the factory moves
elsewhere, ergo you get offshoring, maquiladoro, and similar phenomena.

> 
> The classic positive externality is beekeeping, which may benefit
> neighboring farmers by adding pollinators for their crops.  But this
> benefit is not considered by the beekeeper or the people who buy his
> honey.

Actually, they do, and beekeepers generally get paid by farmers to move
the hives to their fields to enhance pollenation, particularly orchard
owners do this...

> 
> Negative externalities are often a cause for opposition to various
> proposals that might well have a net positive effect.  This manifests
> in the classic NIMBY syndrome, "not in my back yard".
>  
> Recently there has been a proposal to build an offshore LNG
> (liquified natural gas) unloading terminal 40 miles south, off of 
> Oxnard. There are only a few LNG terminals in the whole U.S. and we
> are definitely going to need more.  This too is causing strong local
> opposition due to fears that the flammable gas could cause
> disastrous accidents or even be a focus of terrorism.

Locals see a benefit in the form of lower than normal LNG prices due to
transportation cost savings.

> 
> A simpler story happened locally, when a lady tried to get a permit
> to run a day care operation out of her home. There is a strong
> shortage of day care in the area with many businesses having
> waiting lists of five years or longer. (By that time your kid
> doesn't need day care any more.)
> She passed all the inspections, but the neighbors are fighting it.
> They live on a quiet residential street and having a business
> operating next door will negatively impact them due to the extra
> traffic and noise.

Caring for kids should never be considered 'pollution' (no matter how
much noisy brats annoy me) in a residential neighborhood, or a
nuisance, either, like a dog kennel. When you treat people as
pollutants you are going insane with regulation.

> 
> It's the same thing in each case - negative externalities.  And these
> are legitimate complaints.  Why should neighbors have to bear
> uncompensated costs when the larger community benefits?

Are they actually bearing costs? I would bet that having a daycare
center in one's neighborhood would enhance their property values.
Unless the neighborhood is a retirement community, there really isn't
any standing for a complaint. Anybody home during school hours likely
has noisy brats of their own, if they aren't retired, home employed
(just like the day care owner), or disabled.

>  
> This means that charging for externalities is actually an economic
> improvement, as it insures that only projects go forward which are
> economically rational.  But it also means that if externalities are
> not paid for, excess benefits appear and go into the pockets of the
> people
> engaging in the activity; so of course they will oppose proposals to
> compensate for externalities.
> 
> One of the problems with compensation is that it is difficult to come
> up with a formula for a fair compensation level. Once the possibility
> is opened, of course each person has an incentive to exaggerate the
> negative
> impact he feels in order to negotiate a higher level of compensation.
> And meanwhile the proponents of the activity are lobbying to reduce
> or eliminate compensation.  In the face of these opposing forces the
> political process is unlikely to hit upon an economically optimal
> level of compensation.

As I posted previously, market value listing (rather than assessed
value listing) would reflect the impacts of positives and negatives in
the valuation.

Don't let the individual people decide their harm or benefit, let the
market as a whole.


> 
> These are all rather esoteric ideas, but even a simpler and cruder
> approach would seem to be a step forward over the present method,
> which
> is basically for the two sides to yell at each other until somebody
> backs down.  We're going to need offshore oil drilling and many other
> measures as well in order to satisfy our energy needs.  It seems
> obvious
> that paying the communities which are impacted by the wells should go
> a long way towards quelling the opposition which will otherwise hold
> these efforts up for years, until we hit some kind of crisis.  It's
> the same way with other NIMBY problems.
> 
> The truth is, the NIMBYs have a point.  They should be compensated,
> when all the rest of us gain an advantage by doing harm to them.
> Doing this will be more fair, it will improve economic efficiency,
> and it will reduce resistance to much needed development projects.

NIMBYs themselves are theives. Look, for example, at any instance where
an unzoned area votes to have zoning. Some property owners
(particularly residential) who tend to be the majority of voters, gain
large amounts in their property values, while others, like wetlands,
farmlands, etc see dramatic drops in their property values. This is
clearly a taking that is uncompensated.

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  Mon Jul 18 02:46:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050717033626dde534@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050718024610.44214.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ha ha ha, they always have some excuse to propose deletion. One more
example of attempts at editing consensus reality to suppress political
opinion they disagree with. Glad to see it was preserved.

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

> The Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary
> Principle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle>has
> been
> proposed for deletion on the basis of the allegation that not many
> people support or have paid attention to it. The entry should be
> expanded 
> and supporters should vote to keep it on Wikipedia. My vote: *Keep*.
> it is 
> an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the
>
Precautionary_Principle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle>,
> this article provides a needed balance.
> >From the entry: Dr. Max More
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_More>, 
> philosopher, authored the text for the
> ethical<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical>principle that
> stipulates
> the following:
> * People's freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable,
> even 
> critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when
> restrictive 
> measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to
> available 
> science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the 
> restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor
> measures 
> that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts,
> and that 
> have a high expectation value. Protect people's freedom to
> experiment, 
> innovate, and progress.*
> > _______________________________________________
> 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  Mon Jul 18 02:50:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <021901c58b1a$a39cf3f0$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050718025053.80076.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

It is clear that the precautionary principle is pre-emptive in
practice. Odd that those who support it tend to oppose pre-emptive
action in other issues....

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

> How does the proactionary principle stand in relation to the
> doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang? Jeckle
> and Hyde?
> 
> We know where we can find the proactionary principle 
> described, but where oh where has the definitive
> articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone? 
> 
> Be interesting to see the principle and the doctrine compared
> and contrasted. 
> 
> Brett Paatsch> _______________________________________________
> 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  Mon Jul 18 03:07:01 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Democracy + Capitalism
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520507170850407e0046@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050718030701.48585.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Suggest looking at Dr. Mary Ruwart's work, which pretty conclusively
demonstrates that freedom and wealth, democracy and capitalism are
interdependent upon each other.

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

> Can be a driving force behind advancing worldwide human rights: yes.
> Are necessarily a driving force behind advancing worldwide human
> rights: definitely no, can also be a driving force behind suppressing
> worldwide human rights. Depends on a lot of factors.
> G.
> 
> On 4/30/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> > I've been working on an article on the culture of globalization,
> democracy
> > + capitalism.  From my research, democracy and capitalism lean
> toward
> > compatibility and could be helpful advocates of human rights.
> > 
> > Does anyone think that the democratic interconnected financial
> relations
> > between nations could be a driving force behind advancing worldwide
> human
> > rights?
> > 
> > Natasha
> _______________________________________________
> 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 03:51:47 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <20050718025053.80076.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050718035147.94217.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>

The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly phrased
as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." This
still leaves much room for honorable conduct. One can
just as easily pre-empt someone with kindness as a
"shock and awe" missile attack. We could have
airdropped food, pornographic pictures, and arabic
translations of John Locke's "Rights of Man" on them
and had gotten just as much chaos for a whole lot
cheaper in money and lives. 

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

> It is clear that the precautionary principle is
> pre-emptive in
> practice. Odd that those who support it tend to
> oppose pre-emptive
> action in other issues....
> 
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > How does the proactionary principle stand in
> relation to the
> > doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang?
> Jeckle
> > and Hyde?
> > 
> > We know where we can find the proactionary
> principle 
> > described, but where oh where has the definitive
> > articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone? 
> > 
> > Be interesting to see the principle and the
> doctrine compared
> > and contrasted. 
> > 
> > Brett Paatsch>
> _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


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  Mon Jul 18 08:49:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> A computing system needs storage, logic, and
> infrastructure. An
> efficient system maximizes some computing metric
> with respect to
> mass.

DNA based wetware does this. It maximizes the metric
of copy number by replication and does so by
assimilating matter/energy from surrounding
space-time.

 
> I'm assuming that an SI is a computing system.

I am assuming all intelligences and subintelligences
are computing systems.
 
> Our solar system's existing intelligent computing
> system is an
> evolved system that does not yet have much ability
> to  direct
> its own further design,

Not yet. But we are closing in on it. The Human Genome
project showed us the blue-prints that will allow us
to reverse-engineer and then modify ourselves in ways
that are truly astounding.

 This is another way of
> saying that
> our singularity has not yet occurred. Our evolved
> system makes
> use of DNA for storage and a protein-based,
> chemistry-driven
> nanotechnology for logic and top-level
> infrastructure. It is an
> amazing achievement given no intelligent design, but
> it is horribly
> inefficient at the system level.

So is MS Windows. Doesn't mean that C++ is a bad
scripting language. Don't get hung up on the
IMPLEMENTATION. The implementation was a faulty result
of arbritrary selection forces. But the fact remains
that the basic computing elements are ideal for
computation. So much so they managed to do it by
accident and quite successfully might add. Show me
another scripting language that writes itself.

 Almost the entire
> available mass of the
> system is concentrated in the sun, and is unused
> except as the
> first stage of a horribly inefficient power source
> for the computing
> elements. 

I am sorry but the sun exists for its own purposes.
That it can be used as a power source at all should be
reason for gratitude. Inefficient? Show me an
artificial solar power device more efficient than
chlorophyll and photosystems I & II. 

Almost all of the power is lost to space.
> Of the trivial
> percentage that reaches Earth, almost all is
> re-radiated to space 
> immediately,
> without effect.

If that is a concern for you, perhaps you would like
planet Venus better. There is no water there so no
annoying reflective clouds or ice-caps. It does a real
good job of keeping the energy it absorbs from the
sun.

 Of the tiny percentage that is
> captured in bio-systems, 
> almost
> all is used to build plants, and only a tiny
> percentage of this biomass will
> ultimately be used to feed humans.

Well a lot of it goes feed livestock which then go on
to feed humans. We could eat a larger percentage of
the biomass but people don't generally find insects
and slime-molds palatable. 

 Of the part used
> to feed humans, almost
> all is used to build and power infrastructure rather
> than to support
> computation.

No, computing is more fundamental than what you call
infrastructure. The infrastructure could not have come
about without computing.

> 
> I think an SI will be able to make a few
> improvements. I think the logical
> extrapolation is to a system that has converted its
> mass into efficient
> computronium.

Hey I am all for building a dyson sphere but I will be
damned if it doesn't run green with wet-life. And DNA
based intelligence, possibly SI.

 My guess is that nanomechanical
> systems will be the
> most efficient.

They already are.



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 pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 09:29:58 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:29:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Science & Theology News on Liberation Biology
Message-ID: <470a3c52050718022948424e60@mail.gmail.com>

>From Science & Theology
News<http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=646&category=books>,
a surprisingly positive article on Bailey's Liberation
Biology<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022274/qid=1121678758/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8311910-8300920?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
.
In Liberation Biology, Ronald Bailey, a science writer for Reason magazine, 
questions assumptions and conclusions made by biotechnology detractors, or 
bioconservatives. He argues that bioconservative criticisms of the biotech 
revolution are more political gimmick than scholarly endeavor.
Countering Fukuyama's somber statement that life extension could exert 
negative influence upon society, Bailey argues, after Thomas Hobbes' 
Leviathan, that society exists for the sake of the individual and not vice 
versa.
Even a cursory look at the evolution of the technique over the last five 
decades should convince us that much of the criticism against biotech fails 
in the face of contingency of technology. Some are afraid that biotech is 
assuming the role of a moral arbitrator and should be shelved. But a faith 
in creative potential and freedom to actualize it would turn biotech into a 
truly revolutionary instrument of human evolution. Just like the transition 
from Gutenberg to Web publishing, biotech is causing a fundamental shift in 
human cognition. 
Liberation Biology is rightfully about the biological path to freedom. It 
gives a resounding rebuttal to biological determinism by arguing a case for 
biology as a technique and not tyranny. Bailey's daring work that inspires 
readers to take a critical look at our religious and cultural beliefs while 
they undergo inevitable transformation as biological beings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050718/a9dcae62/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 09:53:56 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:53:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting blog: Future Imperative
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071802531b8fd59e@mail.gmail.com>

Reading the SL4 list I have found this interesting blog Future
Imperative<http://futureimperative.blogspot.com/>edited by Ralph
Cerchione.
What if technology were being developed that could enhance your mind or body 
to extraordinary or even superhuman levels -- and some of these tools were 
already here? Wouldn't you be curious?
Actually, some are here. But human enhancement is an incredibly broad and 
compartmentalized field. We're often unaware of what's right next door. This 
site reviews resources and ideas from across the field and makes it easy for 
readers to find exactly the information they're most interested in.
The two last entries are Augmentation: Is the Train Leaving the
Station?<http://futureimperative.blogspot.com/2005/07/augmentation-is-train-leaving-station.html>and
A
Glimpse of the Future -- Or, Has SF Gone
Blind?<http://futureimperative.blogspot.com/2005/07/glimpse-of-future-or-has-sf-gone-blind.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050718/eb5a3319/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 15:56:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
In-Reply-To: <20050718035147.94217.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050718155614.40343.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

We did that schtick in 1991. It sorta worked for the Kurds, but not at
all for the Shiites. The peace love and coexistence thing doesn't
really work well when the other side is still exterminating whole
villages each day.

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

> The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly phrased
> as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." This
> still leaves much room for honorable conduct. One can
> just as easily pre-empt someone with kindness as a
> "shock and awe" missile attack. We could have
> airdropped food, pornographic pictures, and arabic
> translations of John Locke's "Rights of Man" on them
> and had gotten just as much chaos for a whole lot
> cheaper in money and lives. 
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > It is clear that the precautionary principle is
> > pre-emptive in
> > practice. Odd that those who support it tend to
> > oppose pre-emptive
> > action in other issues....
> > 
> > --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > How does the proactionary principle stand in
> > relation to the
> > > doctrine of pre-emption I wonder? Ying and Yang?
> > Jeckle
> > > and Hyde?
> > > 
> > > We know where we can find the proactionary
> > principle 
> > > described, but where oh where has the definitive
> > > articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption gone? 
> > > 
> > > Be interesting to see the principle and the
> > doctrine compared
> > > and contrasted. 
> > > 
> > > Brett Paatsch>
> > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 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
"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


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 18 17:23:24 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:23:24 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Lorrey - Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq?
	Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <20050716172649.86718.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050716172649.86718.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DBE58C.6050109@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

_________

There is a reason why people like Lindauer are not running political
parties, and that is because the point of parties is to get votes and
get meaningful things accomplished, not pontificate pompously on
orthodox fundamentalist political philosophy and run Star Chamber
inquisitions on every members political reliability, while never
accomplishing anything of merit.

__________


Is the irony lost on anyone but me?

Robbie Lindauer






From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Jul 18 17:13:22 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:13:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poisoning pigeons in the park
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050718130833.05ba8948@unreasonable.com>

The issue of Physics Today I spoke of is now out.

If you are a member of a member society of the American Physical Society, 
you can access the new Tom Lehrer material (and other physics-in-song) at

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/p56.shtml
A Physics Songbag
>The editors of PHYSICS TODAY take you on a shuffle and a dip into the long 
>tradition of giving a lyrical voice to science. This grab bag of songs 
>concludes with a lyric-writing contest.

Other interesting items --

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/p36.shtml [members]
Putting Mechanics into Quantum Mechanics
>Nanoelectromechanical structures are starting to approach the ultimate 
>quantum mechanical limits for detecting and exciting motion at the 
>nanoscale. Nonclassical states of a mechanical resonator are also on the 
>horizon

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/p43.html [free for all]
The Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Small Systems
>The interactions of tiny objects with their environments are dominated by 
>thermal fluctuations. Guided by theory and assisted by new 
>micromanipulation tools, scientists have begun to study such interactions 
>in detail

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/p49.shtml [members]
Physics and the Real World
>No current physics experiment or theory explains the nature?or even the 
>existence? of emotions, money, fine art, football games, or people. What 
>can physics say about such things?

If you haven't seen PT before, you might find it interesting. Since physics 
covers such a wide range of topics, the articles are pitched at a level 
suitable for any of us, as IEEE Spectrum does for electrical engineering, 
for similar reasons.

Any suggestions for magazines in other fields that are meant for pros but 
accessible to outsiders?


-- David Lubkin.



From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 18 17:48:23 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:48:23 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] A first cut logical struct. for impeachings -
	a high	level how to doc
In-Reply-To: <008401c58a84$89ea0a60$0d98e03c@homepc>
References: <008401c58a84$89ea0a60$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <42DBEB67.6030205@aol.com>

Brett, if you're looking for the support of a coupla thousand people, 
that I can help with, but if you're looking for the support of a senator 
or congressperson able to bring the charge, I'm afraid finding one of 
those is as likey as finding a Hawaiian Rail pair mating naturally on Oahu.

Robbie


Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Just some musings I'd like to put on public record.
>  
> -----
>  
> On the accused - the impeachee   
>  
> It is argued.
>  
> 1) That he knew the relevant law beforehand. 
>             (see records of public statements)
>         
> 2) That he was specifically and personally duty and oath
>     bound to uphold that law.
>             (see US Constitution, UN Charter, US and UN Resolutions)
>  
> 3) That he then broke that law.
>             (see facts)
>  
> 4) That he knows he broke that law.
>             (mens re - criminal intent)
>  
> 5) That he is unremorseful and would break that law again!
>   
>     (And is a clear and present danger whilst remaining
>     at large and is likely to act to avoid impeachment,
>     intimidate witnesses and destroy evidence)
>  
> Prospective impeachees:
>  
> 1 George W Bush
> 2 Dick Cheney
> 3 Donald Rumsfeld 
> 4.
> 5.
>  
> Prospective impeachers:
>  
>   Any number of fine American patriots
>  
> Means:
>   1 Popular movement caused by disatisfaction with consequences
>  
> (those with an interest in impeachment occurring might say so
> publicly, as such is political, and non violent form of expression.
> Likely these might be terms traitors and terrorist appeasers which
> aint so so best to have a clear stand on public record of being
> pro-rule of law)
>  
>   2 then House
>   3 then Senate
>  
> On the evidence:
>  
> - Documents are better than witness testimony.
> - Witness testimony is better if corroborated and first hand.
> - Better strategically to not name all documents and witnesses beforehand
>   for their own protection.
> - Rare original or early copies of evidence to be protected, copies
>  made and widely distributed to avoid destruction.
>  
> On witnesses:
>    Candidate witnesses
>  
> Compile list so that candidate witnesses good health and wellbeing can
> be monitored (for their own safety) perhaps by international media.  
>  
> Include current and former staffers, generals, media reporters,
> diplomats, foreign heads of state (?).
>  
> From list of candidate witnesses only some would actually be called
> by senate to bear witness.
>  
> -----
>  
> Hmm, its rough, but a start and can be fleshed out later. Impeachment
> is both legal and political. A populace that does not care will not
> uphold its own laws. But time and events can make wrongs done
> become clearer and the political will can build. Legally, the facts are
> the facts.  
>  
> 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 Jul 18 18:40:32 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle vs. Pre-emption
In-Reply-To: <20050718155614.40343.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050718184032.41620.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>

My point is that democracies are not built with guns,
they are built with pens, paper, and minds with ideas.
The bullets come when it is time to win the democracy,
but the democracy as a memetic construct must be
firmly in place in everyone's minds first. The
founders of America realized that, even if the Bush
doesn't. Which is why when they wanted democracy in
France, they sent Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin
Franklin and not the Continental Army.
 

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

> We did that schtick in 1991. It sorta worked for the
> Kurds, but not at
> all for the Shiites. The peace love and coexistence
> thing doesn't
> really work well when the other side is still
> exterminating whole
> villages each day.
> 
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly
> phrased
> > as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." This
> > still leaves much room for honorable conduct. One
> can
> > just as easily pre-empt someone with kindness as a
> > "shock and awe" missile attack. We could have
> > airdropped food, pornographic pictures, and arabic
> > translations of John Locke's "Rights of Man" on
> them
> > and had gotten just as much chaos for a whole lot
> > cheaper in money and lives. 
> > 


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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Jul 18 20:08:35 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:08:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050718200834.GA5272@ofb.net>

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 07:04:15PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Are you making the even more unlikely claim that we are the first, or only? 

"Even more unlikely" seems like assuming your conclusions.  If one believes in
expansionist civilizations then we pretty much have to be the first
civilization in our light-cone; if we weren't we wouldn't be here, or we'd be
obviously in some sort of preserve.

Being first is unlikely if one thinks that there could be millions of
intelligent species in the galaxy.  If one thinks there could only be one
naturally intelligent species, because it then colonizes the galaxy like
bateria in a Petri dish, preventing anything else from arising, then our odds
of being first are 1/1, not 1/million.

Remember that many biologists these days think the creation of life is
relatively easy, since it happened so early; certainly easier than eukaryotes
or multicellular life were.  But nonetheless there's just one root to the tree
of life, because whatever did get established spread through the oceans.

> > > colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a bunch
> > > of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever they
> > > go. How immature is that?

Maturity is sitting on one's butt?

> > > These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
> > > 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down

Resource rich until someone wants to build a Tipler cylinder.

> > > to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
> > > that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
> > > they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> > > likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> > > centuries to go to another star system?

Web geeks aren't all of modern civilization.  More representative in the US is
urban sprawl and bigger houses, the desire for living space.  And some people
want to get *away* from other people, to be with nature, or to live on their
own resources and feel self-sufficient.  Assuming that post-Singularity minds
will be all web geeks and no survivalists seems odd to me.

> Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I doubt if they have
> the capability to colonise the galaxy. I am talking about
> post-singularity intelligence which can redesign itself. Immortality
> is one obvious result.

But what values will be used for the redesign?

Even if it were true that the most intelligent and "mature" beings would be
web geeks, addicted to bandwidth, that would not preclude other beings which
were technological but precluded by their deep structure from redesigning
themselves away from spreading and colonization.  They'd be the 'kudzu'.  If
superintelligence doesn't reproduce, evolution will select against
superintelligence.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 21:01:39 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] T-Rex with Bird Lungs- Ouch!
Message-ID: <20050718210139.73433.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey all,

Came across this and it is really cool. Essentially
there is growing evidence that many therapod dinosaurs
(including T-Rex amongst others) already had the
pulmonary system of birds. The reason this is so cool
is because bird lungs and the associated air sacs
throughout the body form the most efficent respiratory
design of any vertabrate. They are a flow through
system which means that unlike mammalian lungs which
are essentially like sacks, i.e. the air comes in and
goes out by the same route. Bird (and dinosaur) lungs
are more like a loop of several links of hollow
sausages. Therefore the air a bird inhales goes around
in a circuit getting passed from airsac to airsac,
maximizing the oxygen/CO2 exchange. Thus while we
exhale the breath we inhaled immediately before hand,
birds exhale the breath they took two or three breaths
ago. What this means is that it is now highly unlikely
that T-Rex was a slow lumbering scavenger as is one
theory. Instead, T-Rex should have been able to
sustain speeds in excess of 40-50 mph, possibly for
hours at a time like modern day ostriches. I need a
set of lungs like that. :)

Layperson link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/13/dino.respiratory.systems.reut/index.html

Geek link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/full/nature03716.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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 21:04:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Proactionary Principle vs. Pre-emption
In-Reply-To: <20050718184032.41620.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050718210433.74829.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Not technically accurate. Guns keep a democracy, once won, from being
turned into mobocracy or terrocracy by thugs and demogogues, or at
least they help slow the process. Who controls the guns becomes the
center of power, either the people, or the state.

They didn't send the continental army to France because there wasn't
one, by that time, pretty much. The French, btw, were going overboard
with violence quite will without our help and despite our counsel to
moderate themselves. However, the French Revolution's contrast to the
American one demonstrates that you are generally correct about minds
with ideas being of most importance, versus demogogues and thugs.
Jefferson and Franklin did not go to France to bring democracy there,
they went there to get money from the French for our fight, and did so
before the French Revolution.

I don't think Iraqis are ignorant of democracy, I think most people in
the world are pretty well exposed to the ideas of it, though they may
be tainted by local propaganda and disinformation, and short on details
if they do not research it closely.

The stability of Kurdistan over the previous decade demonstrates to me
that people with little direct experience with it can pick it up pretty
quickly. 

The problems we have today IMHO are primarily extremist groups of
islamist fascists who insist on enslaving the rest of the moderate
modern muslim world and don't want democracy. That they are now killing
anyone who supports the government, even Sunnis who start dealing with
the govt, demonstrates they are not interested in taking a seat.

That the moderates in the muslim world have not done a good job of
fighting for their point of view is a serious problem. My experience
conversing with people in the muslim world has taught me that ideas of
altruism toward people they don't know is generally unheard of,
strange, and viewed with suspicion about ulterior motives, particularly
in Iraq and Iran.

As we are speaking of Iraq and Thomas Jefferson in the same thread, I
would suggest anyone who hasn't seen Charlie Rose today to pick up his
interview with Christopher Hitchens, who just put out a book on Thomas
Jefferson and is noted as an english liberal who is ardently
pro-American and pro-Bush.

It is his view that the conflict now underway is a global civil war of
humanity, with what he describes as Jeffersonians in the west and the
moderate muslim world on one side, and islamo-fascism on the other. He
documents that al Zarquawi was in Iraq as a guest of Saddam before
9-11, and how Zarquawi built his organization of foreign fighters at
the behest of Saddam, so claims that there is no real link between
Saddam and terrorism (beyond his $50k bounties to the families of
suicide bombers in Palestine) are implausible.

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

> My point is that democracies are not built with guns,
> they are built with pens, paper, and minds with ideas.
> The bullets come when it is time to win the democracy,
> but the democracy as a memetic construct must be
> firmly in place in everyone's minds first. The
> founders of America realized that, even if the Bush
> doesn't. Which is why when they wanted democracy in
> France, they sent Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin
> Franklin and not the Continental Army.
>  
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > We did that schtick in 1991. It sorta worked for the
> > Kurds, but not at
> > all for the Shiites. The peace love and coexistence
> > thing doesn't
> > really work well when the other side is still
> > exterminating whole
> > villages each day.
> > 
> > --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly
> > phrased
> > > as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." This
> > > still leaves much room for honorable conduct. One
> > can
> > > just as easily pre-empt someone with kindness as a
> > > "shock and awe" missile attack. We could have
> > > airdropped food, pornographic pictures, and arabic
> > > translations of John Locke's "Rights of Man" on
> > them
> > > and had gotten just as much chaos for a whole lot
> > > cheaper in money and lives. 
> > > 
> 
> 
> 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
"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 rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Jul 18 21:08:31 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:08:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
In-Reply-To: <20050718003200.GA61339@or.pair.com>
References: <20050716234419.DBA9657E8C@finney.org>
	<42D9F58C.6010706@mydruthers.com> <20050718003200.GA61339@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050718170231.030f9548@mail.gmu.edu>

At 08:32 PM 7/17/2005, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/144.pdf
>...
>Anyone know of a readable summary of how this (which I've probably
>horribly misunderstood) would work in practice and of subsequent
>research?

Here is some favorable experimental data:

Learning and Incentive Compatible Mechanisms for Public Goods 
Provision: An Experimental Study, Yan Chen and Fang-Fang Tang. 
Journal of Political Economy 106 (1998): 633-662.

Little or no work has been done on working out practical applications.
While lots of work has been done on theory and lab experiments of related
mechanisms, it has been limited to abstractly described situations, avoiding
the messy complexity of real politics.  In other areas where lots of
consulting money was available, such as in auction design, economists have
gotten into the messy details.  But few consulting customers have been
interested in making public good mechanisms real.



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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 22:23:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050718222331.3037.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I
> doubt if they have
> the capability to colonise the galaxy. 

Well the kudzu are screwed. But bacteria on the other
hand may be the only form of life that HAS colonized
the galaxy so far. There are many biologists (Francis
Crick and myself for example) that believe that life
did not originate on Earth, instead it originated
elsewhere and colonized the then recently cooled
Earth. This theory is called pan-spermia. Aside from
the fact that there is no real evidence, fossil or
otherwise, of an "RNA world" on ancient earth, there
are reasons that it is a valid origin theory. It seems
very likely that all life on earth came from a single
progenitor ancestor. If life just kind of happened
here, then I think you would expect to see different
clades of life starting concurrently but instead it
radiated out from a single form. Other lines of
evidence include, nearly uniform genetic code, same
fundamental metabolic pathways, same 20 amino acids,
and same chirality.
     That bacteria could survive long enough in space
to colonize other worlds is pretty well documented.
Any of the rod shaped bacilli of the type that contain
Anthrax as a representative species can form
super-resistant endospores. These spores can survive
in a near inanimate state without food or water for
indeterminately long periods of time in very harsh
conditions including hard vacuum, ionizing radiation,
and extremes of heat and cold. It seems that such
spores could be easily disseminated by asteroid and
comet strikes or possibly even by supernovae. They
could hitch a ride on planetary debris thrown out as
ejecta from such cataclysms to captured by the gravity
of a passing star.
     These endospores could potentially survive for
thousands of years in the interstellar void and all
they need to "wake up" is exposure to water and
nutrients.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=99004

Excerpts from article:

Reliable reports exist of the recovery and revival of
spores from environmental samples as old as 105 years
(54, 81, 154), and there recently appeared a somewhat
more controversial report that viable Bacillus
sphaericus spores were recovered from the gut of a bee
fossilized in Dominican amber for an estimated 25 to
40 million years (20)!

With the LDEF mission, for the first time B. subtilis
spores were exposed to the full environment of space
for an extended period of time (nearly 6 years), and
their survival was determined after retrieval. The
samples were separated from space by a perforated
aluminum dome only, which allowed access of space
vacuum, solar UV radiation, and most of the components
of cosmic radiation (72). Figure 12 shows that even in
the unprotected samples, thousands of spores survived
the space journey (from an initial sample size of 108
spores). All spores were exposed in multilayers and
predried in the presence of glucose. The spore samples
had turned from white to yellow during the mission, a
phenomenon which is probably due to photochemical
processes. It was suggested that all spores in the
upper layers were completely inactivated by the high
flux of solar UV radiation. With time, they formed a
protective crust which considerably attenuated the
solar UV radiation for the spores located beneath
them. Therefore, the survivors probably originated
from the innermost part of the sample

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 00:17:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050718222331.3037.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719001722.89326.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> --- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I
> > doubt if they have
> > the capability to colonise the galaxy. 
> 
> Well the kudzu are screwed. But bacteria on the other
> hand may be the only form of life that HAS colonized
> the galaxy so far. There are many biologists (Francis
> Crick and myself for example) that believe that life
> did not originate on Earth, instead it originated
> elsewhere and colonized the then recently cooled
> Earth. This theory is called pan-spermia. Aside from
> the fact that there is no real evidence, fossil or
> otherwise, of an "RNA world" on ancient earth, there
> are reasons that it is a valid origin theory. It seems
> very likely that all life on earth came from a single
> progenitor ancestor. If life just kind of happened
> here, then I think you would expect to see different
> clades of life starting concurrently but instead it
> radiated out from a single form. Other lines of
> evidence include, nearly uniform genetic code, same
> fundamental metabolic pathways, same 20 amino acids,
> and same chirality.

Just because we have a uniform genetic code doesn't speak anything to
the origins of life. All it indicates is that a life form with that
genetic code either arose first, or outcompeted other, less efficient
or more flawed species of bacteria arose and exterminated everything
else (just as all humans can be genetically traced back to one common
ancestor who was not necessarily the first of his or her species and
gender). The progenitor bacteria could have arrived from space or
arisen spontaneously here, we can't tell from the evidence, EXCEPT for
some geological information:

At that early date in Earth's development, Earth's atmosphere was 52
times thicker and denser than it currently is, which would reduce odds
of meteoric/cometary material containing bacteria surviving reentry.
This early atmosphere had to be reduced to limestone rock by lifeforms
before it became thin enough for meteorites to survive reentry. Of
course, there was a lot more material incoming then than now, so odds
of large impactors were much greater then than now.


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 max at maxmore.com  Tue Jul 19 00:26:24 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:26:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Reposting this information as a reminder, before I'm out email contact for 
a while.

My own talk is titled, "Proactionary Nano-Policy: Managing Massive 
Decisions for Tiny Technologies", and most certainly is NOT a call for 
regulating nano...

Max

-----------------------------------------
WEBCAST ANNOUNCED
FOR FIRST WORKSHOP ON
GEOETHICAL NANOTECHNOLOGY

July 6, 2005, Melbourne Beach, FL --  The Terasem Movement, Inc., a 
non-profit foundation focused on geoethical nanotechnology, announced today 
that an interactive webcast featuring Ray Kurzweil, Max More, Frank Tipler, 
Natasha Vita-More, Doug Mulhall and other luminaries at its Geoethical 
Nanotechnology meeting will be openly accessible at 
www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast from 8AM-6PM EST on Wednesday, July 20th.

Viewers of the interactive webcast are invited to email or IM 
(instant-message) questions directed to the presenters throughout the 
meeting.  Each hour, some of these will be selected for the featured 
speakers to answer.  Emailed questions should be addressed to 
terasem at terasemfoundation.org.  AOL IM questions should be addressed to 
"terasem."

Other Workshop presenters available for emailed or IM questions on July 
20th include Nobel Laureate Barry Blumberg (speaking on the definitional 
boundary of life), Natasha Vita-More, Wrye Sententia, Prof. Len Doyal, Mike 
Treder, Walt Anderson and Martine Rothblatt.  The webcast will feature 
simultaneous transmission of audio, video and PowerPoint presentations.

For further information, check out the "Program" page for "Geoethical 
Nanotechnology Workshop" at www.terasemfoundation.org or contact Robert 
Daye at robert at terasemfoundation.org, phone: 321-676-3690, fax: 321-676-3691.


_______________________________________________________
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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 19 01:24:10 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:24:10 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary Principle
References: <20050718035147.94217.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017101c58c00$90966070$0d98e03c@homepc>

The Avantguardian wrote:


> The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly phrased
> as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." 

>This still leaves much room for honorable conduct. 

With my evolutionary psychology and game theory hat on,
I think this is wrong Stu, (i.e. I don't see that it leave *much* 
room for honorable conduct) unless of course the pre-emption
is of the sort that would be recognized as welcome assistance,
or "cooperation", otherwise it looks like "defection" that is
justifiable only by placing an artibrary date or event as the
beginning and ignoring what took place earlier.

Let me clarify, the world did not start on 9/11. 

9/11 came after 8/11 and before 10/11. When it is chosen
as a baseline for action then it is chosen somewhat arbitrarily
wouldn't you agree?

<Note for newbies: To my mind 9/11 was a bad thing,
no question about that. It just wasn't the world's first bad
thing and it probably isn't helpful to imagine that those
who caused planes to crash into buildings were just
crazy when they were clearly acting with coordination
and purpose. To them they may have been retaliating not
for 9/11 but for offenses done at some other place or date>

Brett Paatsch



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 19 02:56:21 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:56:21 +1000
Subject: A refinement Re: [extropy-chat] Wikipedia entry on the Proactionary
	Principle
References: <20050718035147.94217.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
	<017101c58c00$90966070$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <019001c58c0d$71b15e00$0d98e03c@homepc>

I wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> 
>> The Doctrine of Pre-emption can be succinctly phrased
>> as "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." 
> 
>>This still leaves much room for honorable conduct. 
> 
> With my evolutionary psychology and game theory hat on,
> I think this is wrong Stu, (i.e. I don't see that it leave *much* 
> room for honorable conduct) unless of course the pre-emption
> is of the sort that would be recognized as welcome assistance,
> or "cooperation", otherwise it looks like "defection" that is
> justifiable only by placing an artibrary date or event as the
> beginning and ignoring what took place earlier.
> 
> Let me clarify, the world did not start on 9/11. 
> 
> 9/11 came after 8/11 and before 10/11. When it is chosen
> as a baseline for action then it is chosen somewhat arbitrarily
> wouldn't you agree?
> 
> <Note for newbies: To my mind 9/11 was a bad thing,
> no question about that. It just wasn't the world's first bad
> thing and it probably isn't helpful to imagine that those
> who caused planes to crash into buildings were just
> crazy when they were clearly acting with coordination
> and purpose. To them they may have been retaliating not
> for 9/11 but for offenses done at some other place or date>

Instead of saying the world did not start on 9/11 which is
bleeding obvious and irrelevant ("the world", terra is the
forum for the game, not the agents in the game), I should
have said the active agents ("the people"), the players,
the folks with grievances and aspirations and friends and
loved ones did not pop into existence on 9/11. Not the 
firemen and police that rushed to the aid of those in the
twin towers, not the passengers on the jets, not the hijackers.

In fact I think it would be fair to say almost all the players
in the world in which 9/11 took place were not born 
that day but had had lives with some history and therefore
carried in them some memory. 

To understand 9/11 we do not need to look back to the
beginning of life on earth, but we do need to look back,
perhaps to the beginning of the memoryspans of the key
players. 

For instance, what was the oldest age of any of the 19 or
20 if you prefer to include the other one, that took part in
the hijacking of the four planes? Was it maybe 30?

Lets say it was 30, then we would know that the motivating
factors for those deadly agents were things that they had
been told or experienced in the 30 years leading up to 9/11.

We'd have the problem nicely bracketed in time. 

Now to pursue this line of game theoretic analysis further 
we look at the ages of the other agents. How old is say 
George W Bush, well he's was older than 30, he was but
not so old as Rumsfeld and Cheney, and Powell, or obviously
his own father George H W Bush. Young George W Bush's
entire conception of life on earth, his memory, all he knows 
and mistakenly thinks he knows goes only back so far and 
no further. 

Again we have the problem bracketed from the standpoint
of another key player in the war on terror. 

Worst case scenario, and its ridiculous, I think, but I offer
it to make a point, say 9/11 was staged like a Reichstagg
fire event. Those that staged it, even their 'bitter', 'twisted' 
minds reach back only so far, people don't live longer
than 123. So again we have the problem bracketed because
we have the experiential timeset of the agents, the 'players'
in the 'game of contempory life on terra', bracketed.

Brett Paatsch



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jul 19 03:41:10 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:41:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <cff9d35d307fc6cbcb4ed00f77ec095f@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Max More wrote:

> Melbourne Beach, FL

Wow, you're in my home town!  Unfortunately, I will be in Washington, 
DC.  (Drat!)

FYI, If anybody is staying at the Radisson Suite Hotel Oceanfront on 
the beach in Melbourne, be aware that most of the balconies are 
unavailable due to hurricane damage.  (The town is still rebuilding 
from the hurricanes, and there is a shortage of construction crews and 
materials.)  People should specifically request a usable balcony if you 
want one.

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



From max at maxmore.com  Tue Jul 19 04:42:13 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:42:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical
	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <cff9d35d307fc6cbcb4ed00f77ec095f@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<cff9d35d307fc6cbcb4ed00f77ec095f@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718234108.03dbaba8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 10:41 PM 7/18/2005, you wrote:

>On Jul 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Max More wrote:
>
>>Melbourne Beach, FL
>
>Wow, you're in my home town!  Unfortunately, I will be in Washington, 
>DC.  (Drat!)

Ah, not such a close miss actually. The FL address is for the organizer's 
HQ. The meeting is in Vermont. (However, we will be passing through Miami 
on the way to Caracas.)

Cheers,

Max




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Jul 19 04:47:40 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:47:40 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Cooper says Rove was leaker
Message-ID: <01a501c58c1c$fedd3510$0d98e03c@homepc>

No names, but Rove was leaker
Tim Reid, Washington
July 19, 2005
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15975863%255E601,00.html

' Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson's wife had worked at CIA
on weapons of mass destruction issues and ended the call by saying:
"I've said too much."

[Cooper] wrote : "Was it through my conversation with Rove that
I learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA ...? Yes. Did Rove
say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD' ? Yes. Is any of
this a crime? Beats me."   '


So Rove and 'Scooter' Libby are apparently the leakers, but what 
national interest if any was served by their leaking?  Just political
payback?

What crime if any was committed and what does it matter if 
President Bush can just pardon them anyway?

Interesting. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050719/4618d856/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 05:32:32 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Cooper says Rove was leaker
In-Reply-To: <01a501c58c1c$fedd3510$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050719053232.19480.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> No names, but Rove was leaker
> Tim Reid, Washington
> July 19, 2005

> [Cooper] wrote : "Was it through my conversation
> with Rove that
> I learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA ...?
> Yes. Did Rove
> say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD' ? Yes.
> Is any of
> this a crime? Beats me."   '
> 
> 
> So Rove and 'Scooter' Libby are apparently the
> leakers, but what 
> national interest if any was served by their
> leaking?  Just political
> payback?

It was actually detrimental to national interests,
national security sprecifically, which is why it was a
crime. That it could be a simple case of petty
political payback that threatened national security is
hard to believe but what else could it be? 
 
> What crime if any was committed and what does it
> matter if 
> President Bush can just pardon them anyway?

Could be as serious as treason . . . of course I think
Ashcroft will be the prosecutor so it will probably be
downgraded to child-endangerment or something equally
as ludicrous. Bush has stated that "If anyone in my
administration is found guilty of a crime, they will
be fired." This of course means that for all intents
and purposes nothing  will change. It will take years
for this thing to go to trial and by the time a
verdict is delivered it won't matter much. Unless we
make it point to go after all these guys afterwards.
Sheesh, the Mayberry Machiavelli strikes again.

  




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 Jul 19 06:18:03 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:18:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET
Message-ID: <p06210200bf0248cff0cb@[23.237.66.13]>

>      That bacteria could survive long enough in space
>to colonize other worlds is pretty well documented.

millions of years ? (the traveling time in space of the Martian
meteorites span years to millions of years).

This is a still relatively new research area.
  Horneck (below) says

[begin quote]
Viable transfer from one planet to another requires that life,
probably of microbial nature, survives the following three steps:
1) the escape process, i.e. ejection into space, e.g. caused by a
large impact on the parent planet; (ii) the journey through space,
i.e. time scales in space comparable with those experienced by
the Martian meteorites (approximately 1-15 Ma); and (iii) the
landing process, i.e. non-destructive deposition of the biological
material on another planet.
[end quote]

There is a large range of conditions to test for these three
steps. Many aspects look feasible, but results are along ways
away to support your first sentence.

>Any of the rod shaped bacilli of the type that contain
>Anthrax as a representative species can form
>super-resistant endospores. These spores can survive
>in a near inanimate state without food or water for
>indeterminately long periods of time in very harsh
>conditions including hard vacuum, ionizing radiation,
>and extremes of heat and cold. It seems that such
>spores could be easily disseminated by asteroid and
>comet strikes or possibly even by supernovae.

See the chapter: Viable Transfer of Microorganisms in the Solar System
and Beyond by Gerda Horneck, et al. in _Astrobiology: The Quest for
the Conditions of Life_ by Springer 2002.

It is an extremely comprehensive report, detailing the conditions that
they have tested bacteria and the conditions that they still need to
test.

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 marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Tue Jul 19 06:20:33 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:20:33 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Summary of early ideas from my 'Theory Of Everything'
Message-ID: <20050719062033.64288.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

O.K, just a quick summary of the key points from my
developing theory.  Once I've got hard proof of these,
I promise you'll all be the first to know.  In the
mean-time, these ideas should just be thought as
intriguing food for thought

----

Presenting...Summary of the Geddes TOE! ;)

----

A.  The 7 Universal Knowledge Domains (UKD's)

a. There are 7 Universal Knowledge Domains.  By
'Universal' knowledge domain, I mean an area of
knowledge which is 'universally applicable' i.e
applicable everywhere in the multiverse where a
sentient mind could exist

b.  The 1st UKD is concerned with *Possibility*, the
2nd UKD is concerned with *Choice*, the 3rd UKD is
concerned with *State*, the 4th UKD is concerned with
*Connection*, the 5th UKD is concerned with *Time*,
the 6th UKD is concerned with *Comparison*, the 7th
UKD is concerned with *Space*.  

So;  Possibility, Choice, State, Connection, Time,
Comparison and Space.


B The Periodic Table Of Cognition

Was intended to list the fundamental categories of
cognition, based on the theory of the UKD's.  The
skeleton starting point for this was posted on the SL4
Wiki a couple of months back:

http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/UniversalDataTypes


C  Qualia -  Consciousness as Time?

a  Consciousness is a manifestation of *Time* i.e The
suggestion is that *Time* (physical definition) and
*Conscioius Experience* are one and the same.  Note
that 'Time' is the 'stuff' of one of the UKD's.

b  Time/Consciousness serves as the *structure* of the
universe.  Consciousness is what knits the moments of
time together.  To be more precise, consciousness is
what ensures that *causality* holds - to be even more
precise - what ensures that there is a coherent
mapping between cause and effect.

c  If the theory is correct, panpsychism is true. 
Qualia would have to be everywhere, because time is
everywhere.  So everything has some degree of
consciousness.  The degree and nature of that
consciousness is determined by how tightly the moments
of time *map* to each other at a given region of
space.  Sentients (like humans) are simply bits of
thew cosmos where information about current states is
tightly integrated with information about past states.
 

d  Note that the above theory is fully consistent with
John Taylor's 'Relational' theory (which by the way is
well supported by empirical data) - where
consciousness is conjectured to be caused by the
integration of current experience with past memories.

e  The ultimate purpose of consciousness according to
my theory is revealed to be the 'knitting togther of
moments of time' sufficiently that the universe
continues to exist forever (without consciousness, the
universe would dissolve due to a gradual weakening of
causality - states would not be sufficiently
constrained for effects to continue to map coherently
to causes).


D  General intelligence and consciousness

a  General intelligence is the ability to *map*
between the 7 UKD's.  It is the ability to 'translate'
the language of one UKD into the language of another.

b  Consciousness is *not* caused by an imperfect
cognitive mapping mechanism, as some A.I researchers
have thought.  Consciousness is in fact caused by a 
*perfect* cognitive mapping, between one universal
knowledge domain and another.  Thus, my theory reveals
that you cannot have general intelligence without
sentience, because any effective mapping between the
universal knowledge domains will produce
consciousness.

c  Consciousness is simply a manifestation of the the
7 Universal Knowledge Domains (7 UKD's). 
Consciousness exists because at root there are 7
fundamentally different but equally valid ways to
describe every part of reality and
intelligence/consciousness is the manifestation of the
mapping between these 7 UKD's.


E  Universal Values

a  There *is* a Universal Value System(by 'universal'
, I mean a morality true for all sentients).  The
Universal Value System exists because of the coherent
mapping between the Universal Knowledge Domain
concerned with 'State', and the Universal Knowledge
Domain concerned with 'Choice'. 

b  From a, it follows that the level of intelligence
is constrained by the level of friendliness.  A
function of increasing intelligence is Big Oh (maths
notation) a function of increasing friendliness.  This
means that (in the limit), intelligence is constrained
by friendliness.  

c  The correlation between intelligence and
friendliness gets better and better the higher the IQ.
 That's why in humans the correlation is weak (humans
are not that smart).  But there is no danger from a
recursively self-improving unfriendly AI, because for
sentients in general the correlation between
friendliness and IQ will be very strong.

d  There is a Universal Value System (which includes
moral values).  The Universal Value System is composed
of 14 finitely specifiable 'Universal Utilities' - 2
for each of the 7 Universal Knowledge Domains.

e  All possible values systems are simply recursive
elaborations and/or combinations of the 14 Universal
Utilities.


F Friendly Seed AI

*To design a seed FAI, my theory implies that you only
need to code the finite kernels for each of the 14
'Universal Utilies', using the coding specifications
implied by the structure of the 7 'Universal Knowledge
Domains'.

---

That's about it folks.  That's the essence of my
theory of everything!  Thanks for your patience.


---

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

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 06:53:17 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050719001722.89326.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719065317.82204.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just because we have a uniform genetic code doesn't
> speak anything to
> the origins of life. All it indicates is that a life
> form with that
> genetic code either arose first, or outcompeted
> other, less efficient
> or more flawed species of bacteria arose and
> exterminated everything
> else (just as all humans can be genetically traced
> back to one common
> ancestor who was not necessarily the first of his or
> her species and
> gender).

Yes all these things are possible but wouldn't there
be evidence of these "alternative" lifeforms? They
have microfossils dating to very early after the earth
solidified(~300 million years). These microfossils for
all intents and purposes resemble certain phyla of
modern bacteria. This is why your example doesn't
hold. You are right that we are fairly certain that
all modern humans decended from two individuals, there
are numerous fossils documenting all the other
homonids that we outcompeted to do so. These
evolutionary "alternative biology" losers ought to
have left some clues that they were here.

> At that early date in Earth's development, Earth's
> atmosphere was 52
> times thicker and denser than it currently is, which
> would reduce odds
> of meteoric/cometary material containing bacteria
> surviving reentry.

Not necessarily. If the spores were frozen into some
water ice, they would merely be dispersed by the
vaporization of the ice upon atmospheric entry. Then
they would float down way slower than any snowflake in
the 52x atmosphere.


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 Jul 19 06:53:14 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050719001722.89326.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719065314.31236.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just because we have a uniform genetic code doesn't
> speak anything to
> the origins of life. All it indicates is that a life
> form with that
> genetic code either arose first, or outcompeted
> other, less efficient
> or more flawed species of bacteria arose and
> exterminated everything
> else (just as all humans can be genetically traced
> back to one common
> ancestor who was not necessarily the first of his or
> her species and
> gender).

Yes all these things are possible but wouldn't there
be evidence of these "alternative" lifeforms? They
have microfossils dating to very early after the earth
solidified(~300 million years). These microfossils for
all intents and purposes resemble certain phyla of
modern bacteria. This is why your example doesn't
hold. You are right that we are fairly certain that
all modern humans decended from two individuals, there
are numerous fossils documenting all the other
homonids that we outcompeted to do so. These
evolutionary "alternative biology" losers ought to
have left some clues that they were here.

> At that early date in Earth's development, Earth's
> atmosphere was 52
> times thicker and denser than it currently is, which
> would reduce odds
> of meteoric/cometary material containing bacteria
> surviving reentry.

Not necessarily. If the spores were frozen into some
water ice, they would merely be dispersed by the
vaporization of the ice upon atmospheric entry. Then
they would float down way slower than any snowflake in
the 52x atmosphere.


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 Jul 19 06:53:24 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050719001722.89326.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719065324.88392.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just because we have a uniform genetic code doesn't
> speak anything to
> the origins of life. All it indicates is that a life
> form with that
> genetic code either arose first, or outcompeted
> other, less efficient
> or more flawed species of bacteria arose and
> exterminated everything
> else (just as all humans can be genetically traced
> back to one common
> ancestor who was not necessarily the first of his or
> her species and
> gender).

Yes all these things are possible but wouldn't there
be evidence of these "alternative" lifeforms? They
have microfossils dating to very early after the earth
solidified(~300 million years). These microfossils for
all intents and purposes resemble certain phyla of
modern bacteria. This is why your example doesn't
hold. You are right that we are fairly certain that
all modern humans decended from two individuals, there
are numerous fossils documenting all the other
homonids that we outcompeted to do so. These
evolutionary "alternative biology" losers ought to
have left some clues that they were here.

> At that early date in Earth's development, Earth's
> atmosphere was 52
> times thicker and denser than it currently is, which
> would reduce odds
> of meteoric/cometary material containing bacteria
> surviving reentry.

Not necessarily. If the spores were frozen into some
water ice, they would merely be dispersed by the
vaporization of the ice upon atmospheric entry. Then
they would float down way slower than any snowflake in
the 52x atmosphere.


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 Jul 19 07:01:37 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] OOPS. . . why did Yahoo-Mail do that?
In-Reply-To: <20050719065324.88392.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719070137.43004.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>

Sorry


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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Jul 19 08:38:19 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:38:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>
	<20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719083819.GA10934@ofb.net>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:49:01AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> DNA based wetware does this. It maximizes the metric of copy number by
> replication and does so by assimilating matter/energy from surrounding
> space-time.

Maybe, but saying that DNA itself is computronium is I think a bit much.  It's
a nicely dense storage medium, and yeah a few problems have been tackled in
the lab with naked DNA, but we're a ways yet from a general system.

> Not yet. But we are closing in on it. The Human Genome project showed us the
> blue-prints that will allow us to reverse-engineer and then modify ourselves
> in ways that are truly astounding.

True, though I think a 'real' AI would outstrip that.  Biology has been weak
on spare parts, or on backups.  Being able to tinker with the DNA which forms
brains isn't as appealing as being able to copy and tinker whole minds.

> reason for gratitude. Inefficient? Show me an artificial solar power device
> more efficient than chlorophyll and photosystems I & II. 

Well, depends on the purposes.  For generating electricity from sunlight you
want photovoltaics, at 15-30% efficiency, or a solar-driven turbine at perhaps
higher efficiency.  Photosynthetic efficiency in full sunlight is I think
between 2% (maintenance) and 8% (rapid growth phase) efficiency, and that's
for making sugars or oils which would then have to be turned into
electricity...

But I've read that photosynthesis is limited by CO2 availability (and
efficiency can be 20% in dim light) which may explain a lot about why plants
and leaves are shaped and distributed the way they are.  If we wanted to build
stuff out of sunlight and water and atmospheric CO2 we might not do any better
better; I don't know the energy costs of extracting CO2, or of breaking it up
chemically (how?) to do stuff with the carbon.

But for running a modern computer I'll take the solar panels.

> to feed humans. We could eat a larger percentage of the biomass but people
> don't generally find insects and slime-molds palatable. 

Insects or slime-molds would just be eating the plants.  If you want biomass
efficiency, be vegetarian.

> > improvements. I think the logical extrapolation is to a system that has
> > converted its mass into efficient computronium.

Now, what *is* biological computronium is neural matter.  I used to take for
granted that it was crappy, what with using neurons instead of wires, even if
they were self-repairing, and having unbelievably slow signals.

But I figure a brain has 1e6 to 1e8 times the raw computing power of a desktop
CPU (or more accurately, would take that many CPUs to be emulated), while
using about as much power.  I'd thought CPUs massed a few grams, so the brain
would be only 1000x as mass efficient, but on checking with friends I'm being
given the idea that modern CPUs are in the hundreds of grams.  And brains are
more resistant to EMPs, and have their memory built in (which is probably part
of the efficiency).

I'd wondered why a brain should be more power efficient, given that it's using
whole ions as charge carriers, instead of light electrons.  And why neurons
didn't lay down conducting polymer to use fast electrons instead.  But then I
remembered KE = mv^2/2.  Ions are 10,000x more massive than electrons... and
being moved about 1e6 times more slowly.  I don't know how many ions are used,
vs. how many electrons, but it's at least a sign that moving small things very
quickly is in fact not the route to energy efficiency.

Pit about the lack of backups.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jul 19 09:22:06 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:22:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719083819.GA10934@ofb.net>
References: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>
	<20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050719083819.GA10934@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050719092206.GI2259@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:38:19AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> Maybe, but saying that DNA itself is computronium is I think a bit much.  It's

Computronium is a molecular crystal made from computing cells, optimized 
for doing computation. DNA is nothing like computronium. Dry cold DNA is a pretty
dense storage medium, though.

> a nicely dense storage medium, and yeah a few problems have been tackled in
> the lab with naked DNA, but we're a ways yet from a general system.

DNA computes by matching complementary bases. It's a solvated linear biopolymer, 
requires lots of solvent to be able to diffuse freely. It's limited by viscous
drag, and by I/O issues, required to encode your problem, and decode it.

Electronic and spintronic systems are much quicker (ballistic electron and photon
transport), and can be much denser, since requiring no solvent nor bulky encoding/decoding
hardware.  

DNA might be useful to build computronium by way of self-assembly, but it's really
lousy for computation.
 
> > reason for gratitude. Inefficient? Show me an artificial solar power device
> > more efficient than chlorophyll and photosystems I & II. 
> 
> Well, depends on the purposes.  For generating electricity from sunlight you
> want photovoltaics, at 15-30% efficiency, or a solar-driven turbine at perhaps

There might be alternative ways of converting solar radiation, with efficiencies not
limited to ~30% by the band gap (though stacking tuned-gap cells could range higher)

	http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv_prm/pdfs/papers/54.pdf

> Now, what *is* biological computronium is neural matter.  I used to take for
> granted that it was crappy, what with using neurons instead of wires, even if
> they were self-repairing, and having unbelievably slow signals.

No, in terms of energy efficiency and functionality concentration a human or
an insect brain is very far removed from what we can currently do. 
 
> But I figure a brain has 1e6 to 1e8 times the raw computing power of a desktop
> CPU (or more accurately, would take that many CPUs to be emulated), while

We don't know what the equivalent is. There are no comparable benchmarks.

> using about as much power.  I'd thought CPUs massed a few grams, so the brain

CPUs alone are useless. You need to look at the total mass of a Blue Rack, included
the machine room and the air conditioning versus a ~75 kg human. Here the efficiency
becomes particularly abysmal.

> would be only 1000x as mass efficient, but on checking with friends I'm being
> given the idea that modern CPUs are in the hundreds of grams.  And brains are
> more resistant to EMPs, and have their memory built in (which is probably part
> of the efficiency).

Um, there are many reasons why our current systems suck. However, there are also
many reasons why a nanocomputer would beat, say, the bee brain by many orders
of magnitude, both in speed and efficiency.
 
> I'd wondered why a brain should be more power efficient, given that it's using
> whole ions as charge carriers, instead of light electrons.  And why neurons

This factor is negligible.

Sorry for the handwaving, writing a quantitative paper comparing CNS and
current hardware would be fun, but not something I'm paid for. If other parties
are interested, we might cook up a list of differences and similiarites, and put
some numbers to it, so the archives should get it. (Not that anybody can be arsed 
to read the archives, of course).

> didn't lay down conducting polymer to use fast electrons instead.  But then I
> remembered KE = mv^2/2.  Ions are 10,000x more massive than electrons... and
> being moved about 1e6 times more slowly.  I don't know how many ions are used,
> vs. how many electrons, but it's at least a sign that moving small things very
> quickly is in fact not the route to energy efficiency.
> 
> Pit about the lack of backups.

They weren't in the original specs.

-- 
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/20050719/9ac93380/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jul 19 10:43:25 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:43:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507171515382ad495@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050715183457.GP4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e0507171104ad1b312@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050717211231.GZ4317@leitl.org>
	<ee50357e050717151340f0329b@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0507171515382ad495@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050719104325.GN2259@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 11:15:55PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Other galaxies are irrelevant. Estimates say the Milky Way has around
> 100 billion stars. That's 100,000,000,000. Maybe as many as 400
> billion. Quite sufficient for my purposes, thank you.

Other galaxy clusters would have been irrelevant, if you couldn't see them.
There are no visible holes in supercluster distribution. Gravitational lensing
doesn't show invisible dark blobs, on all scales. 
 
> Galaxies are usually millions of light years apart, with a few
> well-known exceptions. Forget about other galaxies.

You must be mistaking somebody else's mail for mine.
 
> Actually I could agree with this. We *might* be the only, or first,
> intelligent life in our galaxy. But we have a huge number of stars,
> most much older than our sun. So I reckon the odds are against it.
> Life seems to *want* to create itself in this universe.

You can't extrapolate from a sample of one, the one being you. 
All life in this system is causally entangled by originating metallicity,
and crosspollination through impact ejecta.  

I'm not interested in life, only in life that we can currently 
observe -- the intelligent, expansive kind.
 
> Again, light cones are irrelevant for our galaxy. Any expansive
> post-singularity civ will relatively quickly be all over the galaxy.

I don't know why my mail is particularly difficult to understand. 

There are no holes in the sky. Observer emergence-preventing relativistic
expansion wavefronts can only be observed very rarely anyway, given low 
nucleation density, which is even documented through our own history, 
strongly hinting we're a fluke. 

No offense, but please read the above, and understand what it means.
 
> > No. I told you you should see them on GYr scale (and in fact, if you could
> > see them, you'd be dead soon after, or you'd never happened at all, which
> > is a negative anthropic principle factor).
> 
> This is just a distraction. If the 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy
> haven't produced an expansive civ to fill our galaxy, then I don't
> care what might be going on in other galaxies. You are not increasing

I don't know what you're trying to do, but I'm trying to get upper bound
of smart expansive life from observation data.

It is perhaps not a good idea to try ignoring observation data which is 
telling you something in glowing letters GLYr high.  

> the odds much by adding more galaxies, millions of light years away.

Aargh! I'm giving up now.
 
> > Anything nonexpansive is irrelevant. Anything expansive you see for a
> > gigalightyear distances.
> 
> That's the point! They are all nonexpansive in our galaxy, or they
> would be all over us already.  Gigalightyear distances are
> gigalightyears in the past (and irrelevant anyway).

[ ] they're not observable because they're nonexpansive
[x] they're not observable because they're not there  

Occam's Razor sez: I will cut you. 

> If we did hit the singularity and decide to expand we would have
> 100,000,000,000 stars in our own galaxy to inspect shortly thereafter.
> But I believe a transcendent civ will have *much* better things to do
> than go on a centuries long plane trip.

They still have a metabolism, and they're still darwinian. The first
makes them observable, the second expansive. 

(If you think they're not darwinian, demonstrate how they ceased to be).

-- 
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/20050719/07d7367e/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 12:52:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: Cooper says Rove was leaker
In-Reply-To: <01a501c58c1c$fedd3510$0d98e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050719125238.29102.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> No names, but Rove was leaker
> Tim Reid, Washington
> July 19, 2005
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15975863%255E601,00.html
> 
> ' Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson's wife had worked at
> CIA
> on weapons of mass destruction issues and ended the call by saying:
> "I've said too much."
> 
> [Cooper] wrote : "Was it through my conversation with Rove that
> I learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA ...? Yes. Did Rove
> say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD' ? Yes. Is any of
> this a crime? Beats me."   '
> 
> 
> So Rove and 'Scooter' Libby are apparently the leakers, but what 
> national interest if any was served by their leaking?  Just political
> payback?
> 
> What crime if any was committed and what does it matter if 
> President Bush can just pardon them anyway?
> 
> Interesting. 

Yes. One does wonder what Ms. Plame was thinking when she specifically
recommended her husband to do the company's business in Nigeria.
Technically, since he went there on CIA business, his public disclosure
of his work was also a violation of national security, unless his
article was cleared with the CIA first, however one wonders if she
recommended him specifically so that she could trust she would get the
result she was looking for. It seems to me that that was the spin that
Rove was trying to put on Wilson's story: that it was rigged by insider
nepotism and can't be trusted. Wilson and Plame seem to me to be
players who are working the system

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  Tue Jul 19 13:08:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050719065314.31236.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719130847.28209.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Just because we have a uniform genetic code doesn't
> > speak anything to
> > the origins of life. All it indicates is that a life
> > form with that
> > genetic code either arose first, or outcompeted
> > other, less efficient
> > or more flawed species of bacteria arose and
> > exterminated everything
> > else (just as all humans can be genetically traced
> > back to one common
> > ancestor who was not necessarily the first of his or
> > her species and
> > gender).
> 
> Yes all these things are possible but wouldn't there
> be evidence of these "alternative" lifeforms? They
> have microfossils dating to very early after the earth
> solidified(~300 million years). These microfossils for
> all intents and purposes resemble certain phyla of
> modern bacteria. This is why your example doesn't
> hold. 

You can't make this determination for the simple reason that you cannot
read the genetic code of such early fossils. Fossils generally do not
contain genetic material, they are rock which formed either to fill in
voids left by decomposed matter or which follow a shape created by
organic matter before it decomposed. There is no chance of catching the
first bacteria in amber since amber is a biological product of tree
sap.

> You are right that we are fairly certain that
> all modern humans decended from two individuals, there
> are numerous fossils documenting all the other
> homonids that we outcompeted to do so. These
> evolutionary "alternative biology" losers ought to
> have left some clues that they were here.

But you have no way of knowing whether they used different genetic code
than us or our ancestors or not. A fossilized shape of a bacteria
doesn't tell you its genetic code.

> 
> > At that early date in Earth's development, Earth's
> > atmosphere was 52
> > times thicker and denser than it currently is, which
> > would reduce odds
> > of meteoric/cometary material containing bacteria
> > surviving reentry.
> 
> Not necessarily. If the spores were frozen into some
> water ice, they would merely be dispersed by the
> vaporization of the ice upon atmospheric entry. Then
> they would float down way slower than any snowflake in
> the 52x atmosphere.

And they'd have both survive landing in that atmosphere but surviving
and thriving in a 52 bar atmosphere with a surface temp over 150
degrees. The beast you are describing is an ultra extremophile that
would use catalytic elements like tungsten and other high temperature
elements in its protiens and today would be generally inert at normal
temps and pressures.

Such creatures already exist in the Archaea and thrive throughout the
earth's crust.

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 stiger420 at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 19 15:05:32 2005
From: stiger420 at hotmail.com (david stiger)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:05:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars,
	and the references to them both in the Bible.
Message-ID: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>

Hello fellow extropians.  This is my first time posting on the list and I 
would like to introduce myself.  My name is David Stiger and I am a student 
in the Saint Louis University department of International Business in 
Madrid, Spain.  My post is more or a question than a statement, but it is 
something that I have been semi-obsessing about for the past year or so.


First of all, what do you all think about the possibility that humanity was 
actually created by a superior race referred to by the Sumerians as the 
Annunaki?

Secondly, why doesn't a discovery as seemingly important as the Cydonia 
region of Mars get more attention from NASA?

Why does there seem to be an unmistakeable connection with the Freemasons 
and the origins of Civilization as we know it?


After I get some opinions on these topics I can go a little further, but for 
now I will leave it at that.  It feels good to finally participate in this 
infinitely interesting list.  I look forward to reading your responses.

David Stiger
"A man can be destroyed, but not defeated."  -Ernest Hemmingway




From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 19 15:12:07 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:12:07 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll
Message-ID: <BAY107-F32F2BD102554E42E2DFB22FAD40@phx.gbl>

In response to everyone's comments about the article I posted:

I believe it is becoming increasingly evident that this is unlike any "war" 
or even conflict we have ever faced. One could compare it to common 
terrorism (those with demands and or identifiable objectives) but one would 
fall absurdly short in terms of scale, besides the fact that the demands are 
either ridiculous (Spain to give andalucia back to the what? the moors?) or 
not demands at all (bombings "in response" to something someone has done). 
And of course it is not like any normal war being fought, because is is 
being fought by and among "civilians", a term currently being redifined in 
today's battlefield.

Whatever the death tolls of the Holocaust, the point is that we need to 
redefine the way we think of war, safety, defense, and offense for this new 
era. We can't bring old weapons to a new fight. Sure, the United States and 
the rest of the Global North may be invincible in the traditional sense, but 
not in the context of today's events. London has more cameras than any city 
in the world, but what good is that against suicide bombers?

I'd like to see more realistic suggestions for the future of warfare and 
preservation of our way of life in the context of a world where wars are no 
longer fought between soldiers, and casualties are seldom on a battlefield. 
The discussion on a "transparent society" was a good one, I think something 
was learned and exchanged in that thread. One solution. Mark it down. Keep 
it in mind.

But is that as good as some of the best minds of today can do?
I think not.
-Evan

PS: My thanks for everyone who welcomed me; I didn't expect such a warm, or 
quick, response.

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jul 19 16:13:27 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:13:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071909136897d893@mail.gmail.com>

Comment: Viva Zapatero!
Civilrights.org<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=33631>: 
The church has branded the law, a pet project of Socialist Prime Minister 
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as an unprecedented threat to Christian 
civilization [!!!].
Concord Monitor<http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/REPOSITORY/507190316/1037/NEWS04>:
Although numerous countries today recognize some form of same-sex 
partnership, the Spanish law goes beyond most because it eliminates all 
legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A gay 
married couple has all the same rights as a straight married couple, 
including the right to adopt children. A similar law exists in the 
Netherlands, and one is pending in Canada.
Zapatero says the law will help transform Spain into a new and "decent 
society."His agenda also includes plans to liberalize divorce, abortion and 
stem-cell research. But the church is incensed, saying the very definition 
of family is being destroyed.
Some of the opponents of gay marriage said they don't mind legislation 
recognizing civil unions for homosexuals. They draw the line, however, at 
giving it a status equivalent to the marriage of man and woman.
The issue has roiled debate in a number of countries, including the United 
States. The Bush administration is promising to fight the kind of same-sex 
unions that a number of jurisdictions have enacted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050719/95ee6223/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jul 19 16:49:58 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:49:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be a galactic blogger!
Message-ID: <470a3c5205071909496211fd32@mail.gmail.com>

Become a galactic blogger and tell ET what you think of life on this little 
blue planet and beyond!
PhysOrg <http://www.physorg.com/news5278.html>: MindComet launches a website 
sending bloggers where no blog has gone before: deep space.
BloginSpace.comis a free service for bloggers allowing them to submit
their blog feeds for
transmission into deep space. The site will aggregate blog content into 
transmission packages and send the content into deep space via a powerful 
earth-based satellite broadcast.
MindComet hopes that the service will allow humans to connect to alien 
beings in a new way. Ted Murphy <http://www.mindcomet.com/company/bios/>, 
President and CEO of MindComet <http://www.mindcomet.com/>. "We are giving 
bloggers the opportunity to send a piece of their lives into space to 
potentially connect with extraterrestrials." MindComet is now accepting 
registrations to transmit information to deep space. For free registration 
and more information visit
<http://www.bloginspace.com/>BloginSpace.com<http://bloginspace.com/>.
Blogs In Space is the first entity to allow everyday bloggers to transmit 
the news and thoughts of an everyday person into space.
I wanted to register but registration is not working:-(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050719/95ad35a7/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jul 19 16:52:26 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:52:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars, and the
	references to them both in the Bible.
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050719115200.0392b4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:05 AM 7/19/2005 -0400, David Stiger wrote:

>I look forward to reading your responses.

Don't hold your breath.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 17:03:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars,
	and the references to them both in the Bible.
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050719170304.58878.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello fellow extropians.  This is my first time posting on the list
> and I would like to introduce myself. My name is David Stiger and I
> am a student in the Saint Louis University department of
> International Business in
> Madrid, Spain.  My post is more or a question than a statement, but
> it is something that I have been semi-obsessing about for the past
> year or so. 
> 
> First of all, what do you all think about the possibility that
> humanity was actually created by a superior race referred to by the
> Sumerians as the Annunaki?

Superior to what? How? How is their creation myth any different from
the creation myths of men being fashioned by the gods? Take the
Mahabharata, which describes the flying chariots of the Indian gods
quite well, and where they came from. There are also the Dogon people
of Africa who can identify the very star their gods came from.

The Sumerian creation mythology leaves a lot to be desired, but also
some info that could only have been known by a species aware of early
solar system history. For example, one Sumerian creation story says
that the Earth was created by the collision of two worlds, which jives
with current theory that the early Earth was struck by a planetesimal,
which stripped off much of Earths crust and flung it into orbit, which
eventually accreted to form the Moon. This event happened some 3.3
billion years ago, long before any intelligent species could have
evolved here.

However, as Stephenson quoted a certain researcher in his novel Snow
Crash, much sumerian mythology is incomprehensible or resembles the
imaginings of a febrile two year old.

> 
> Secondly, why doesn't a discovery as seemingly important as the
> Cydonia region of Mars get more attention from NASA?

It did get closer attention, at higher resolution, and was found to be
just another clump of hills. Attention then shifted for the same reason
that scientists don't regard New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain a
sign from an alien race or ancient civilization. "The Face" only looks
like one from a certain angle and certain shadows, it is an artifact of
geology and not a sculpture. 

So now answer my question: since the info about the higher resolution
photos has been out there for a few years now, they've been rigorously
ignored or denied by Face cult adherents. Why?

> 
> Why does there seem to be an unmistakeable connection with the
> Freemasons and the origins of Civilization as we know it?

There isn't except as a fantasy in the minds of certain people.


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 amara at amara.com  Tue Jul 19 17:36:41 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:36:41 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars ...
Message-ID: <p06210202bf02e87b3da4@[150.146.134.133]>

david stiger:
>Secondly, why doesn't a discovery as seemingly important as the
>Cydonia region of Mars get more attention from NASA?


If NASA accommodated all of the kooky people, then they would not have
enough time to accomplish the goals that were written in their science
plans. If they did not listen however, then they would be accused of
committing cover-up conspiracies. So they usually try to find a middle
ground. Many of the project scientists will answer if people write
them letters with their ideas and hypotheses.

Because the push from public was so strong about Cydonia, they _did_
make some observations after Viking. See here:

http://www.lyon.edu/projects/marsbugs/1998/19980415.pdf

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Jul 19 18:55:25 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:55:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719092206.GI2259@leitl.org>
References: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>
	<20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050719083819.GA10934@ofb.net> <20050719092206.GI2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050719185524.GA32299@ofb.net>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:22:06AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:38:19AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > Maybe, but saying that DNA itself is computronium is I think a bit much.
> > It's
> 
> Computronium is a molecular crystal made from computing cells, optimized 
> for doing computation. DNA is nothing like computronium. Dry cold DNA is a

Is a rod-logic computer a crystal?  I've always defined computronium as matter
optimized for computation; exactly how will depend on the tech available.  And
as Wikipedia on computronium points out, on the goals: speed, storage, energy
efficiency, mass efficiency, cost...

> No, in terms of energy efficiency and functionality concentration a human or
> an insect brain is very far removed from what we can currently do. 

This seems in contradiction of the facts I possess, such as our difficulty in
matching insect functionality, with devices which weigh more and consume more
power.

> > But I figure a brain has 1e6 to 1e8 times the raw computing power of a
> > desktop CPU (or more accurately, would take that many CPUs to be
> > emulated), while
> 
> We don't know what the equivalent is. There are no comparable benchmarks.

We know the brain has 1e11 units, 1e14 synapses, and update frequencies of up
to 1000 Hz.  1e17 flops.  I can see needing 'only' 1e14 in practice, if much
of the brain is idle at any moment and 100 Hz is more like the real update
speed.  And about 1e14 bytes of RAM.

> CPUs alone are useless. You need to look at the total mass of a Blue Rack,
> included the machine room and the air conditioning versus a ~75 kg human.
> Here the efficiency becomes particularly abysmal.

I don't see it.  100 W for the total human system, with advanced face
recognition, speech recognition, speech production, planning, robotics, Go
playing (potential) and partial protection against hostile replicating goo, to
put a few things in CS terms.  Well, for the naked human; if you start
counting First World lifestyle it's 1e4 Watts.  But brains being practical
computronium doesn't have to mean using human beings; it can mean grown arrays
of neurons, or cyborged animals.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 19 19:01:21 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:01:21 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars, and the	references
	to them both in the Bible.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050719115200.0392b4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050719115200.0392b4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42DD4E01.1030804@aol.com>

Come on, the idea of the Annunaki/Anakiim isn't any more ridiculous than 
micro-mini wanna-be-eternal space-born intelligences that have embedded 
themselves into subspace in order to provide the most computational 
power possible...

(not to say that either holds any sway with skeptical little me...)

robbie

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 11:05 AM 7/19/2005 -0400, David Stiger wrote:
>
>> I look forward to reading your responses.
>
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 19 19:08:37 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf0248cff0cb@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <20050719190838.42337.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> >      That bacteria could survive long enough in
> space
> >to colonize other worlds is pretty well documented.
> 
> millions of years ? (the traveling time in space of
> the Martian
> meteorites span years to millions of years).

Yes but we KNOW that spores at least 10,000 years old
have been revived. And we have more controversial
reports of spores estimated 25 to 40 million years old
being revived.

> There is a large range of conditions to test for
> these three
> steps. Many aspects look feasible, but results are
> along ways
> away to support your first sentence.

In the context of empirical proof, I agree with you
that I may have over-stated the documentation to
support my claim. But I am looking at it from a more
holistic POV. If one considers the three major origin
theories that are currently out there and evidence for
and against them, I think statistical weight falls
squarely behind Pan-spermia:

1. Spontaneous Generation: All the various thories of
the chemical evolution of life on earth from "scratch"
including but not limited to Watson's RNA world. The
only real evidence for this is that RNA is capable of
enzymatic self modification. There is also some
resemblance of certain clay/water colloids to cell
membranes. The evidence against this is that it has
not been demonstrated to occur anywhere, in nature or
in the lab where pre-biotic conditions can be
simulated. In fact the spontaneous generation of life
was specifically disproven by Louis Pasteur and other
19th century biologists. After over 200 years of
progress of biological study, one thing that
biologists are certain of is that all existing life
came from pre-existent life.   

2. Intelligent Design: You all know and the arguments
for this, and, I am pretty sure, likewise think they
are bogus.

3. Panspermia: Aside from experimental evidence for
this (bacterial spore experiments in space) and the
lack of negative evidence refuting it, there are
Bayesian arguments for it. The endospore is very
obviously an evolved trait of many bacterial species
some of which are extremophiles. Adaptations in nature
are normally guided by selective pressures and do not
tend toward overkill. That is to say that gazelle
evolved the ability to outrun lions and cheetahs but
they cannot outrun race-cars because there was no need
for them to evolve to be THAT fast. But in endospore
forming bacilli, we have bacteria that evolved high
degrees of resistance to vacuum, temperature extremes,
gamma rays, and other forms of ionizing radiation. If
they WERE terrestrial in origin, what possible
selective pressure would there be for them to develop
vaccuum resistance and gamma radiation resistance? 

     Many species of life on earth form dormant spores
and cysts that allow them to survive conditions of
drought and scarcity of nutients but none of these
other creatures can survive vaccuum and hard
radiation. Why are bacilli special in this regard? If
you were to find some artificial construction with the
structural integrity, shielding, and enviromental
systems capable of supporting life in space, why would
you assume it was someone's house and not a space
capsule? Why would any engineer design something
capabable of withstanding the rigors of outer-space if
that something was not in fact meant to go into space?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

      The other argument is one based on the behavior
of low frequency events. Since, we have never observed
it in nature or the laboratory, spontaneous generation
is by definition a very low probability event. To
assume therefore that it initially occured here on the
third rock of sol when the entire galaxy is a
potential sample space is silly. None of the elements
and compounds in the earth are unique or special, they
occur through out the universe. The only thing that is
special about the earth is their proportions here are
suitable for life. Statistically it would stand to
reason that with something like 10^11 trials (stars)
over some 15 billion years, there should be MANY
worlds within a range of conditions suitable for life.
If you lived in a town with a population of only a few
hundred and you saw a photograph of siamese twins but
you didn't know where the picture was taken, you would
be safest in assuming that they were NOT born in your
town. This is simply the result of the fact that, even
if you do not know the exact frequency at which
siamese twins are born over all, you know that they
are very rare and the population differential between
your town and the rest of the world is so large.
     Microbes are by the far the big winners of the
evolution game. For all our genius we could not
eradicate the microbes of the world if we tried. They
have evolved to exist in all kinds of environments
from deep sea to arctic to volcanic vents in the
earth's crust. Why is it so hard to believe that a
family of microbes could have evolved the ability to
survive space travel when this would be such a useful
adaptation to have?  

> See the chapter: Viable Transfer of Microorganisms
> in the Solar System
> and Beyond by Gerda Horneck, et al. in
> _Astrobiology: The Quest for
> the Conditions of Life_ by Springer 2002.
> 
> It is an extremely comprehensive report, detailing
> the conditions that
> they have tested bacteria and the conditions that
> they still need to
> test.

Thanks for the tip, I will try to find a copy when I
get a chance. 

Ciaou,


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 Jul 19 19:11:24 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719185524.GA32299@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050719191124.19599.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> But
> brains being practical
> computronium doesn't have to mean using human
> beings; it can mean grown arrays
> of neurons, or cyborged animals.

But why re-invent wheel when you can just make
improvements on the design?


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 eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jul 19 19:25:48 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:25:48 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719191124.19599.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050719185524.GA32299@ofb.net>
	<20050719191124.19599.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719192548.GY2259@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 12:11:24PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> But why re-invent wheel when you can just make
> improvements on the design?

I'm not sure you realize how necessarily wasteful biological
systems are. Look at http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm
(Flash required). Zoom down to the smallest scale. The 20 nm
size bar refers to the virus capsid below, rendered with various
speculative (for the sake of illustration) diamondoid nanoparts,
and a fragment of a hydrated bilayer.

It is pretty obvious that a functional, addressable 1-bit computational 
element can be constructed roughly within the cubic hydrated bilayer 
volume. 

The storage density of RNA within the virus capsid is sure considerably
denser, but it can't compute on its own. It needs ridiculously large volumes of 
water with biomachinery to even unfold. 

-- 
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/20050719/95d89f9f/attachment.bin>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 19 19:40:32 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:40:32 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050719190838.42337.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050719190838.42337.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DD5730.7060700@aol.com>

Avantguardian:


You wrote:
    1. Spontaneous Generation: All the various thories of
the chemical evolution of life on earth from "scratch"
including but not limited to Watson's RNA world. The
only real evidence for this is that RNA is capable of
enzymatic self modification. There is also some
resemblance of certain clay/water colloids to cell
membranes. The evidence against this is that it has
not been demonstrated to occur anywhere, in nature or
in the lab where pre-biotic conditions can be
simulated. In fact the spontaneous generation of life
was specifically disproven by Louis Pasteur and other
19th century biologists. After over 200 years of
progress of biological study, one thing that
biologists are certain of is that all existing life
came from pre-existent life.   
    2. Intelligent Design: You all know and the arguments
for this, and, I am pretty sure, likewise think they
are bogus.
    3. Panspermia: Aside from experimental evidence for
this (bacterial spore experiments in space) and the
lack of negative evidence refuting it, there are
Bayesian arguments for it. The endospore is very
obviously an evolved trait of many bacterial species
some of which are extremophiles. Adaptations in nature
are normally guided by selective pressures and do not
tend toward overkill. That is to say that gazelle
evolved the ability to outrun lions and cheetahs but
they cannot outrun race-cars because there was no need
for them to evolve to be THAT fast. But in endospore
forming bacilli, we have bacteria that evolved high
degrees of resistance to vacuum, temperature extremes,
gamma rays, and other forms of ionizing radiation. If
they WERE terrestrial in origin, what possible
selective pressure would there be for them to develop
vaccuum resistance and gamma radiation resistance? 

_______________

I think your arguments against spontaneous generation are damning, but unfortunately think they must also apply to your third option since, if the question of origins arises at all, it arises just as well in the case of the Panspermia - how did THEY get here?

Once you accept the young universe hypothesis, the idea of spontaneous generation is pretty much directly opposed only to the intelligent design theory.  If the proto-bacteria arose at all, either they did it "accidentally" or through some intelligent action.  The only seemingly competetive version is the eternal universe hypothesis which has only the unfortunate problems of being physically unlikely, experimentally unverified (maybe unverifiable) and conceptually confusing.  (Which came first, the chicken or the egg - answer "neither".  Response, "wha?").

The idea that this universe is a created thing by something in some larger scope of reality shouldn't be regarded as suprising or odd - if we live in the matrix, there are the machines running the matrix and they didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

Robbie Lindauer





From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jul 19 19:53:07 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:53:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Annunaki, The Face on Mars,
	and the references to them both in the Bible.
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F7857646A94F3332AFC069E7D40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05071912534b08e6b2@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/19/05, david stiger wrote:
> Why does there seem to be an unmistakeable connection with the Freemasons
> and the origins of Civilization as we know it?
> 

Only if you accept what Freemasons tell you. But you don't have to
believe what cult members tell you without looking for some evidence
to back up their myths.

See, among others, 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#History_of_Freemasonry>

Officially, the first Grand Lodge of England was founded in 1717,
marking the founding of the modern era of Freemasonry.

There is written evidence of the Masons dating back to the fourteenth
century. In the Middle Ages stonemasons and architects were an elite
class who could travel between countries, unlike serfs who had
restrictions on their travel. They called themselves "free" because of
this. The Masons were responsible for building beautiful structures
across Europe, especially the cathedrals. Until the sixteenth century,
Masons were simply craftsmen learning the operative art of masonry in
guilds and unions (Mackey and McClennachan, 744-750).

In the beginning of the seventeenth century, union membership began to
decline, and elite and prominent members of society were allowed in as
"patrons of the Fraternity" and later as "accepted masons." (This is
where the term "Free and Accepted Masons" comes from.) By the end of
the seventeenth century a great change had occurred; the accepted
masons outnumbered the actual stonemasons in the unions, and their
discussion had turned from aspects of the actual trade to moral
philosophy (Durrah, 90-92).

That all the evidence there is. Anything earlier is speculation and myths.

Freemason legend dates their fraternity back to the building of King
Solomon's temple in the Bible (which itself is very speculative - The
huge empire of Solomon, the large cities and the temple are now
thought to be pretty unbelievable in a time of Iron Age villages).

Some scholars speculate that Freemasonry has connections with the
Greek and Roman mysteries, or the Knights Templar, or the Priory of
Sion, or the Roman Collegia, or the Comacine masters. The list of
speculation goes on and on, in the absence of any evidence.

BillK


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Jul 19 19:56:46 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:56:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050719190838.42337.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <p06210200bf0248cff0cb@[23.237.66.13]>
	<20050719190838.42337.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050719195646.GA25589@ofb.net>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 12:08:37PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> simulated. In fact the spontaneous generation of life was specifically
> disproven by Louis Pasteur and other 19th century biologists. After over 200

No it wasn't, or you're confusing things.  "Spontaneous generation" back then
referred to life being frequently and ubiquitously formed in dead matter under
human-normal conditions; Pasteur showed that no, life did not spontaneously
arise in a flask of sterilized broth, nor did maggots come from screened meat.

This has no relevance to spontaneous generation in a planet-wide ocean subject
to UV, lightning, and tides, over 100 million years.

And the fact that it hasn't been done in the lab could be said of AI,
Drexlerian nanotech, or energy-positive fusion outside of stars and bombs.  It
could have been said of flight, or going to the moon.

> years of progress of biological study, one thing that biologists are certain
> of is that all existing life came from pre-existent life.   

But they aren't certain that life 3.8 billion years ago came from pre-existent
life.  In fact, they study how it could have formed.

> 3. Panspermia: Aside from experimental evidence for this (bacterial spore

But panspermian life had to be spontaneously generated somewhere else.

> for them to evolve to be THAT fast. But in endospore forming bacilli, we
> have bacteria that evolved high degrees of resistance to vacuum, temperature
> extremes, gamma rays, and other forms of ionizing radiation. If they WERE
> terrestrial in origin, what possible selective pressure would there be for
> them to develop vaccuum resistance and gamma radiation resistance? 

An adaptation can have unexpected effects.  An endospore evolved to survive
years of dehydration and temperature change -- say in a desert -- may also
find itself radiation resistant.  Once you've stabilized your structures for
decades, they're stabilized.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jul 19 20:41:03 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:41:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719185524.GA32299@ofb.net>
References: <42DA8BA9.2000303@cox.net>
	<20050718084901.57891.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050719083819.GA10934@ofb.net> <20050719092206.GI2259@leitl.org>
	<20050719185524.GA32299@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050719204103.GA2259@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> > Computronium is a molecular crystal made from computing cells, optimized 
> > for doing computation. DNA is nothing like computronium. Dry cold DNA is a

I. Amato (Science, New Series, Volume 253, Issue 5022 (Aug. 23, 1991), 856-857
http://leitl.org/amato.pdf writes "Thus the researchers claim half-seriously that they 
are creating a versatile new form of matter which they call programmable matter or
computronium. "In programmable matter, the same cubic meter of machinery can become
a wind tunnel at one moment, a polymer soup at the next; it can model a sea
of fermions [elementary particles], a genetic pool, or an epidemiology experiment
at the flick of a console key", "Margolus shares a similiar vision: a cellular
automaton computer with components on the atomic or molecular scale. ""Such a machine
would be a kind of a computing crystal with all parts participating in the
computation," Margolus says -- a lump of "pure computronium."". (Also see
http://people.csail.mit.edu/nhm/cc.pdf for more on Margolus' view).
 
> Is a rod-logic computer a crystal?  I've always defined computronium as matter

A cellular system made from unit cells made from NEMS elements (whether buckling
bucky, or diamond rod logic, or spintronics, it doesn't really matter) certainly qualifies.

> optimized for computation; exactly how will depend on the tech available.  And
> as Wikipedia on computronium points out, on the goals: speed, storage, energy
> efficiency, mass efficiency, cost...

That article needs fixing. Wikipedia has some gaping holes still, particularly
on lunatic fringe material as this.
 
> > No, in terms of energy efficiency and functionality concentration a human or
> > an insect brain is very far removed from what we can currently do. 
> 
> This seems in contradiction of the facts I possess, such as our difficulty in
> matching insect functionality, with devices which weigh more and consume more
> power.

Nonono, you misunderstand. I agree with you absolutely. Our systems suck in
comparison to even the humble bumblebee, nevermind the human primate.
 
> > > But I figure a brain has 1e6 to 1e8 times the raw computing power of a
> > > desktop CPU (or more accurately, would take that many CPUs to be
> > > emulated), while
> > 
> > We don't know what the equivalent is. There are no comparable benchmarks.
> 
> We know the brain has 1e11 units, 1e14 synapses, and update frequencies of up
> to 1000 Hz.  1e17 flops.  I can see needing 'only' 1e14 in practice, if much

I've been guilty of similiar estimates in the past, but have grown wary of them
since. They're misleading at at least two levels: the description of the physical
system, and at how much computation work that system is equivalent to. Also,
people automatically take peak Flopses of large current iron, and invoke Moore,
and all kind of breezy Kurzweilian handwaving ensues.

> of the brain is idle at any moment and 100 Hz is more like the real update
> speed.  And about 1e14 bytes of RAM.

Computation in the dendritic tree breaks the assumption that you only have to
deal with the neuron body and the synapse, spikes are more about timing than
the frequency, and even with relative addressing there's no way to code 14e14
synapses with 1e14 bytes.

Given that we'll be seeing Avogadro number of bits in individual installations 
within the next 50 years, or so, it doesn't really matter, though. 
 
> > CPUs alone are useless. You need to look at the total mass of a Blue Rack,
> > included the machine room and the air conditioning versus a ~75 kg human.
> > Here the efficiency becomes particularly abysmal.
> 
> I don't see it.  100 W for the total human system, with advanced face
> recognition, speech recognition, speech production, planning, robotics, Go

Yes, it is the power efficiency and integration density that is particularly 
amazing. Blue Gene takes 28.14 kW/rack, at 64 racks (0.3 PFlop (mythical) peak) it's
about 1.8 GW total, while falling very short of a human primate even if using bogus 
Flops equivalent estimates. 

> playing (potential) and partial protection against hostile replicating goo, to
> put a few things in CS terms.  Well, for the naked human; if you start
> counting First World lifestyle it's 1e4 Watts.  But brains being practical
> computronium doesn't have to mean using human beings; it can mean grown arrays
> of neurons, or cyborged animals.

I'm expecting small assemblies of molecular electronics completely vanquish
biology in terms of density, power envelope and speed in about 20-30 years.
Scaling this up will take some time more, but that it will happen within our
lifetime (barring major breakdowns of the world order) is pretty likely.  

-- 
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/20050719/6590157d/attachment.bin>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Tue Jul 19 22:28:47 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:28:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Re: Be a galactic blogger!
In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205071909496211fd32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c5205071909496211fd32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c3d1328d6bdbb882bc75f415c963cd8b@harveynewstrom.com>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 writes:
> Become a galactic blogger and tell ET what you think of life on this 
> little blue planet and beyond!
> PhysOrg <http://www.physorg.com/news5278.html>: MindComet launches a 
> website sending bloggers where no blog has gone before: deep space.

Humans are spammers to the universe.  We send all our signals in 
broadcast mode unsolicited.  Other civilizations have long since 
blocked us with their spam-blockers.  Now none of our messages can get 
through.

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



From stiger420 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 20 00:12:06 2005
From: stiger420 at hotmail.com (david stiger)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:12:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
Message-ID: <BAY104-F4033FD0CA75BE7C9B85C73E7D70@phx.gbl>

David Stiger wrote:

>Why does there seem to be an unmistakeable connection with the
>Freemasons and the origins of Civilization as we know it?

Mike Lorrey replied:

There isn't except as a fantasy in the minds of certain people.

This is just a small list of CONFIRMED masons, and it is from an American 
source so it doesn't touch a lot on famous masons responsible for the 
construction and controlling of civilizations and religions from other 
countries. (also I have edited out some of the less important ones from my 
list)

Abbott, Sir John J.C. - Prime Minister of Canada 1891-92
Aldrin, Edwin E. - Astronaut
Armstrong, Neil - Astronaut
Arnold, General Henry "Hap" - Commander of the Army Air Force
Austin, Stephen F. - Father of Texas
Baldwin, Henry - Supreme Court Justice
Bartholdi, Frederic A. - Designed the Statue of Liberty
Baylor, Robert E. B. - Founder Baylor University
Beard, Daniel Carter - Founder Boy Scouts
Bell, Lawrence - Bell Aircraft Corp.
Bennett, Viscount R.B. - Prime Minister of Canada 1930-35
Black, Hugo L. - Supreme Court Justice
Blair, Jr., John - Supreme Court Justice
Blatchford, Samuel - Supreme Court Justice
Borden, Sir Robert L. - Prime Minister of Canada 1911-1920
Borglum, Gutzon & Lincoln - Father and Son who carved Mt. Rushmore
Bowell, Sir Mackenzie - Prime Minister of Canada 1894-96
Bradley, Omar N. - Military leader
Buchanan, James - President of the U.S.
Burnett, David G. - 1st President of the Republic of Texas
Burton, Harold H. - Supreme Court Justice
Byrnes, James F. - Supreme Court Justice
Catton, John - Supreme Court Justice
Chrysler, Walter P. - Automotive fame
Churchill, Winston - British Leader
Citroen, Andre - French Engineer and motor car manufacturer
Clark, Thomas C. - Supreme Court Justice
Clarke, John H. - Supreme Court Justice
Colt, Samuel - Firearms inventor
Cushing, William - Supreme Court Justice
Devanter, Willis Van - Supreme Court Justice
Diefenbaker, John G. - Prime Minister of Canada 1957-63
Douglas, William O. - Supreme Court Justice
Dow, William H. - Dow Chemical Co.
Drake, Edwin L - American Pioneer of the Oil industry
Dunant, Jean Henri - Founder of the Red Cross
Edward VII - King of England
Edward VIII - King of England who abdicated the throne in less than 1 year
Ellsworth, Oliver - Supreme Court Justice
Field, Stephen J. - Supreme Court Justice
Fisher, Geoffrey - Archbishop of Canterbury 1945 - 1961
Fitch, John - Inventor of the Steamboat
Fleming, Sir Alexander - Invented Penicillin
Ford, Gerald R. - President of the U.S.
Ford, Henry - Pioneer Automobile Manufacturer
Franklin, Benjamin - 1 of 13 Masonic signers of Constitution of the U.S.
Garfield, James A. - President of the U.S.
Gatling, Richard J. - Built the "Gatling Gun"
George VI - King of England during W.W. II
Glenn, John H. - First American to orbit the earth in a space craft
Graham, Albert Belmont - Father of the 4-H Rural Youth Program
Graham, Rev. "Billy"-  Religion World famous Evangelist and Ecumenist
Grissom, Virgil - Astronaut
Guillotin, Joseph Ignace - Inventor of the "Guillotin"
Hancock, John - 1 of 9 Masonic signers of Declaration of Independance
Harding, Warren G. - President of the U.S.
Harlan, John M. - Supreme Court Justice
Hilton, Charles C. - American Hotelier
Hoban, James - Architect for the U.S. Captial
Hoover, J. Edgar - Director of FBI
Houdini, Harry - Magician
Houston, Sam - 2nd&4th President of the Republic of Texas
Jackson, Andrew - President of the U.S.
Jackson, Reverend Jesse - Minister
Jackson, Robert H. - Supreme Court Justice
Jenner, Edward - Inventor - Vaccination
Johnson, Andrew - President of the U.S.
Jones, Melvin - One of the founders of the Lions International
Key, Francis Scott - Wrote U.S. National Anthem
Kipling, Rudyard - Writer
Lafayette, Marquis de - Supporter of Amerian Freedom
Lamar, Joseph E. - Supreme Court Justice
Lamar, Mirabeau B. - 3rd President of the Republic of Texas
Lindbergh, Charles - Aviator
Livingston, Robert - Co-Negotiator for purchase of Louisiana Territory
MacArthur, General Douglas - Commander of Armed Forces in Phillipines
MacDonald, Sir John A. - Prime Minister of Canada 1867-73 & 1878-91
Marshall, John - Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court 1801 - 1835
Marshall, Thurgood - Supreme Court Justice
Mathews, Stanley - Supreme Court Justice
Mayer, Louis B. - Film producer who merged to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
McKinley, William - President of the U.S.
Menninger, Karl A. - Psychiatrist famous for treating mental illness
Mesmer, Franz Anton - practiced Mesmerism which led to Hypnotism
Michelson, Albert Abraham - Successfully measured the speed of light in 1882
Minton, Sherman - Supreme Court Justice
Monroe, James - President of the U.S.
Moody, William H. - Supreme Court Justice
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus - Composer
Murphy, Audie - Most decorated American Soldier of WWII.
Nelson, Samuel - Supreme Court Justice
New, Harry S. - Postmaster General who established Airmail
Newton, Joseph Fort - Christian Minister
Nunn, Sam - U.S. Senator
Olds, Ransom E. - American automobile pioneer
Paterson, William - Supreme Court Justice
Pitney, Mahlon - Supreme Court Justice
Polk, James Knox - President of the U.S.
Reed, Stanley F. - Supreme Court Justice
Roosevelt, Franklin D. - President of the U.S.
Roosevelt, Theodore - President of the U.S.
Rutledge, Wiley B. - Supreme Court Justice
Sarnoff, David - Father of T.V.
Smith, Joseph - Founder Of Mormon Church
Stanford, Leland - Drove the gold spike linking the intercontinetal railroad
Stewart, Potter - Supreme Court Justice
Swayne, Noah H. - Supreme Court Justice
Taft, William Howard - President of the U.S.
Todd, Thomas - Supreme Court Justice
Trimble, Robert - Supreme Court Justice
Truman, Harry S. - President of the U.S.
Vinson, Frederick M. - Supreme Court Justice
Warren, Earl - Supreme Court Justice
Washington, Booker T - Educator and author
Washington, George - President of US, 1st
Woodbury, Levi - Supreme Court Justice
Woods, William B. - Supreme Court Justice
Thurman, Strom (33rd degree) -  US Senator and Board member of Bob Jones 
University
Helms, Jesse (33rd degree) -  US Senator
Dole, Robert-  US Senator and '96 candidate for President
Reagan, Ronald (33rd Degree in one session) -  Taken in during Presidency of 
the USA
Bush, George (33rd degree)-  US President, world oil baron, and Ambassador 
to the UN


It seems like the connection to their control of our country is undeniable 
when you consider the power of their members...  Also, unless you yourself 
are a Freemason, how can you truly know that they do not have a very real 
connection with the creation and continuation with civilizations all over 
the world?  I happen to know a few Freemasons personally, and from what 
information I have been able to get out of them, I would have to strongly 
disagree with your "fantasy in the minds of certain people" theory.




From stiger420 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 20 00:32:30 2005
From: stiger420 at hotmail.com (david stiger)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:32:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cydonia region of Mars.
Message-ID: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>

>Secondly, why doesn't a discovery as seemingly important as the
>Cydonia region of Mars get more attention from NASA?

It did get closer attention, at higher resolution, and was found to be
just another clump of hills. Attention then shifted for the same reason
that scientists don't regard New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain a
sign from an alien race or ancient civilization. "The Face" only looks
like one from a certain angle and certain shadows, it is an artifact of
geology and not a sculpture.

So now answer my question: since the info about the higher resolution
photos has been out there for a few years now, they've been rigorously
ignored or denied by Face cult adherents. Why?


Actually I was referring to the fact that the Cydonia region shares some 
very precise geometrical features with Washington DC and the fact that this 
region seems to sit right on an area that would have been just above the 
primitive "sea-level" making it a perfectly plausible region for ancient 
civilizations to inhabit.  I am very skeptical of the images as well, but I 
am still left wondering why more stereo imaging is not done of the whole 
region.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate your input and I do in 
fact look forward to reading your response to this.  Also, erosion could 
definitely have made this structure appear to be only a lump of hills, after 
all the Sphinx is eroding and it's not nearly as old, nor is it on 
completely desert planet with little to no atmosphere.

You can check out the geometrical relationship on this website. (I realize 
it is full of theories that may or may not be even close to reality, but the 
images I am referring to are there, you just have to scroll down a bit)  
Remember that Washington D.C. began construction in 1791, and became the 
nation's capital in 1800 but we did not have satellite images of Cydonia 
until 1976.

http://www.startinglinks.net/cydoniaufo/WASHINGTON%20DISTRICT%20OF%20CYDONIA/




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 01:37:46 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F4033FD0CA75BE7C9B85C73E7D70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050720013746.97801.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is just a small list of CONFIRMED masons, and
> it is from an American 
> source so it doesn't touch a lot on famous masons
> responsible for the 
> construction and controlling of civilizations and
> religions from other 
> countries. (also I have edited out some of the less
> important ones from my 
> list)

Actually my college fraternity DKE has a list of
powerful members current and past including 5
presidents total including two on your list: Theodore
Roosevelt and both George Bushes. Franklin Roosevelt
tried to join but he was denied. So why do the Masons
get all the credit for running the world? Aren't my
fraternity brothers and I good enough to be the Secret
Rulers of the World? Or what about the Boyscouts of
the America? I'll bet you a lot of famous people were
in the boy scouts. So why isn't there are conspiracy
theory about them? My dad was a Mason and I had been
invited to join them too, but I have more important
things to do then sit around smoking cigars, drinking
scotch, and playing poker with a bunch of guys twice
my age. Why don't you join them and find out for
yourself? 

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 sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jul 20 01:52:30 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:52:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cydonia region of Mars.
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42DDAE5E.3040008@pobox.com>

Move to ban David Stiger from the ExI chat list.

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


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Wed Jul 20 01:55:05 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:55:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cydonia region of Mars.
In-Reply-To: <42DDAE5E.3040008@pobox.com>
References: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>
	<42DDAE5E.3040008@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b050719185557f7158a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/20/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Move to ban David Stiger from the ExI chat list.
> 
Why not just filter him on your end? I have.

-- 
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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed Jul 20 02:57:23 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:57:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <20050720013746.97801.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720013746.97801.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DDBD93.7060106@humanenhancement.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>So why do the Masons
>get all the credit for running the world? Aren't my
>fraternity brothers and I good enough to be the Secret
>Rulers of the World? Or what about the Boyscouts of
>the America? I'll bet you a lot of famous people were
>in the boy scouts. So why isn't there are conspiracy
>theory about them? 
>  
>

You poor benighted fool.

The Boy Sprouts are controlled by the Society for Creative Anarchy, 
which is in turn controlled by the phone company. 

But that's just a blind alley. The REAL conspiracy is that the 
Multinational Oil Companies are controlling the International Cocaine 
Smugglers, who are controlling both the Parent-Teacher Agglomeration and 
the Men in Black.

When, oh when, will the TRUTH come out??? ;-)

Joseph


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed Jul 20 03:00:07 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:00:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cydonia region of Mars.
In-Reply-To: <42DDAE5E.3040008@pobox.com>
References: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>
	<42DDAE5E.3040008@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <42DDBE37.9070409@humanenhancement.com>

Second.

If we're applying Roberts' Rules, of course. I've never quite figured 
that bit out...

Joseph

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Move to ban David Stiger from the ExI chat list.
>


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Jul 20 03:41:30 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:41:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <42DDBD93.7060106@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050720013746.97801.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42DDBD93.7060106@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05071920413676a37a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/19/05, Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
> You poor benighted fool.
> 
> The Boy Sprouts are controlled by the Society for Creative Anarchy,
> which is in turn controlled by the phone company.
> 
> But that's just a blind alley. The REAL conspiracy is that the
> Multinational Oil Companies are controlling the International Cocaine
> Smugglers, who are controlling both the Parent-Teacher Agglomeration and
> the Men in Black.
> 
> When, oh when, will the TRUTH come out??? ;-)

Illuminati is such a great card game. :)

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/
http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/img/cards.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_%28game%29


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 04:36:01 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cydonia region of Mars.
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F3195A9B92E33F6B880342CE7D70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050720043601.39567.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>Secondly, why doesn't a discovery as seemingly important as the
> >>Cydonia region of Mars get more attention from NASA?
> 
> >It did get closer attention, at higher resolution, and was found to
> >be just another clump of hills. Attention then shifted for the same
> >reason
> >that scientists don't regard New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain
> >a sign from an alien race or ancient civilization. "The Face" only
> >looks
> >like one from a certain angle and certain shadows, it is an artifact
> >of geology and not a sculpture.
> 
> >So now answer my question: since the info about the higher
resolution
> >photos has been out there for a few years now, they've been
> >rigorously ignored or denied by Face cult adherents. Why?
> 
> 
> Actually I was referring to the fact that the Cydonia region shares
> some very precise geometrical features with Washington DC and the
fact
> that this region seems to sit right on an area that would have been
> just above the primitive "sea-level" making it a perfectly plausible
> region for ancient civilizations to inhabit. 

The problem is that most of the DC sites of importance have no
corresponding monuments at Cydonia, specifically the Washington,
Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials, the Supreme Council HQ, or the five
corners of the pentagram, yet claims "The Washington D.C./Arlington,
Virginia area is an exact geometric duplicate of Cydonia!", so it is
clear that the nutter with this site is reaching and trying to fit the
picture into his prejudices and paranoid delusions.

Any time I hear someone going on about freemasons wrt anything but
actual documented history, I take a grain of salt, and reach for the
holy water and silver bullets. Masonry conspiracy nutters are mental
vampires. There is so much bogosity in the field that it is impossible
to avoid the insanity when dealing with it.


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 emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 20 04:45:52 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:15:52 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050715164734.42103.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20050715164734.42103.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050719214526957a4c@mail.gmail.com>

Mike wrote:
> Quite so, Robin. But Dan's premise also fails a test of extropic logic,
> which is that the marginal utility of a colony in another star system
> is not just the computation happening in that star system, but also the
> probes being spawned to other systems from there, and others in turn,
> as an exponential budding process. Sure, the core SI takes a loss
> computationally for the first few generations, but the exponential
> growth quickly overtakes that, especially if each probe travels with a
> supply of entangled particles or is otherwise able to establish some
> sort of FTL network once they've reached a destination star system.

Also, if the loss of an asteroid worth of computronium is a problem,
you could always set out with the aim to relativistically hurl back a
lot more matter to replace the asteroid with; that way, you can
balance the cost of the present matter with the gain of a lot more
future matter (heavily discounted of course because of elapsed time)
and have the whole enterprise be worth the trouble for the net gain in
computronium alone.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 04:49:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
Message-ID: <20050720044904.4104.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/07/18/18dpa.shtml

Birds imitate mobile phone ring tones   
DPA  

Moessingen (Germany), July 18 (DPA) Birds have learnt to imitate the
ring tones of the omnipresent mobile phones, say German ornithologists.


"The birds have an uncanny ability to mimic these ring tones. This has
picked up in tandem with the boom in mobile phone ownership," Richard
Schneider of the NABU bird conservation centre near the university city
of Tuebingen here said.

Jackdaws, starlings and jays were the best mimics, Schneider said
adding that even practiced birdwatchers were being fooled by the birds.

One reason for the phenomenon was that these birds were increasingly
common in the urban environment, even the relatively shy jay, he said.
"There is food and an increasing amount of green space in modern
cities."

The birds were simply adapting to their environment in imitating human
sounds in what he termed an "evolutionary playground".

Many of the more common ring tones are themselves imitations of bird
calls, so the birds are in some instances mimicking another species.

"Many birds call not only to find mates or to mark out their territory,
but sometimes also to fool other animals," Schneider said. However,
they never lose the ability to make the calls typical of their species,
he added.

Mobile phone users who have ring tones from pop music will, however,
not find themselves reaching for their phones in error when a bird
calls. The birds cannot imitate these complex melodies, only the
simpler ring tones.

- end quote-

I like the idea that birds are imitating cellphones to camouflage
themselves, as if cats and hawks are dumb enough to think that someone
left their cell phone up in a tree. I hereby predict a dramatic rise in
incidents of cell-phone assaults and maulings by cats, thinking they
are going to find a bird in there somewhere. Given the volatility of
the lithium ion batteries, we may even see some cats blowing their
heads off when biting in... Note to self: put cell phone on buzz when
hiking in mountain lion territory...
 


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 - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 20 04:51:03 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:21:03 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D701D8.9030306@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com> <42D7249E.1070501@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05071921515736de92@mail.gmail.com>

Bill K wrote:
> These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
> 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
> to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
> that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
> they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> centuries to go to another star system?

I wonder whether sufficiently advanced critters could work with very
much smaller scales of matter, well beyond nanoscale? Perhaps the 3D
cartesian plane universe around them begins to look like it uses real
numbers rather than integers, and the second order infinity makes it
more appealing to stay home - whole universe in a grain of sand and
all that?

Hmm, magic physics, I'll gong myself out right here.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From john.h.calvin at gmail.com  Wed Jul 20 05:22:44 2005
From: john.h.calvin at gmail.com (John Calvin)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:22:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce05071920413676a37a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050720013746.97801.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42DDBD93.7060106@humanenhancement.com>
	<e88b73ce05071920413676a37a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5d74f9c7050719222212ef2f3f@mail.gmail.com>

I rule the world!

I only find it convenient to let all those other groups think that they do.

BTW, I am a large lab rat!


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 07:01:55 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Poverty of Dignity
In-Reply-To: <20050715233957.GA14617@seniti.ugcs.caltech.edu>
Message-ID: <20050720070155.16097.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> It also isn't impossible to imagine that the
> relevant memes spread aren't ones
> of supernatural belief but of group identification
> and grievance.

Thomas Friedman is a prominent contributor to the
false narrative--the tribal mythology-- which is
required to maintain the American populace as
cooperative and compliant.  The arabs/muslims are
demonized --barbaric murderous savages-- and their
hostility explained as envy: we're rich and their not;
and religous extremism: muslims view the west as
corrupt, decadent, and morally depraved, precisely
because the west is not muslim, which muslims see as
the only true religion, to which all must submit or
die(ie, they hate our freedoms).

Not at all oddly, the Americans (seem to?) buy into
this nonsense because it is human to accept the tribal
mythology.  However, as always there is a truth which,
if you go looking for it, is not too hard to find.

For one thing, if, for example, you want to know why
Osama commissioned the 9/11 attack (assuming that he
commissioned the attack, and I assume that he did),
rather than asking Thomas Friedman or George Bush, why
not ask Osama?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

Or if for some reason listening to Osama is just too
traumatic, then perhaps the voice of someone closer to
home (no, not Chomsky, not this time, though you can
never go wrong with Chomsky), then try Ward Churchill.
 I recently got round to his little piece

"Some People Push Back"
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens 

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

and discovered what all the fuss was about.  Rarely
has the American tribal mythology been more rudely
dissed by the truth.  

It's not rocket science, but it IS hypergolic. 
 
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



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


From bjk at imminst.org  Wed Jul 20 08:29:23 2005
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:29:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Webcast of the First Workshop on
	Geoethical	Nanotechnology
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718192253.03c90510@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42DE0B63.2060206@imminst.org>

Quick reminder of this event... more information here:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=159&t=7106


Max More wrote:

> Reposting this information as a reminder, before I'm out email contact 
> for a while.
>
> My own talk is titled, "Proactionary Nano-Policy: Managing Massive 
> Decisions for Tiny Technologies", and most certainly is NOT a call for 
> regulating nano...
>
> Max
>
> -----------------------------------------
> WEBCAST ANNOUNCED
> FOR FIRST WORKSHOP ON
> GEOETHICAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
>
> July 6, 2005, Melbourne Beach, FL --  The Terasem Movement, Inc., a 
> non-profit foundation focused on geoethical nanotechnology, announced 
> today that an interactive webcast featuring Ray Kurzweil, Max More, 
> Frank Tipler, Natasha Vita-More, Doug Mulhall and other luminaries at 
> its Geoethical Nanotechnology meeting will be openly accessible at 
> www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast from 8AM-6PM EST on Wednesday, July 
> 20th.
>
> Viewers of the interactive webcast are invited to email or IM 
> (instant-message) questions directed to the presenters throughout the 
> meeting.  Each hour, some of these will be selected for the featured 
> speakers to answer.  Emailed questions should be addressed to 
> terasem at terasemfoundation.org.  AOL IM questions should be addressed 
> to "terasem."
>
> Other Workshop presenters available for emailed or IM questions on 
> July 20th include Nobel Laureate Barry Blumberg (speaking on the 
> definitional boundary of life), Natasha Vita-More, Wrye Sententia, 
> Prof. Len Doyal, Mike Treder, Walt Anderson and Martine Rothblatt.  
> The webcast will feature simultaneous transmission of audio, video and 
> PowerPoint presentations.
>
> For further information, check out the "Program" page for "Geoethical 
> Nanotechnology Workshop" at www.terasemfoundation.org or contact 
> Robert Daye at robert at terasemfoundation.org, phone: 321-676-3690, fax: 
> 321-676-3691.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________________ 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 08:29:45 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied
	overIraq?Onwhatbasis?
In-Reply-To: <200507150647.j6F6loR18327@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050720082946.33016.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com>

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

> Brett, I am now thinking that anyone who would
> *want* that
> job would need to be irrational and obviously
> mentally
> defective.  Hmmm, I guess that's the problem.  

Not a problem, Spike.  Rather the solution to the
problem, or at least the criteria for the solution.  

Institute a draft.  For the presidency. 
Qualifications: visceral objection to taking the job.

Alternatively, allow people who want to run for higher
office to do so, but first they have to be neutered.

You see people are unjustifiably afflicted with the
democracy meme. Plodding about in an uncreative funk. 
"The founding fathers" used the lessons of history to
form the enlightenment principles and reinvent
government back when.  I think it's time to do it
again.  Time to reinvent government in light of the
lessons learned and the societal changes since the
last reinvention.

I can't be the only one who thinkdthis democracy think
is a huge con game.  Media moguls teach the masses
what to think, then the ?ber-rich pre-select by
campaign contributions those candidates acceptable to
them.  Explain to me again how political freedom and
an informed electorate is at work in this process.

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



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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 08:53:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050719130847.28209.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720085346.48716.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> The beast you are describing is an ultra
> extremophile that
> would use catalytic elements like tungsten and other
> high temperature
> elements in its protiens and today would be
> generally inert at normal
> temps and pressures.
> 
> Such creatures already exist in the Archaea and
> thrive throughout the
> earth's crust.

Point well taken. But it is still entrely possible
that the common ancestor of both Eubacteria and
Archaea came from outer space. The fact that Archaea
are such extremophiles make it likely they could exist
on other planets and not just the "garden" variety,
but in the crust of Io for example or under the frozen
oceans of Europa. They are fascinating little buggers
though. Eating iron, beathing sulfur . . . as alien as
you get without leaving Terra.

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 Jul 20 09:38:04 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050719195646.GA25589@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050720093804.19460.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> No it wasn't, or you're confusing things. 
> "Spontaneous generation" back then
> referred to life being frequently and ubiquitously
> formed in dead matter under
> human-normal conditions; Pasteur showed that no,
> life did not spontaneously
> arise in a flask of sterilized broth, nor did
> maggots come from screened meat.

That he did and despite the fact that the broth had
all the basic building blocks of life, nothing
happened. So what you are suggesting is that had he
electrocuted the broth while shining UV light on it at
52 atm of pressure in a methane atmosphere for a
million years, some primordial cell would have oozed
out of it?  


> 
> This has no relevance to spontaneous generation in a
> planet-wide ocean subject
> to UV, lightning, and tides, over 100 million years.

Is the ocean somehow more nutritious than the broth?

> But they aren't certain that life 3.8 billion years
> ago came from pre-existent
> life.  In fact, they study how it could have formed.

Obviously. But they don't have any good verifiable
theories yet. It is one thing to zap some gases with
electricity and get amino acids. But amino acids do
not live. We have a good grasp of the chemistry, but
where, how, and when did the biology happen? You say
it happened on Earth. I say maybe not. It might not be
possible to spontaneously generate life any more. It
might require the physical constants of the universe
to be different than they are now.

> But panspermian life had to be spontaneously
> generated somewhere else.

Yes, perhaps when the universe was young and far less
entropic than it is now. Who knows. Maybe the whole
universe started out alive and then over time, most of
it died until now only small bits of it are alive.

> An adaptation can have unexpected effects.  An
> endospore evolved to survive
> years of dehydration and temperature change -- say
> in a desert -- may also
> find itself radiation resistant.  Once you've
> stabilized your structures for
> decades, they're stabilized.

Actually the dehydration resistance is rather separate
from the radiation resistance. It is DNA repair
enzymes that still function while in spore form that
allow it to withstand such radiation. One of the few
"vital signs" a endospore has is DNA repair. But my
point is that they can survive in space and such has
been experimentally verified. Regardless of how that
adaptation came about, it renders them capable of
space-travel. Whether they did so to get here is
anybody's guess, but it is certainly not impossible
and seems to be more likely than spontaneous
generation from a statistical viewpoint.

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 Jul 20 09:42:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <42DD5730.7060700@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050720094200.92299.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



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

  (Which
> came first, the chicken or the egg - answer
> "neither".  Response, "wha?").
> 

Actually. The egg came first. Something that was
almost, but not quite, a chicken laid an egg and it
hatched into a chicken. ;)


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  Wed Jul 20 09:42:03 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:42:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] for fans of fantasy
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605071522207752c71e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<7641ddc605071522207752c71e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605072002422a682bd8@mail.gmail.com>

For those of you who like George R.R. Martin's fantasy books, here is
photographic evidence that some of it may be true :)

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/fans02.html

Rafal


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 09:59:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050719192548.GY2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050720095901.49155.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> I'm not sure you realize how necessarily wasteful
> biological
> systems are. Look at
> http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm
> (Flash required). Zoom down to the smallest scale.
> The 20 nm
> size bar refers to the virus capsid below, rendered
> with various
> speculative (for the sake of illustration)
> diamondoid nanoparts,
> and a fragment of a hydrated bilayer.

Ok, but that is like comparing the space shuttle to
some wrenches and saying that the space shuttle is
wasteful because it is bigger than the wrenches. None
of the "nanoparts" shown do 5% of what the virus does.

> 
> It is pretty obvious that a functional, addressable
> 1-bit computational 
> element can be constructed roughly within the cubic
> hydrated bilayer 
> volume. 

The bases of DNA stack at approx 3.4 Angstrom (.34
nanometers) from one another. Each base is two bits.
(dibit?) 

> The storage density of RNA within the virus capsid
> is sure considerably
> denser, but it can't compute on its own. It needs
> ridiculously large volumes of 
> water with biomachinery to even unfold. 

True but won't your bilayer need some form of I/O Bus
to compute? RNA/DNA by itself is more like a harddrive
than a whole computer and pretty useless without the
rest. But why is that less efficient than a bilayer?

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 eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jul 20 10:38:15 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:38:15 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <20050720095901.49155.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050719192548.GY2259@leitl.org>
	<20050720095901.49155.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720103815.GS2259@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:59:01AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Ok, but that is like comparing the space shuttle to
> some wrenches and saying that the space shuttle is
> wasteful because it is bigger than the wrenches. None
> of the "nanoparts" shown do 5% of what the virus does.

No, the virus as depicted doesn't do anything. It needs
a very large volume of water in order to be able to dock
to a lipid bilayer membrane of a monkey cell, and inject 
its contents into it. So you need a whole animal cell,
in even more water, for the virus to do its task. You
need about 1-2 cubic micrometer for a bacterial cell, 
plus medium, for a self-contained self-rep capable 
systems, it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude larger
assembly than the virus itself.

The parts depicted have much higher functionality 
concentration, as they don't need to encode self-assembly
instructions inside the substrate thus diluting the 
desired gadget concentration, as proteins do. They also don't
need solvent to operate (they hate solvent, in fact), 
they're covalently crosslinked so that they're structurally
stiff and can operate at much higher temperatures, etc.

In human design, you have an assembly of exchangeble parts with clean
interfaces, and control code which can be loaded into a new machine
when the old one has degraded beyond repair, and can be recycled
en bloc. Of course, you could also
integrate autorepair along with diagnostics into the part, as biology
does, and actually achieve sustained operation.

The only sustained cell line in biology are the gametes, which
is a shabby sort of immortality (there's also an intensive
selection process occuring there, so very few cells actually
can be considered immortal, and you can't tell which of them
are that in advance). 
 
> > 
> > It is pretty obvious that a functional, addressable
> > 1-bit computational 
> > element can be constructed roughly within the cubic
> > hydrated bilayer 
> > volume. 
> 
> The bases of DNA stack at approx 3.4 Angstrom (.34
> nanometers) from one another. Each base is two bits.
> (dibit?) 

You can't read DNA in dry state, and in fact need
associated proteins and enzymes in order to handle it
without breaking. Also, I already said that it's a pretty
dense form of storage (lattice defects in a crystal can
be much denser though, and of course we could use compression --
try running bzip2 on a human chromosome sequence, you'll
be surprised; there are of course better compression
algorithms especially for organism genomes).

Storage doesn't compute, though. If I want computation,
I need a cell to be able to communicate its state at least
to its direct neighbours, which needs signalling. You also
need a way to power it, and to remove the heat, even if it's
a reversible spintronics device, operating largely in ballistic
regime.
 
> > The storage density of RNA within the virus capsid
> > is sure considerably
> > denser, but it can't compute on its own. It needs
> > ridiculously large volumes of 
> > water with biomachinery to even unfold. 
> 
> True but won't your bilayer need some form of I/O Bus
> to compute? RNA/DNA by itself is more like a harddrive

I've already factored a 3d crossbar of single-walled
nanotube as addressing elements into the estimate of 
a 1-bit computational element.

No cooling yet, though one could use helium through
dedicated bucky lumen (gas molecule collision screw with
electron transport, though, so the whole assembly should
be in UHV and preferrably at a deep temperature -- if
there's an optimal temperature regime for computation
it might be well below 300 K, and have very little direct
thermal blackbody radiation as a signature).

> than a whole computer and pretty useless without the
> rest. But why is that less efficient than a bilayer?

The task of the bilayer is to form compartments, with
good lateral diffusion of building blocks, allowing
their modification and replenishment from integrated
and associated molecular machines (proteins). You need
that in order to be able to form cell organelles, and cells,
and you need cells in order to form an anisotropic excitable
computation medium.

The engineer attempting to build computronium for
AI and emulation of human minds doesn't have to deal with
the evolutionary baggage, and the need to factor self-maintenance
within the system.  As a result, the design is radically
different, and drastically more performant.

I could go on, but my work break is almost over.

-- 
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/20050720/f2331c0f/attachment.bin>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Wed Jul 20 12:57:47 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:57:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
In-Reply-To: <20050720044904.4104.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720044904.4104.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <S378758AbVGTM5r/20050720125747Z+26758@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>

Mike Lorrey writes: 

> Birds imitate mobile phone ring tones   
> DPA  

Interesting story! 

> Many of the more common ring tones are themselves imitations of bird
> calls, so the birds are in some instances mimicking another species.

Do birds imitate other species in the wild?  If not, why would a bird 
imitate another species heard via a cellphone but not heard directly? 

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




From stiger420 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 20 13:29:25 2005
From: stiger420 at hotmail.com (david stiger)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:29:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies
Message-ID: <BAY104-F39358E39061070FC543582E7D70@phx.gbl>

First of all let me say that I am sorry to have offended some of you by 
asking these questions, and I am also sorry to learn that so many of you 
cannot live with the fact that I believe there is some kind of larger "shall 
we call it conspiracy" having to do with the masons and the leaders of 
religious groups and government officials all over our planet.  I did  not 
inted to come off as someone trying to push my ideas, just as someone who 
wanted to hear the opinions of people who seem to have a great knowledge of 
the world.  I know now that even people who are supposedly open to 
discussing the big problems and issues of our planet, can also be very close 
minded.  I will continue to read the extropy chat list, but I believe you 
suceeded in convincing me that posting about anything other than 
hard-fact-based issues is something many of you just can't seem to handle.  
I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, but I guess not.  
Thanks to those of you who only tried to answer my questions and did not 
immediately criticize my views, I appreciate tolerance in all it's forms.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 14:21:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050720085346.48716.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720142142.34633.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > The beast you are describing is an ultra
> > extremophile that
> > would use catalytic elements like tungsten and other
> > high temperature
> > elements in its protiens and today would be
> > generally inert at normal
> > temps and pressures.
> > 
> > Such creatures already exist in the Archaea and
> > thrive throughout the
> > earth's crust.
> 
> Point well taken. But it is still entrely possible
> that the common ancestor of both Eubacteria and
> Archaea came from outer space. The fact that Archaea
> are such extremophiles make it likely they could exist
> on other planets and not just the "garden" variety,
> but in the crust of Io for example or under the frozen
> oceans of Europa. They are fascinating little buggers
> though. Eating iron, beathing sulfur . . . as alien as
> you get without leaving Terra.

The problem is that extremophiles tend to not survive extremes they
aren't built for. A high pressure, high temp extremophile doesn't do
well at low pressure/no pressure low temperature and vice versa. Bugs
evolved for cold just die as their protiens precipitate out of solution
when temps get too high. Hot, high pressure bugs see their protiens
contract so tight that they tear themselves apart.

Another problem is transfer. Given that astronomical bodies tend to hit
each other at velocities in excess of 20,000 mph, the impact temps and
pressures of such collisions are too excessive for any life, even high
temp, high pressure bacteria, to survive. You are going to have to find
a bug that lives and thrives in lava to solve that missing link.

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


		
__________________________________ 
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  Wed Jul 20 14:31:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050720093804.19460.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720143115.8851.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
> > No it wasn't, or you're confusing things. 
> > "Spontaneous generation" back then
> > referred to life being frequently and ubiquitously
> > formed in dead matter under
> > human-normal conditions; Pasteur showed that no,
> > life did not spontaneously
> > arise in a flask of sterilized broth, nor did
> > maggots come from screened meat.
> 
> That he did and despite the fact that the broth had
> all the basic building blocks of life, nothing
> happened. So what you are suggesting is that had he
> electrocuted the broth while shining UV light on it at
> 52 atm of pressure in a methane atmosphere for a
> million years, some primordial cell would have oozed
> out of it?  

Try 100 million years, which is how long it took after the planetesimal
impact on Earth for life to start showing up in the fossil record.
Given that experimenters have shown how such environments create all
the amino acids and other organics needed for life in a few days, it
isn't out of the question to believe that a planet full of such
organics for 100 million years would cause the chemicals to further
combine, self replicate (as some do), and eventually become cells.

> 
> 
> > 
> > This has no relevance to spontaneous generation in a
> > planet-wide ocean subject
> > to UV, lightning, and tides, over 100 million years.
> 
> Is the ocean somehow more nutritious than the broth?
> 
> > But they aren't certain that life 3.8 billion years
> > ago came from pre-existent
> > life.  In fact, they study how it could have formed.
> 
> Obviously. But they don't have any good verifiable
> theories yet. It is one thing to zap some gases with
> electricity and get amino acids. But amino acids do
> not live. We have a good grasp of the chemistry, but
> where, how, and when did the biology happen? You say
> it happened on Earth. I say maybe not. It might not be
> possible to spontaneously generate life any more. It
> might require the physical constants of the universe
> to be different than they are now.

The problem you have with your panspermian theory is that you are
merely pushing the date of origin further back and away as a means of
avoidance. At some point, somewhere, even by the panspermian theory,
life had to spontaneously arise. If it could happen in one place, it
could happen in others. No one place in the universe is totally unique
in its chemistry. Refusing to deal with the question smacks of cultism.

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 matus at matus1976.com  Wed Jul 20 14:31:34 2005
From: matus at matus1976.com (matus at matus1976.com)
Date: 20 Jul 2005 14:31:34 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
Message-ID: <20050720143134.23668.qmail@post.phpwebhosting.com>


Way to go guys, scare off another potential extropian.  Because there are certainly too many of them.  

David, do not come to think that the abrasiveness of Eliezer, Damien and others is the prevalent attitude on this list (though its certainly present) think more of Amara or Mike Lorreys responses.  Basically, the abrasives think the things you believe are hogwash (as do I) and couldnt be bothered to even give a moment of time to try to explain, calmly and rationally, to you, why they are.  That's fine, I am way to busy to post frequently but I do fervently read nearly every post and still find this one of the most intellectually stimulating forums.  But they dont stop there, instead these abrasive types prefer to re affirm their own intellectual superiority by spotlighting how intellectual inferior they feel you are.  If that were not the case, they would just filter you out, or ignore your posts. 

To Extropes, If he becomes a troll then ban him.  It seems reasonable to think he is not.  Clearly something brought David Stiger to this forum, instead of harassing and chastising him for beliefs that are wrong, we should welcome him and attempt to explain calmly why those beliefs are probably mistaken, and find value in the common ground that brought him here.  Thank you Amara and Mike for attempting it.  Shame on Damien and Eliezer for being reprehensible jerks.

David, I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's book, 'Science as a candle in the dark', or Michael Shermer's Book 'Why people believe wierd things'  They might give you the intellectual foundation for understanding why these grand conspiracy theories are wrong.

Matus

----- Original Message -----
First of all let me say that I am sorry to have offended some of you by 
asking these questions, and I am also sorry to learn that so many of you 
cannot live with the fact that I believe there is some kind of larger "shall 
we call it conspiracy" having to do with the masons and the leaders of 
religious groups and government officials all over our planet.  I did  not 
inted to come off as someone trying to push my ideas, just as someone who 
wanted to hear the opinions of people who seem to have a great knowledge of 
the world.  I know now that even people who are supposedly open to 
discussing the big problems and issues of our planet, can also be very close 
minded.  I will continue to read the extropy chat list, but I believe you 
suceeded in convincing me that posting about anything other than 
hard-fact-based issues is something many of you just can't seem to handle.  
I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, but I guess not.  
Thanks to those of you who only tried to answer my questions and did not 
immediately criticize my views, I appreciate tolerance in all it's forms.


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







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 14:39:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
In-Reply-To: <S378758AbVGTM5r/20050720125747Z+26758@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <20050720143918.36574.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:

> Mike Lorrey writes: 
> 
> > Birds imitate mobile phone ring tones   
> > DPA  
> 
> Interesting story! 
> 
> > Many of the more common ring tones are themselves imitations of
> bird
> > calls, so the birds are in some instances mimicking another
> species.
> 
> Do birds imitate other species in the wild?  If not, why would a bird
> imitate another species heard via a cellphone but not heard directly?

I believe the theory is that the birds regard the ring tones as human
calls, and adopt them as a means of keeping away predators who would
not prey on humans, a sort of Wizard of Oz, "pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain" routine.

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 megao at sasktel.net  Wed Jul 20 13:50:51 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:50:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050720142142.34633.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720142142.34633.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DE56BB.6030803@sasktel.net>

I still find it still ironic  that we still learn as much from 
observation of and recombination from novelty in nature as from
pure original science.  Not to detract from the art of building with 
legos VS the designing of lego systems from atoms
but it appears that the IC is one of the few really novel things we have 
come up with and that is what we are good at and therefore that is where 
our success lies. 

Learning how to create computational strings and recognize computational 
signatures seems to be our purpose as a species.
The singularity will be both a celebration and something of a 
disappointment because it must be assumed until known otherwise
that the rate of novelty will slow down unless the "wall" we hit drops 
to reveal yet more new opportunities for
exploration of change.

The redesigning of consciousness as we know it as we evolve into a more 
stable bioform is maybe OK enough
for stage we are at..... it was the magic and myth of eons of 
civilization and now is the job at hand.


Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The beast you are describing is an ultra
>>>extremophile that
>>>would use catalytic elements like tungsten and other
>>>high temperature
>>>elements in its protiens and today would be
>>>generally inert at normal
>>>temps and pressures.
>>>
>>>Such creatures already exist in the Archaea and
>>>thrive throughout the
>>>earth's crust.
>>>      
>>>
>>Point well taken. But it is still entrely possible
>>that the common ancestor of both Eubacteria and
>>Archaea came from outer space. The fact that Archaea
>>are such extremophiles make it likely they could exist
>>on other planets and not just the "garden" variety,
>>but in the crust of Io for example or under the frozen
>>oceans of Europa. They are fascinating little buggers
>>though. Eating iron, beathing sulfur . . . as alien as
>>you get without leaving Terra.
>>    
>>
>
>The problem is that extremophiles tend to not survive extremes they
>aren't built for. A high pressure, high temp extremophile doesn't do
>well at low pressure/no pressure low temperature and vice versa. Bugs
>evolved for cold just die as their protiens precipitate out of solution
>when temps get too high. Hot, high pressure bugs see their protiens
>contract so tight that they tear themselves apart.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050720/584982bc/attachment.html>

From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 20 15:38:43 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:38:43 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
Message-ID: <BAY107-F12E6E980596FCFDA4A6522FAD70@phx.gbl>

Wow I stop reading for a matter of days and return to find that you guys 
have snuffed the fire of curiosity out of someone. I am disgusted at the 
nature of some of the replies to David Stiger's reasonable and polite 
request to hear opinions on Freemason theory. If it is as ludicrous as some 
of you have indicated, then why is it still around? Besides that, we are 
meant to be renowned for an unprecedented level of open-mindedness and 
prospicience. Not to say that I necessarily agree with freemason conspiracy 
theory, but after the manner with which you brutally put down his ideas, it 
sure makes people think twice about posting potentially interesting theories 
or topics of discussion.

An extra thanks to Amara and Mike for their open-mindedness and courtesy. It 
appears that being a brain doesn't necessarily do much for one's people 
skills. I guess I shouldnt be expecting to see apologies anytime soon 
either.

-Evan
"Life is sexually transmitted"

PS: For some reason it seems that my posts are not being threaded correctly 
in the archives (where I prefer to read instead of receiving a billion 
emails, and yes I know about the digest). Everytime I post it starts a new 
thread, despite having an identical subject line. Anyone?

----- Original Message -----
Way to go guys, scare off another potential extropian.  Because there are 
certainly too many of them.

David, do not come to think that the abrasiveness of Eliezer, Damien and 
others is the prevalent attitude on this list (though its certainly present) 
think more of Amara or Mike Lorreys responses.  Basically, the abrasives 
think the things you believe are hogwash (as do I) and couldnt be bothered 
to even give a moment of time to try to explain, calmly and rationally, to 
you, why they are.  That's fine, I am way to busy to post frequently but I 
do fervently read nearly every post and still find this one of the most 
intellectually stimulating forums.  But they dont stop there, instead these 
abrasive types prefer to re affirm their own intellectual superiority by 
spotlighting how intellectual inferior they feel you are.  If that were not 
the case, they would just filter you out, or ignore your posts.

To Extropes, If he becomes a troll then ban him.  It seems reasonable to 
think he is not.  Clearly something brought David Stiger to this forum, 
instead of harassing and chastising him for beliefs that are wrong, we 
should welcome him and attempt to explain calmly why those beliefs are 
probably mistaken, and find value in the common ground that brought him 
here.  Thank you Amara and Mike for attempting it.  Shame on Damien and 
Eliezer for being reprehensible jerks.

David, I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's book, 'Science as a candle in 
the dark', or Michael Shermer's Book 'Why people believe wierd things'  They 
might give you the intellectual foundation for understanding why these grand 
conspiracy theories are wrong.

Matus

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



From astapp at amazeent.com  Wed Jul 20 15:50:18 2005
From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:50:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04516BC7@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Many birds, notably parrots, passerines, and hummingbirds, 
have imitative ability. In the wild this is mostly used 
to imitate the warning calls of other birds and animals
(of all kinds) and to imitate the songs of other birds
as a component of sexual selection. An imitative bird
learns song fragments in its youth. It constructs songs
from these, using some subjective criteria for beauty and
adjusts the songs until they prove attractive to other
birds of the species.

Mike Lorrey writes:

> Harvey Newstrom writes:
> Do birds imitate other species in the wild?  If not, why would a bird
> imitate another species heard via a cellphone but not heard directly?

I believe the theory is that the birds regard the ring tones as human
calls, and adopt them as a means of keeping away predators who would
not prey on humans, a sort of Wizard of Oz, "pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain" routine.


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jul 20 15:59:30 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:59:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F12E6E980596FCFDA4A6522FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F12E6E980596FCFDA4A6522FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050720155930.GC2259@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 03:38:43PM +0000, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Wow I stop reading for a matter of days and return to find that you guys 
> have snuffed the fire of curiosity out of someone. I am disgusted at the 

While the reply was harsh, the tone sent a message of its own. 
I really don't need a yet another KonspiracyKooks/Forteana list, thanks.

Suggestions to filter are similiarly without merit: we shouldn't have to.

> nature of some of the replies to David Stiger's reasonable and polite 
> request to hear opinions on Freemason theory. If it is as ludicrous as some 
> of you have indicated, then why is it still around? Besides that, we are 

Because people's capacity for idiocy is unlimited. While we all should
keep an open mind, it shouldn't be open enough for the brain to fall out
and go splat. 

> meant to be renowned for an unprecedented level of open-mindedness and 
> prospicience. Not to say that I necessarily agree with freemason conspiracy 
> theory, but after the manner with which you brutally put down his ideas, it 
> sure makes people think twice about posting potentially interesting 
> theories or topics of discussion.

You do have a point here. The putdown was perhaps unnecessarily brutal. 
While we don't have much tolerance for conspiracy theories, on-topic
posts are very welcome.
 
> An extra thanks to Amara and Mike for their open-mindedness and courtesy. 
> It appears that being a brain doesn't necessarily do much for one's people 
> skills. I guess I shouldnt be expecting to see apologies anytime soon 
> either.
> 
> PS: For some reason it seems that my posts are not being threaded correctly 
> in the archives (where I prefer to read instead of receiving a billion 
> emails, and yes I know about the digest). Everytime I post it starts a new 
> thread, despite having an identical subject line. Anyone?

Threading uses MessageIDs in mail headers. If you don't reply to a message
and/or your MTA (Hotmail, are you?) doesn't retain the MessageID, the information
is lost. 

-- 
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/20050720/45dbf308/attachment.bin>

From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 20 16:01:29 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:01:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>

I live in Madrid, Spain so this post obviously hits close to home. 
Personally, I can live with civil unions between homosexuals. I accept the 
fact that society is beginning to view homosexuality with a degree of 
normalicy that would have nauseated our forefathers. Myself, I have gay 
friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends. Hell I 
even go down to Chueca (Madrid's gay district, what an insane place) to 
party from time to time. However, I do not believe that gay unions should be 
made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of union 
which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that matter 
(though that matters little to me, being non-religious). To put gay 
marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is to declare that our 
society views homosexuality as being as normal as heterosexuality, which 
makes no sense in the natural order of mankind or all other animals. To say 
that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate it either. I'm 
sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years, but does that mean we 
should allow a man and a tree to marry? I hasten to admit that my example is 
extreme, but everyone has become so wrapped up in their politically 
correctness to admit the obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL. That doesn't 
mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is simply not 
normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be a step in the wrong 
direction.

Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and 
reevaluate the situation.

-Evan
"The trouble with normal is that it only gets worse." -Bruce Cockburn


-------------------Original Message-----------------------------
Comment: Viva Zapatero!
Civilrights.org<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=33631>:
The church has branded the law, a pet project of Socialist Prime Minister
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as an unprecedented threat to Christian
civilization [!!!].
Concord 
Monitor<http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/REPOSITORY/507190316/1037/NEWS04>:
Although numerous countries today recognize some form of same-sex
partnership, the Spanish law goes beyond most because it eliminates all
legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A gay
married couple has all the same rights as a straight married couple,
including the right to adopt children. A similar law exists in the
Netherlands, and one is pending in Canada.
Zapatero says the law will help transform Spain into a new and "decent
society."His agenda also includes plans to liberalize divorce, abortion and
stem-cell research. But the church is incensed, saying the very definition
of family is being destroyed.
Some of the opponents of gay marriage said they don't mind legislation
recognizing civil unions for homosexuals. They draw the line, however, at
giving it a status equivalent to the marriage of man and woman.
The issue has roiled debate in a number of countries, including the United
States. The Bush administration is promising to fight the kind of same-sex
unions that a number of jurisdictions have enacted.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 20 16:52:37 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050720165237.11345.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15933078,00.html
> 
> Let your body do the downloading

Hype.  Yes, data can be transmitted along the body - but that only
extends to the limits of the body.  For long downloads (for information
you do not already have somewhere on your body), one would have to have
one's body plugged in to something connected to the network - with
limits on physical mobility comparable to a short leash.  While there
are some BDSM fetishists who would enthusiastically embrace that, the
majority of the public would prefer other solutions.

There are other, far more practical solutions to eliminating the wait
for downloads.


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jul 20 18:14:27 2005
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:14:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <20050720165237.11345.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050716000936.01c7eb90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050720165237.11345.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720181427.GL2259@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:52:37AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Hype.  Yes, data can be transmitted along the body - but that only
> extends to the limits of the body.  For long downloads (for information

It's a feature, not a bug! You can actually limit the scope of your datasphere
to direct touch. Unlike RFID, electrostatic coupling can't be picked up
by a phased array antenna from a distance.

Personal authentication (SesameTouch(tm)), personal card exchange, etc.

> you do not already have somewhere on your body), one would have to have
> one's body plugged in to something connected to the network - with
> limits on physical mobility comparable to a short leash.  While there
> are some BDSM fetishists who would enthusiastically embrace that, the
> majority of the public would prefer other solutions.
> 
> There are other, far more practical solutions to eliminating the wait
> for downloads.

The smartphone increasingly crystallizes as the personal communicator.
The wearable is dead, long live the wearable. Bluetooth headsets are already
widespread, and video headsets have been sighted as prototypes.

If you happen to have a Series 60 Nokia, and know Python, you should
check out http://www.postneo.com/postwiki/moin.cgi/PythonForSeries60

Here's some code to read BlueTooth GPS from a Nokia smart phone in 
Python (indentation broken):

import socket

class BTReader:

def connect(self):
self.sock=socket.socket(socket.AF_BT,socket.SOCK_STREAM)
address,services=socket.bt_discover()
print "Discovered: %s, %s"%(address,services)
target=(address,services.values()[0])
print "Connecting to "+str(target)
self.sock.connect(target)

def readposition(self):
try:
while 1:
buffer=""
ch=self.sock.recv(1)
while(ch!='$'):
ch=self.sock.recv(1)
while 1:
if (ch=='\r'):
break
buffer+=ch
ch=self.sock.recv(1)
if (buffer[0:6]=="$GPGGA"):
(GPGGA,hhmmssss,l1ddmmmmmm,l1,l2dddmmmmmm,l2,q,xx,pp,ab,M,cd,M,xx,nnnn)=buffer.split(",")
return (l1+l1ddmmmmmm, l2+l2dddmmmmmm)
except Error:
return None

def close(self):
self.sock.close()

bt=BTReader()
bt.connect()
print bt.readposition()
print bt.readposition()
print bt.readposition()
bt.close()

-- 
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/20050720/78109e72/attachment.bin>

From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Jul 20 18:26:35 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:26:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <20050720143134.23668.qmail@post.phpwebhosting.com>
References: <20050720143134.23668.qmail@post.phpwebhosting.com>
Message-ID: <20050720182635.GA28513@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:31:34PM -0000, matus at matus1976.com wrote:

> David, I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's book, 'Science as a candle in
> the dark', or Michael Shermer's Book 'Why people believe wierd things'  They

The full title for the first one is _The demon-haunted world: science as a
candle in the dark_.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 20 18:34:03 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <20050720181427.GL2259@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20050720183403.415.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:52:37AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > Hype.  Yes, data can be transmitted along the body - but that only
> > extends to the limits of the body.  For long downloads (for
> information
> 
> It's a feature, not a bug! You can actually limit the scope of your
> datasphere
> to direct touch. Unlike RFID, electrostatic coupling can't be picked
> up
> by a phased array antenna from a distance.

This is true.  This is also not the use that the article was
specifically talking about.

"Downloading" almost always refers to obtaining data from some remote
source.  Moving data between different points on your body is akin to
routing it along the cables and circuits inside a single computer - a
performance concern, and definitely something worth addressing, but to
the end user the data is all locally present before the activity.

> The smartphone increasingly crystallizes as the personal
> communicator.
> The wearable is dead, long live the wearable. Bluetooth headsets are
> already
> widespread, and video headsets have been sighted as prototypes.

Aye.  There might be a dedicated bluetooth component to handle
transmission to and from the body - but as far as the user's concerned,
that component itself is what is doing the downloading.

What might be more interesting, is to have body-monitoring sensors
distributed through one's clothes, and rather than wearing wires woven
into the clothes, using the body itself to transmit data.  That way,
the sensors would merely occupy internally-facing pockets; clothes with
said pockets would be quite modular with respect to the exact gadgets
one uses.  Indeed, cargo pants and a vest might even qualify, if the
sensors can do their duties and transmit through the layer of fabric
lining the pockets.

Or possibly: bigger antenna = possibly more reliable/higher bandwidth
signal, ya?  Would an antenna riding in the depression on the back made
by one's spinal column be able to work that close to the human body,
especially if a unit at its base then used the body to communicate with
any devices wanting to use said antenna?  (In most cases, this would
probably not create any noticable bulge if the antenna was thin enough,
immediately eliminating the "obvious geek" factor that has impeded
widespread use of these systems.)


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Wed Jul 20 19:00:59 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:00:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <S474864AbVGTTA7/20050720190059Z+58137@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>

Evan Hamlin writes: 

> Myself, I have gay 
> friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends.

Yes you do.  You want to impose different laws and rights on your gay 
friends than your non-gay friends. 

> However, I do not believe that gay unions should 
> be made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of union 
> which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that matter 
> (though that matters little to me, being non-religious).

You think homosexuality doesn't exist in nature? 

> To say that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate it 
> either.

> Homosexuality is not NORMAL. 

How can something that has been naturally occurring for thousands of years 
not be normal? 

> That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is 
> simply not normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be a step 
> in the wrong direction.

The laws don't say it is normal.  It just says it is not so evil and 
terrible that the government must intervene to stop it. 

> Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and 
> reevaluate the situation.

I agree. 

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




From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jul 20 19:56:00 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:56:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42DEAC50.80402@pobox.com>

Evan Hamlin wrote:
> Myself, I have 
> gay friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends.
> However, I do not believe that gay 
> unions should be made equal to the union between a man and woman; the 
> only kind of union which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God 
> for that matter (though that matters little to me, being non-religious). 

If you think God exists and moreover this superintelligent creator of the 
universe doesn't like gay marriage, you're religious.

This is a mailing list for people who want to grow tails, sprout wings, switch 
sexes, grow new sex organs, create new sexes, and upload themselves into 
Jupiter Brains.  If you can't handle the concept of gay marriage, then what 
the hell are you doing here?

PS:  Let the record show that this is the person who chided me for not being 
open-minded when I expressed dissatisfaction with David Stiger's posting 
quality.  (Ad hominem tu qoque.)

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 19:56:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <S474864AbVGTTA7/20050720190059Z+58137@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <20050720195620.24838.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:

> Evan Hamlin writes: 
> 
> > Myself, I have gay 
> > friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends.
> 
> Yes you do.  You want to impose different laws and rights on your gay
> friends than your non-gay friends. 

Well, no, I don't think that is what he means. What he means, I
believe, is that everyone has an equal right to marry anyone of the
opposite sex they wish. No discrimination there.

> > However, I do not believe that gay unions should 
> > be made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind
> of union 
> > which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that
> matter 
> > (though that matters little to me, being non-religious).
> 
> You think homosexuality doesn't exist in nature? 

There is a distinction between existing in nature and being normal.
"Normal" being defined as that behavior engaged in by 90+% of the
population of that species.

> 
> > To say that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate
> > it either.
> 
> > Homosexuality is not NORMAL. 
> 
> How can something that has been naturally occurring for thousands of
> years not be normal? 

The typical *natural* expression of homosexual behavior in the wild is
typically (especially among apes and monkeys) a form of dominance, i.e.
initiations of force to maintain social pecking orders.

> 
> > That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort.
> It is 
> > simply not normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be
> a step 
> > in the wrong direction.
> 
> The laws don't say it is normal.  It just says it is not so evil and 
> terrible that the government must intervene to stop it. 

Well, no, Harvey, that isn't what the law does. The gay marriage law
grants subsidies to those who seek government endorsement and
certification of their natural but abnormal practices.


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 sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 20 20:03:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:03:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F12E6E980596FCFDA4A6522FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F12E6E980596FCFDA4A6522FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <D6F9462F-5FF5-4964-A34D-138BFB70DF37@mac.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Wow I stop reading for a matter of days and return to find that you  
> guys have snuffed the fire of curiosity out of someone. I am  
> disgusted at the nature of some of the replies to David Stiger's  
> reasonable and polite request to hear opinions on Freemason theory.  
> If it is as ludicrous as some of you have indicated, then why is it  
> still around?

Why are all the world's obviously screwy ideas still around?  Snuffed  
the fire of curiosity?  I think not.

> Besides that, we are meant to be renowned for an unprecedented  
> level of open-mindedness and prospicience. Not to say that I  
> necessarily agree with freemason conspiracy theory, but after the  
> manner with which you brutally put down his ideas, it sure makes  
> people think twice about posting potentially interesting theories  
> or topics of discussion.

What brutality?  Most of us just ignored it as not being worth the  
time to patiently refute and not worth taking that seriously.   The  
masonic stuff wouldn't be so bad in and of itself if not combined  
with Cydonia - Washington correspondence theories.   The latter is  
well within the realm of meaningless noise for this group.

>
> An extra thanks to Amara and Mike for their open-mindedness and  
> courtesy. It appears that being a brain doesn't necessarily do much  
> for one's people skills. I guess I shouldnt be expecting to see  
> apologies anytime soon either.
>

No, you shouldn't because none are needed.

- samantha




From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 20 20:10:03 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:10:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> I live in Madrid, Spain so this post obviously hits close to home.  
> Personally, I can live with civil unions between homosexuals. I  
> accept the fact that society is beginning to view homosexuality  
> with a degree of normalicy that would have nauseated our  
> forefathers. Myself, I have gay friends and treat them no  
> differently than any of my other friends. Hell I even go down to  
> Chueca (Madrid's gay district, what an insane place) to party from  
> time to time. However, I do not believe that gay unions should be  
> made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of  
> union which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for  
> that matter (though that matters little to me, being non-religious).

What?  This is the only kind of real love relationship, the only kind  
of mutual commitment, the only kind of partnering and support that  
are real in "the eyes of nature" whatever the heck that is, is  
heterosexual?    How so?

> To put gay marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is  
> to declare that our society views homosexuality as being as normal  
> as heterosexuality, which makes no sense in the natural order of  
> mankind or all other animals.

No.  It says that these relationships are just as deep, just as real  
and that people of same sex orientation have the same rights as  
everyone else including the right to have their relationships as  
recognized and respected.

> To say that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate  
> it either. I'm sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years,  
> but does that mean we should allow a man and a tree to marry? I  
> hasten to admit that my example is extreme, but everyone has become  
> so wrapped up in their politically correctness to admit the  
> obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL

Statistically it is a minority orientation.  So what?  How many  
"normal" people do you think are around these parts anyway?

> . That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort.  
> It is simply not normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me  
> to be a step in the wrong direction.
>

Laws do not make something normal they just strive to make things  
more just and balanced.

- samantha



From gingell at gnat.com  Wed Jul 20 20:25:56 2005
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:25:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <80752D7B-D0EC-4720-A253-317A34515FB8@gnat.com>

On Jul 20, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Myself, I have gay friends and treat them no differently than any  
> of my other friends.

You want to legislate against your straight friends too? Really?

> I'm sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years, but does  
> that mean we should allow a man and a tree to marry?

This is a really, really stupid analogy. Are there people suffering  
now because their tree doesn't have the legal standing to make  
medical decisions for them when they are unable to make them for  
themselves? Are there trees being turned away from hospitals because  
they are not legally considered members of somebody's family? Are  
there people paying more taxes than you would because they can't file  
a joint return with their tree? Are there tree's trapped in  
heartbreaking custody disputes because they have no legal  
relationship to the child they have for years been raising and  
sacrificing for as their own?

Don't pretend this is an abstract issue. This is real people in pain  
that people like you have the power to stop.

> I hasten to admit that my example is extreme, but everyone has  
> become so wrapped up in their politically correctness to admit the  
> obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL.

Being over six foot tall isn't normal. Being white isn't normal.  
Having an IQ over 100 isn't normal. Enjoying classical music isn't  
normal. Who gives a damn about "normal?" What on Earth does it have  
to do with whether we treat people like human beings or not?

> Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and  
> reevaluate the situation.

Uh huh.

Matt






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 20:38:35 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hype or tripe?
In-Reply-To: <20050720183403.415.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720203836.48185.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/07/why_bother_with.html#comments

"Of course if you leave the company, the thumb stays here...
Why bother with a USB thumbdrive, when you can store data in your thumb
itself -- the fingernail, specifically. Researchers at the University
of Tokushima have developed a means of storing data on the human
fingernail by burning microscopic dots into its surface. At present,
the amount of data stored via the method is negligible -- just some
tiny numbers, but researchers say a single fingernail could someday
accommodate 800 kilobytes of data or so. Not quite the capacity (or
flexibility) of a thumbdrive, but enough to store some basic
identification information."

Why not paint magnetic or optical material onto the nails? Ought to be
able to fit 5-10 megs easy on a 10mm x 10mm space on one's thumbnail
with the right technology. Probably healthier than drilling a bunch of
holes in the nail itself, where dermatophytes could easily infect, and
re-writable as well.



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

> --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:52:37AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > > Hype.  Yes, data can be transmitted along the body - but that
> only
> > > extends to the limits of the body.  For long downloads (for
> > information
> > 
> > It's a feature, not a bug! You can actually limit the scope of your
> > datasphere
> > to direct touch. Unlike RFID, electrostatic coupling can't be
> picked
> > up
> > by a phased array antenna from a distance.
> 
> This is true.  This is also not the use that the article was
> specifically talking about.
> 
> "Downloading" almost always refers to obtaining data from some remote
> source.  Moving data between different points on your body is akin to
> routing it along the cables and circuits inside a single computer - a
> performance concern, and definitely something worth addressing, but
> to
> the end user the data is all locally present before the activity.
> 
> > The smartphone increasingly crystallizes as the personal
> > communicator.
> > The wearable is dead, long live the wearable. Bluetooth headsets
> are
> > already
> > widespread, and video headsets have been sighted as prototypes.
> 
> Aye.  There might be a dedicated bluetooth component to handle
> transmission to and from the body - but as far as the user's
> concerned,
> that component itself is what is doing the downloading.
> 
> What might be more interesting, is to have body-monitoring sensors
> distributed through one's clothes, and rather than wearing wires
> woven
> into the clothes, using the body itself to transmit data.  That way,
> the sensors would merely occupy internally-facing pockets; clothes
> with
> said pockets would be quite modular with respect to the exact gadgets
> one uses.  Indeed, cargo pants and a vest might even qualify, if the
> sensors can do their duties and transmit through the layer of fabric
> lining the pockets.
> 
> Or possibly: bigger antenna = possibly more reliable/higher bandwidth
> signal, ya?  Would an antenna riding in the depression on the back
> made
> by one's spinal column be able to work that close to the human body,
> especially if a unit at its base then used the body to communicate
> with
> any devices wanting to use said antenna?  (In most cases, this would
> probably not create any noticable bulge if the antenna was thin
> enough,
> immediately eliminating the "obvious geek" factor that has impeded
> widespread use of these systems.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jul 20 20:46:16 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:46:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42DEB818.1030800@pobox.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:
> 
>> To put gay marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is  
>> to declare that our society views homosexuality as being as normal  as 
>> heterosexuality, which makes no sense in the natural order of  mankind 
>> or all other animals.
> 
> No.  It says that these relationships are just as deep, just as real  
> and that people of same sex orientation have the same rights as  
> everyone else including the right to have their relationships as  
> recognized and respected.

Well said.

I'm sorry if I seem a little harsh on this issue, but I never heard of 
anything so slam-dunk as the case for gay marriage.  I'm serious.  You can 
argue about Cydonian faces on Mars or whatever that was about, and at least 
I'll credit you with being a seeker after truth though stupid.  But if I see 
that you oppose gay marriage, then I assume you're a knuckle-dragging moral 
Neanderthal who would happily set black families on fire if you'd grown up in 
a culture where that was accepted wisdom.  I remember when Georgia passed a 
constitutional amendment against gay marriage and I said to myself:  "What the 
hell is this, the Middle Ages?"  That's when I started thinking that it was 
time to move out of Georgia and find somewhere I wouldn't be embarassed to 
call home.

Yes, opposing gay marriage is bigotry, just as bigoted as opposing marriage 
licenses for interracial couples.  And may I note that the argument form is 
exactly the same between the two cases, "unnatural", "eyes of God", "community 
standards", etc.  Two people love each other, get the frick out of their way.

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 21:07:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <42DEB818.1030800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, opposing gay marriage is bigotry, just as bigoted as opposing
> marriage 
> licenses for interracial couples.  And may I note that the argument
> form is 
> exactly the same between the two cases, "unnatural", "eyes of God",
> "community 
> standards", etc.  Two people love each other, get the frick out of
> their way.

Racists and bigots have never opposed marriage licenses for interracial
couples, that is what government marriage licensing was invented for in
the US, to control miscegenation. That gays want to demonstrate that
they are chattel of the state, rather than demand a return to the
historically proper marriage law for free persons: no licensing for
free persons, is evident, as I've stated multiple times in the past:
there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing
that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is the
heritability of social security benefits.

You don't become more free by demanding more chains.

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 sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jul 20 21:21:38 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:21:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DEC062.3060800@pobox.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, opposing gay marriage is bigotry, just as bigoted as opposing 
>> marriage licenses for interracial couples.  And may I note that the
>> argument form is exactly the same between the two cases, "unnatural",
>> "eyes of God", "community standards", etc.  Two people love each other,
>> get the frick out of their way.
> 
> Racists and bigots have never opposed marriage licenses for interracial 
> couples, that is what government marriage licensing was invented for in the
> US, to control miscegenation. That gays want to demonstrate that they are
> chattel of the state, rather than demand a return to the historically
> proper marriage law for free persons: no licensing for free persons, is
> evident, as I've stated multiple times in the past: there is only ONE THING
> that gays will gain with marriage licensing that they can't replicate with
> regular contract law, and that is the heritability of social security
> benefits.
> 
> You don't become more free by demanding more chains.

I agree that it is a self-consistent and morally acceptable position to favor 
gay marriage and oppose government recognition of any marriage.  If this is 
your position, you should state it explicitly so as to distinguish yourself 
from certain widespread stupidities.

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


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Jul 20 21:33:29 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:33:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
References: <ee50357e05070604081eb9f15c@mail.gmail.com><42D701D8.9030306@cox.net><6.2.1.2.2.20050714204426.030f5f38@mail.gmu.edu><42D70A70.6020305@pobox.com><6.2.1.2.2.20050714210322.02e58fe8@mail.gmu.edu><42D711AD.4040703@pobox.com>
	<42D7249E.1070501@cox.net><6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu><ee50357e05071510396fc013f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc05071921515736de92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000501c58d72$ac611980$4ebd1b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Emlyn"

> [...] and the second order infinity makes it
> more appealing to stay home [...]

Imagine Alphastar and Betastar as entangled systems.

It is possible to write, following Shannon,
and von Neumann, that S(A|B) = S(AB) - S(B),
meaning that the conditional entropy S(A|B), 
or - in different terms - the remaining 
uncertainty S(A|B) about the state of the system A 
when the state of the system B is known, equals 
the uncertainty S(AB) of the joint state of both 
systems, minus the uncertainty S(B) of the state 
of the system B.

For quantum entangled systems, the conditional 
entropy S(A|B), or the remaining uncertainty S(A|B), 
can be *negative*, since it can be S(B) > S(AB). 

Now, interpreting the above - and specifically that
S(A|B) can be *negative* - in terms of flux of
informations, it follows (perhaps) that ...

1- Alphastar and Betastar (entangled) have the 
potential to transfer, in the future, between them, 
an additional amount of quantum informations,  
at no cost [Horodecki];
2- Between Alphastar and Betastar (entangled) there 
are quantum informations traveling backwards in time, 
in other words 'negative qubits', [Shumacher, Bennett 
and Wiesner, Adami and Cerf];
3- All the above is wrong, or not even wrong, but 
a cosmic mega-entanglement is still possible (as 
Wheeler thought) and, in any case, reality is not 
innocent. 

So, 'stay at home' makes some sense, under specific,
speculative assumptions (i.e. number 2- above?).  





From gingell at gnat.com  Wed Jul 20 22:59:18 2005
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:59:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01F2E4AC-87C3-487A-A1BC-409CF9E8192A@gnat.com>

On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Racists and bigots have never opposed marriage licenses for  
> interracial
> couples, that is what government marriage licensing was invented  
> for in
> the US, to control miscegenation.

I can't parse this in a way that makes sense to me: Racists didn't  
want to withhold marriage licenses from mixed race couples, which is  
why marriage licenses were instituted in the first place? What?

> That gays want to demonstrate that
> they are chattel of the state, rather than demand a return to the
> historically proper marriage law for free persons:

In Libertarian Wonderland we'd all be free to marry our guns and we'd  
never have to worry about being oppressed by the Post Office, but  
until the revolution comes gays, just like everybody else, have to  
live within the system and institutions which already exist. Would  
you argue that it's fine to exclude woman from driving on state  
financed roads, or that objecting to such a policy is illegitimate,  
because we shouldn't have state financed roads in the first place and  
that belief trumps any objection one might have to how existing roads  
are regulated?

> no licensing for
> free persons, is evident, as I've stated multiple times in the past:
> there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing
> that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is the
> heritability of social security benefits.

This is obviously untrue... it's just so obviously untrue I don't  
understand how you could possibly believe it or why you would assert  
it. Just to name a couple of falsifying examples, spousal privilege  
isn't obtainable by civil contract, neither is special consideration  
of your partner for immigration purposes, and neither are a wide  
range of income, estate, and other tax benefits.

> You don't become more free by demanding more chains.

If you want to argue on libertarian grounds that government should  
get out of the marriage business entirely, I can respect that. If you  
want to argue that marriage is a bogus institution and therefore it  
is acceptable to withhold it from whatever despised minority you feel  
like excluding, then I can't.

Matt




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 23:02:27 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium was Dark Matter and ET.
In-Reply-To: <20050720142142.34633.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720230227.36308.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> The problem is that extremophiles tend to not
> survive extremes they
> aren't built for. A high pressure, high temp
> extremophile doesn't do
> well at low pressure/no pressure low temperature and
> vice versa. Bugs
> evolved for cold just die as their protiens
> precipitate out of solution
> when temps get too high. Hot, high pressure bugs see
> their protiens
> contract so tight that they tear themselves apart.

Endospores get around all these problems. They really
are remarkable adaptations. 

> Another problem is transfer. Given that astronomical
> bodies tend to hit
> each other at velocities in excess of 20,000 mph,
> the impact temps and
> pressures of such collisions are too excessive for
> any life, even high
> temp, high pressure bacteria, to survive. You are
> going to have to find
> a bug that lives and thrives in lava to solve that
> missing link.

Not necessarily. See the following excerpt from the
paper that I posted the link for earlier:

"Deposition of Spores from Space to a Planet

Assuming that spores trapped inside ejecta survive
launch and transit through space, they must be
captured by the gravity of a recipient planet and
survive entry. Our current understanding of what
happens to a rock fragment upon reentry is generally
good, thanks to years of study of natural meteors and
the reentry of spacecraft (24, 108, 147). It turns out
that planets with atmospheres are almost ideal
recipients of life-bearing rock fragments. Although
small (0.001 to 1 kg) fragments may burn up entirely
in Earth's atmosphere, larger fragments are slowed
dramatically upon reentry to a terminal velocity of a
few hundred meters per second. Because the entire
reentry process, from first encounter with the
atmosphere to impact, takes only about 1 min or so,
the interior of the meteorite (except for a few
millimeters of ablation crust at the surface) is not
heated significantly above its in-space temperature.
This accounts for the well-documented phenomenon that
recently landed meteorites are cold to the touch.
Aerodynamic drag forces often disaggregate the rock in
the lower atmosphere, and the resulting fragments
strike Earth's surface in the characteristic pattern
of a strewn field (147). Upon impact, these fragments
are further shattered and mixed with the surface
material of the destination planet. It is therefore
possible for endolithic microbes not only to survive
reentry embedded in a meteorite, but actually to be
effectively inoculated into the recipient planet's
crust, thereby encountering an environment potentially
conductive to growth." 



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  Wed Jul 20 22:50:03 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:50:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <42DEB818.1030800@pobox.com>
References: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>

Eliezer wrote:

>Yes, opposing gay marriage is bigotry, just as bigoted as opposing 
>marriage licenses for interracial couples.  And may I note that the 
>argument form is exactly the same between the two cases, "unnatural", 
>"eyes of God", "community standards", etc.  Two people love each other, 
>get the frick out of their way.

I'm on the sidelines on this one, not caring particularly what's decided. 
In part because I know same-sex couples who are themselves indifferent.

As a matter of principle, I object to the ways that those do care about it 
(pro or con) are discussing the issue. There are implications and nuances 
that are ignored, along with the usual demonization of anyone who disagrees 
with one's side.

I have a few ideas on the subject, though, which will become an op-ed piece 
or short story at some point.

Meanwhile, let me pose a thought exercise for the participants in this 
thread, which may illuminate the more transhumanist aspects. There is an 
unpopular hypothesis that homosexuality is a side effect of a viral 
infection. It is not inherently implausible, given what we're learning 
about the interrelationships between neurochemistry and behavior. It would 
be difficult, however, to conclusively confirm or rebut.

But suppose it's true. If you were or actually are gay, would this 
knowledge alter your self-image or goals? If you were against gay rights, 
for moral or pragmatic reasons, would it alter your opinion of gays or gay 
rights?

What if we then identify the virus and create an effective anti-viral 
treatment, so that we now have the technical means to reliably convert 
someone either to homosexual or to heterosexual?

What would happen to the size of and attitudes toward the gay population? 
What fraction of gays would elect to become straight, and vice versa? Would 
social conservatives push for labeling homosexuality as a public health 
matter, requiring treatment or inoculation? May a parent convert their 
child one way or the other? Can a minor change their sexual preference 
without parental notification or consent; is this different from abortion?

Of course, the same questions arise if homosexuality is genetically 
determined; it just requires higher-tech to alter.


-- David Lubkin.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 23:11:38 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Canada legalizes gay marriage
Message-ID: <20050720231138.14349.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

The heritability of social security benefits is alone a reason to want gay marriage legalized.
I don't think gays even have to justify their desiring gay marriage legalized on legal terms at all; a gay couple can say 'we want to make it legal', without going into torturous justification of such. You just do what you want, within rational parameters, without being a hyper-intellectual splitting hairs all the time.
Sure, a libertarian can make a case for not accepting gay marriage because gay marriage would give government more jurisdiction. But to say gay marriage is a "chain" is entirely subjective. To me, being married to a woman and being nagged half to death is the ultimate chain.

__________________________________________________
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/20050720/2772b158/attachment.html>

From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Wed Jul 20 23:18:40 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:18:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720195620.24838.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720195620.24838.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb71d7e457c83c3a2788b4c9f69ce559@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:
>
>> Evan Hamlin writes:
>>
>>> Myself, I have gay
>>> friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends.
>>
>> Yes you do.  You want to impose different laws and rights on your gay
>> friends than your non-gay friends.
>
> Well, no, I don't think that is what he means. What he means, I
> believe, is that everyone has an equal right to marry anyone of the
> opposite sex they wish. No discrimination there.

Everyone has an equal right to marry a person of the same race.  No 
discrimination there.
Everyone has an equal right to marry a person of the same religion.  No 
discrimination there.
Everyone has an equal right to marry a person of the same nationality.  
No discrimination there.
Everyone has an equal right to marry a person the government allows.  
No discrimination there.

>>> However, I do not believe that gay unions should
>>> be made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind
>> of union
>>> which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that
>> matter
>>> (though that matters little to me, being non-religious).
>>
>> You think homosexuality doesn't exist in nature?
>
> There is a distinction between existing in nature and being normal.
> "Normal" being defined as that behavior engaged in by 90+% of the
> population of that species.

Heterosexual marriage is not engaged in by 90+% of the population, so 
it must not be normal behavior.
Monogamy is not engaged in by 90+% of the population, so it must not be 
normal behavior.
Children are not produced by 90+% of the population, so it must not be 
normal behavior.
Internet use is not engaged in by 90+% of the population, so it must 
not be normal behavior.

>>> To say that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate
>>> it either.
>>
>>> Homosexuality is not NORMAL.
>>
>> How can something that has been naturally occurring for thousands of
>> years not be normal?
>
> The typical *natural* expression of homosexual behavior in the wild is
> typically (especially among apes and monkeys) a form of dominance, i.e.
> initiations of force to maintain social pecking orders.

Typical natural expression of *heterosexual* behavior in the wild is 
also (especially among apes and monkeys)  a form of dominance.  Are you 
claiming that homosexual animals practice more dominance over other 
monkeys than heterosexual animals?  Or that heterosexual encounters in 
animals are more loving and equal than homosexual encounters in 
animals?

>>> That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort.
>> It is
>>> simply not normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be
>> a step
>>> in the wrong direction.
>>
>> The laws don't say it is normal.  It just says it is not so evil and
>> terrible that the government must intervene to stop it.
>
> Well, no, Harvey, that isn't what the law does. The gay marriage law
> grants subsidies to those who seek government endorsement and
> certification of their natural but abnormal practices.

The *heterosexual* marriage law grants the exact same subsidies to 
those who seek government endorsement and certification of their 
natural but abnormal practices.  What's the difference?

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



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 20 23:19:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050720143115.8851.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050720231909.53204.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Try 100 million years, which is how long it took
> after the planetesimal
> impact on Earth for life to start showing up in the
> fossil record.
> Given that experimenters have shown how such
> environments create all
> the amino acids and other organics needed for life
> in a few days, it
> isn't out of the question to believe that a planet
> full of such
> organics for 100 million years would cause the
> chemicals to further
> combine, self replicate (as some do), and eventually
> become cells.

I agree it is not out of the question that life could
have spontaneously arose in 100 million years on
prebiotic Earth. That is not what I am saying. I am
merely weighing probabilities in the face of
uncertainties in Bayesian fashion. However technically
no organic molecules yet discovered truly
self-replicate. Instead they replicate other organic
molecules of different chemistries that in turn
replicate the original organic molecules. It is how
the mechanisms that allow this transfer of information
from one substrate to another and back again developed
that is the true mystery of life's origin. 

> The problem you have with your panspermian theory is
> that you are
> merely pushing the date of origin further back and
> away as a means of
> avoidance. 

No, the idea of panspermia is not that you push the
date back to avoid the question of how life began. The
beauty is that you give a very rare and highly
unlikely set of coincidences much more of an
opportunity to occur. And furthermore once that highly
unlikely genesis occured, the spreading of life
throughout the galaxy was assured. Like with monkeys
and type-writers. If you wanted a monkey to randomly
type Hamlet, you would be more likely to succeed with
a galaxy full of monkeys and typewriters
than with but a single planet full of them.

At some point, somewhere, even by the
> panspermian theory,
> life had to spontaneously arise. If it could happen
> in one place, it
> could happen in others. No one place in the universe
> is totally unique
> in its chemistry. Refusing to deal with the question
> smacks of cultism.

Well if life is EASY to generate based on the normal
laws of chemistry and physics, then you are correct in
that there is no need for panspermia in order for the
universe to teem with life. But that doesn't seem to
be the case. Do you really think panspermia has
potential as a cult?


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 gingell at gnat.com  Wed Jul 20 23:37:10 2005
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:37:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>
References: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <D1A03FDC-F12F-46A5-9969-BB532D9DA864@gnat.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 6:50 PM, David Lubkin wrote:

> I have a few ideas on the subject, though, which will become an op- 
> ed piece or short story at some point.

If you believe in materialism then none of the implications of this  
scenario are very novel or interesting: If your identity is material  
all the way down then we can imagine pills that would turn you gay or  
straight or Hindu or anything else. If such technology became a  
reality then people would make various difficult to anticipate  
choices, some unforeseeable equilibrium would obtain, and the social  
conservatives would flip out about it.





From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Jul 20 23:39:20 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:39:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <003301c58d84$40f3b4c0$0500a8c0@uservqwsr60ljh>


Define NORMAL!

>I live in Madrid, Spain so this post obviously hits close to home. 
>Personally, I can live with civil unions between homosexuals. I accept the 
>fact that society is beginning to view homosexuality with a degree of 
>normalicy that would have nauseated our forefathers. Myself, I have gay 
>friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends. Hell I 
>even go down to Chueca (Madrid's gay district, what an insane place) to 
>party from time to time. However, I do not believe that gay unions should 
>be made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of union 
>which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that matter 
>(though that matters little to me, being non-religious). To put gay 
>marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is to declare that 
>our society views homosexuality as being as normal as heterosexuality, 
>which makes no sense in the natural order of mankind or all other animals. 
>To say that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate it 
>either. I'm sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years, but does 
>that mean we should allow a man and a tree to marry? I hasten to admit that 
>my example is extreme, but everyone has become so wrapped up in their 
>politically correctness to admit the obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL. 
>That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is 
>simply not normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be a step 
>in the wrong direction.
>
> Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and 
> reevaluate the situation.
>
> -Evan
> "The trouble with normal is that it only gets worse." -Bruce Cockburn
>
>
> -------------------Original Message-----------------------------
> Comment: Viva Zapatero!
> Civilrights.org<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=33631>:
> The church has branded the law, a pet project of Socialist Prime Minister
> Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as an unprecedented threat to Christian
> civilization [!!!].
> Concord 
> Monitor<http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/REPOSITORY/507190316/1037/NEWS04>:
> Although numerous countries today recognize some form of same-sex
> partnership, the Spanish law goes beyond most because it eliminates all
> legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A gay
> married couple has all the same rights as a straight married couple,
> including the right to adopt children. A similar law exists in the
> Netherlands, and one is pending in Canada.
> Zapatero says the law will help transform Spain into a new and "decent
> society."His agenda also includes plans to liberalize divorce, abortion 
> and
> stem-cell research. But the church is incensed, saying the very definition
> of family is being destroyed.
> Some of the opponents of gay marriage said they don't mind legislation
> recognizing civil unions for homosexuals. They draw the line, however, at
> giving it a status equivalent to the marriage of man and woman.
> The issue has roiled debate in a number of countries, including the United
> States. The Bush administration is promising to fight the kind of same-sex
> unions that a number of jurisdictions have enacted.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 




From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Jul 20 23:44:57 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:44:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720195620.24838.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-47C8718AF97811D99047000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/20/05 12:56) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Well, no, Harvey, that isn't what the law does. The gay marriage law
>grants subsidies to those who seek government endorsement and
>certification of their natural but abnormal practices.


As opposed to the government laws that grant subsidies for an act between heterosexual couples that they would do anyway.

I find it terribly amusing that people who ostensibly have a distrust for government intervention and a strong desire to to have the law applied with brutal equality suddenly recoil in fear when the subject of homosexuality comes up. :)

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Jul 20 23:50:26 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:50:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-0CA2DCF5F97911D99047000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/20/05 14:07) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Racists and bigots have never opposed marriage licenses for interracial
>couples,

Your argument is absurd on the face. The fact that Loving v. Virginia happened at all, that there were antimiscegenation laws on the books meant that "racists and bigots" at some point did oppose marriage licenses for interracial couples.


>You don't become more free by demanding more chains.

But you do become free by demanding equal protection and equal treatment under the law.


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jul 21 00:04:08 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:04:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <003301c58d84$40f3b4c0$0500a8c0@uservqwsr60ljh>
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<003301c58d84$40f3b4c0$0500a8c0@uservqwsr60ljh>
Message-ID: <42DEE678.3090904@pobox.com>

Gina Miller wrote:
> 
> Define NORMAL!

NORMAL is a setting on a washing machine.

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


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Jul 21 00:11:04 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:11:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050720093804.19460.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050719195646.GA25589@ofb.net>
	<20050720093804.19460.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050721001104.GA21389@ofb.net>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:38:04AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> happened. So what you are suggesting is that had he electrocuted the broth
> while shining UV light on it at 52 atm of pressure in a methane atmosphere
> for a million years, some primordial cell would have oozed out of it?  

It's possible.  And there are more options: tides, day-night cycles, clay
substrates (not for replication of the clays, though there's that idea as
well, but because the chemistry is different; see a couple of books by John
Maynard Smith and a colleague, one being _Major Transitions in Evolution_)

> > This has no relevance to spontaneous generation in a planet-wide ocean
> > subject to UV, lightning, and tides, over 100 million years.
> 
> Is the ocean somehow more nutritious than the broth?

It might be.  It is definitely bigger, allowing more room for things to happen
in.  And it had more energy.

> entropic than it is now. Who knows. Maybe the whole
> universe started out alive and then over time, most of
> it died until now only small bits of it are alive.

And maybe there are invisible pink unicorns around Alpha Centauri.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 21 00:27:24 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:27:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl><003301c58d84$40f3b4c0$0500a8c0@uservqwsr60ljh>
	<42DEE678.3090904@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c58d8a$f78ca4c0$0300a8c0@Nano>

Right :  )
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change


  Gina Miller wrote:
  > 
  > Define NORMAL!

  NORMAL is a setting on a washing machine.

  -- 
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050720/269db566/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jul 21 00:37:23 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Externalities
In-Reply-To: <20050718003200.GA61339@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20050721003723.1203.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> I don't recall where I read about it, but one scheme to facilitate
> development and compensate for negative externalities goes something
> like this:
> 
> Ask each resident or property owner how much they would have to be
> paid to allow a (e.g.) nuclear plant to be built within some
> distances
> from their locations, say 1km, 10km, 50km.  Given this information
> nuclear plant entrepreneur can decide where to build the plant and
> pay each entity the amount asked given the distance of the chosen
> location.  I don't recall how this system got people to reveal their
> true preferences or dealt with liars and holdouts (I require a
> payment of $1 trillion for construction of a nuclear power plant
> anywhere on earth).

More than just liars and holdouts, you also have people who say, "I
don't want one built anywhere ever again, and you can't pay me any
amount of money to change my mind."

Democracy deals with that by requiring majority (absolute, two-thirds,
mere plurality, or some other proportion relative to the severity of
the thing being decided) approval, thus unless there are a lot of
absolute holdouts (and in theory, if there are that many holdouts,
they'd have a good reason), one could buy approval.

Problem is, that then quickly gets into problems seen in the 18th
century and earlier with vote buying: the wealthy can often talk the
poor into approving things for a far lesser price than the
externality's actual long term cost to them.  (If you're starving, a
loaf of bread to keep you alive until tomorrow may seem worth any price
- even though you often have other options for mere survival.  But once
you do survive until tomorrow, you've already consumed your loaf of
bread, but that polluting factory next door is impacting your health,
driving you further into poverty.  In purely economic terms, the poor
would have given a loan at unfavorable odds to the poor person...but
unlike with banks and other financial institutions, the poor might not
accept full responsibility for their actions: they eat their bread and
blow up the factory that's smogging them out of house and home.)


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 00:43:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F39358E39061070FC543582E7D70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050721004309.70915.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> First of all let me say that I am sorry to have
> offended some of you by 
> asking these questions, and I am also sorry to learn
> that so many of you 
> cannot live with the fact that I believe there is
> some kind of larger "shall 
> we call it conspiracy" having to do with the masons
> and the leaders of 
> religious groups and government officials all over
> our planet. 

I am not offended and I am sorry if anything I said to
address your theory was cosindered offensive to you. I
am perfectly happy to allow you to believe your
conspiracy theories. I am just one of those people
that try very hard to distinguish between the faces I
see in clouds with the faces I see on Mt. Rushmore.
Our brains are keyed to recognize patterns of
information, even when those patterns are accidents of
chance.

 I did  not 
> inted to come off as someone trying to push my
> ideas, just as someone who 
> wanted to hear the opinions of people who seem to
> have a great knowledge of 
> the world.  I know now that even people who are
> supposedly open to 
> discussing the big problems and issues of our
> planet, can also be very close 
> minded.

Close mindedness is a bugbear of the human condition
that goes way beyond this list. Much of the death and
destruction in the world of late is due to it.

> I will continue to read the extropy chat
> list, but I believe you 
> suceeded in convincing me that posting about
> anything other than 
> hard-fact-based issues is something many of you just
> can't seem to handle.

Many but not all.
  
> I thought it would make for an interesting
> discussion, but I guess not.  
> Thanks to those of you who only tried to answer my
> questions and did not 
> immediately criticize my views, I appreciate
> tolerance in all it's forms.

Well I for one would advise you to develop a thicker
skin toward criticism. Even correct ideas and smart
talented people get criticized. The true test of an
idea or a person is that they can withstand that
criticism. I would suggest you examine your theories
and why you hold them. You don't need a conspiracy of
thousands to explain all the suffering and injustice
in the world, you just need individuals acting in
callous self-interest. For example, why would you need
to think that Bush was a member of some secret society
in order to cause all the misery he has? Because it
easier to believe in an evil club than than an evil
individual? Or do you believe that belonging to the
Masons somehow gives Bush more power than he would
have without it? If that is the case, how come there
are Masons that have trouble making rent? 

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 gingell at gnat.com  Thu Jul 21 00:46:51 2005
From: gingell at gnat.com (Matthew Gingell)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:46:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050721001104.GA21389@ofb.net>
References: <20050719195646.GA25589@ofb.net>
	<20050720093804.19460.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050721001104.GA21389@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <C799860F-D09D-4FBE-AB89-D0D181FD0984@gnat.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> And maybe there are invisible pink unicorns around Alpha Centauri.

Stop being silly. The unicorns around Alpha Centauri are white just  
like unicorns everywhere else, they just appear pink because they're  
red shifted. I've heard enough of this unfalsifiable "not all  
unicorns are white" nonsense - next you'll be trying to tell us  
Saddam Hussein smuggled purple ones into Syria.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 02:01:07 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <002d01c58d8a$f78ca4c0$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050721020107.95800.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

Heterosexuality can be thought of as being abnormal. Think of the guy who shot Reagan to prove himself to Jodie Foster. Women can do that to you.
 I can't stand it when husbands talk about their wives and children as 'angelic'. "My wife is an angel", yeah, right. And my rotweiler is a vegetarian.

Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote: 
Right :  )


__________________________________________________
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/20050720/ea3b18c3/attachment.html>

From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu Jul 21 02:07:20 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:07:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anniversaries are such human things...
Message-ID: <42DF0358.3070803@humanenhancement.com>

And so, as a human, I feel compelled to observe them.

Just wanted to mark the 36th anniversary of the first manned Moon 
landing, by the brave crew of Apollo 11, on this day in 1969.

I only hope that if I am given a similar opportunity, I can rise to such 
a challenge.

Joseph


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Thu Jul 21 02:29:54 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:29:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720210708.66406.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dbd771c613232de8ac009eeff6347fbf@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> as I've stated multiple times in the past:
> there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing
> that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is the
> heritability of social security benefits.

And Medicare.
And joint tax returns.
And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner (such 
that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same job 
at the same pay with the same benefits).
And adoption of their partner's children.
And coverage on partner's medical insurance.
And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance companies 
claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since most 
insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in the 
partner's property).
And citizenship for their partner.
And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.
And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.
And inheriting their partner's property without a will.
And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's 
property with a will.
And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.
And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.
And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married 
couples can rent the same car.
And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court of law 
(spousal privilege).

And over a thousand other things that just can't be contracted between 
a gay couple....

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



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Jul 21 02:27:05 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:27:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050719214526957a4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715064635.03245e10@mail.gmu.edu>	<20050715164734.42103.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc050719214526957a4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42DF07F9.5010003@cox.net>

Emlyn wrote:

>Mike wrote:
>  
>
>>Quite so, Robin. But Dan's premise also fails a test of extropic logic,
>>which is that the marginal utility of a colony in another star system
>>is not just the computation happening in that star system, but also the
>>probes being spawned to other systems from there, and others in turn,
>>as an exponential budding process. Sure, the core SI takes a loss
>>computationally for the first few generations, but the exponential
>>growth quickly overtakes that, especially if each probe travels with a
>>supply of entangled particles or is otherwise able to establish some
>>sort of FTL network once they've reached a destination star system.
>>    
>>
>
>Also, if the loss of an asteroid worth of computronium is a problem,
>you could always set out with the aim to relativistically hurl back a
>lot more matter to replace the asteroid with; that way, you can
>balance the cost of the present matter with the gain of a lot more
>future matter (heavily discounted of course because of elapsed time)
>and have the whole enterprise be worth the trouble for the net gain in
>computronium alone.
>
>  
>
This is a valid argument. but it depends on the discount rate. tech 
original Si is
presumed to have converts the natal solar system into computroniun. If the
nearest neighbor  is 4 LY, then the ROI commences 8 years after the 
investment,
minimum.

I did fail to analyse the "mining" scenario. I postulated the 
information scenario
instead. In the information scenario, the original SI sends a probe and 
receives
information. In the "mining scenario, the original SI sends a probe and 
receives
matter. I guess that the mining scenario has a positive NPV,  We send an 
asteriod's mass
out, and we begin receiving mass (computronium 8 years later. Within 9 
years, we receive
about half the mass of the target solar system: eh other half of the 
mass is converted to
energy associated with moving the other system's mass to the original 
system.

The target system will also expend a tiny percentage of its mass to 
generate probes
to send to other systems: these other systems will then send their mass 
back to the
original system. This creates the expanding sphere that Eugene refers to.

We still need to compute the NPV: the incremental information generated 
by an
asteriod's worth of computronium in 8 years versus the value of  the 
information we
begin to generate using the new mass.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 02:42:16 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <dbd771c613232de8ac009eeff6347fbf@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20050721024216.86613.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

Even if that is all gays would obtain by gay marriage-- and of course there is much more, let's be thankful for small favors. 
Mike, wouldn't you marry MacCaulay Culkin to get that? :- ]

Mike Lorrey wrote:
>ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is the heritability of social security benefits.



		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
 Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050720/65675efa/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 02:42:47 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anniversaries are such human things...
In-Reply-To: <42DF0358.3070803@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050721024247.73951.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> And so, as a human, I feel compelled to observe
> them.
> 
> Just wanted to mark the 36th anniversary of the
> first manned Moon 
> landing, by the brave crew of Apollo 11, on this day
> in 1969.
> 
> I only hope that if I am given a similar
> opportunity, I can rise to such 
> a challenge.

Of all the silly anniverseraies of humanity, this is a
really good one. Good call Joseph, it would have
completely escaped my notice otherwise. Even as we
speak, the words "One small step for man, one giant
leap for mankind." are echoing dimly across Arcturus
36 ly away. I wonder if anyone is listening? When I
get home, I will toast Appollo 11 tonight. May the
moon be the first of many new worlds humanity leaves
its footprints on.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 02:57:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-47C8718AF97811D99047000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050721025714.74048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/20/05 12:56) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Well, no, Harvey, that isn't what the law does. The gay marriage law
> >grants subsidies to those who seek government endorsement and
> >certification of their natural but abnormal practices.
>  
> As opposed to the government laws that grant subsidies for an act
> between heterosexual couples that they would do anyway.
> 
> I find it terribly amusing that people who ostensibly have a distrust
> for government intervention and a strong desire to to have the law
> applied with brutal equality suddenly recoil in fear when the subject
> of homosexuality comes up. 

No recoiling here, at all. I also have no desire for any law to be
brutally applied (except, perhaps, upon those who wish it upon others
with inane justification). I have objection to anyone seeking to expand
government benefits for anyone who didn't actually earn them. For the
record I'm against Social Security in general as well as government
marriage licensing of any kind. The master doesn't ask his servant for
permission to exercise his right.

I also find it ironic that those who hate George Bush are so militant
about pushing forward a change in law which was the most responsible
for Bush's get-out-the-vote. These same persons tend toward the
blame-America camp wrt 9/11, that it was US policies coming back to
visit us, but refuse to recognise that their claimed effect became
reality wrt gay marriage and Bush's reelection from their own domestic
policy advocacy.

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  Thu Jul 21 03:02:17 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-0CA2DCF5F97911D99047000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050721030217.12794.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/20/05 14:07) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Racists and bigots have never opposed marriage licenses for
> interracial
> >couples,
> 
> Your argument is absurd on the face. The fact that Loving v. Virginia
> happened at all, that there were antimiscegenation laws on the books
> meant that "racists and bigots" at some point did oppose marriage
> licenses for interracial couples.

But that was after licensing was created specifically to regulate
interracial marriage, so no absurdity, just one more example of the
tired history of government first regulating what it will later seek to
ban. When are you people going to get it? Pull your head out.

> 
> 
> >You don't become more free by demanding more chains.
> 
> But you do become free by demanding equal protection and equal
> treatment under the law.

Not when you are asking to be put in the same cages. Equal protection
is worthless in a police state. All germans had equal chance of being
sent to the death camps, only half of those killed were jews. When they
marched into the same prisons together, all, gentile and jew, read the
motto "Arbiet Macht Frei": Labor shall make you free. Everyone there
was treated with "equal protection" too....

Adding a million zeroes together still equals zero.

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 03:05:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050721024216.86613.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050721030500.80390.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>

Don't do it, Mike. Culkin's younger than you. He'll
collect your social security. ;) 

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

> Even if that is all gays would obtain by gay
> marriage-- and of course there is much more, let's
> be thankful for small favors. 
> Mike, wouldn't you marry MacCaulay Culkin to get
> that? :- ]
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage
> licensing that they can't replicate with regular
> contract law, and that is the heritability of social
> security benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
>  Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
tour> _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 03:08:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <dbd771c613232de8ac009eeff6347fbf@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20050721030830.46977.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are being
disengenuous in claiming otherwise.

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > as I've stated multiple times in the past:
> > there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing
> > that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is
> the
> > heritability of social security benefits.
> 
> And Medicare.
> And joint tax returns.
> And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner
> (such 
> that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same job
> 
> at the same pay with the same benefits).
> And adoption of their partner's children.
> And coverage on partner's medical insurance.
> And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance
> companies 
> claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
> And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since
> most 
> insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in the 
> partner's property).
> And citizenship for their partner.
> And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
> And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.
> And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.
> And inheriting their partner's property without a will.
> And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's 
> property with a will.
> And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.
> And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.
> And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married 
> couples can rent the same car.
> And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court of
> law 
> (spousal privilege).
> 
> And over a thousand other things that just can't be contracted
> between 
> a gay couple....
> 
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
> CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Jul 21 03:07:50 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:07:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anniversaries are such human things...
In-Reply-To: <20050721024247.73951.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <42DF0358.3070803@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050720225927.06ac0620@unreasonable.com>

Stuart wrote:

>Of all the silly anniverseraies of humanity, this is a
>really good one. Good call Joseph, it would have
>completely escaped my notice otherwise.

How old are you, Stuart? Old enough to remember watching (and caring about) 
the landing?

I find that I can no more forget Moon Day than my own birthday, the way an 
earlier generation can never forget December 7. Of course, I knew who flew 
which Geminis the way my friends knew Roger Maris's stats.


-- David Lubkin.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 03:33:04 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anniversaries are such human things...
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050720225927.06ac0620@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050721033304.44987.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> How old are you, Stuart? Old enough to remember
> watching (and caring about) 
> the landing?
> 
> I find that I can no more forget Moon Day than my
> own birthday, the way an 
> earlier generation can never forget December 7. Of
> course, I knew who flew 
> which Geminis the way my friends knew Roger Maris's
> stats.

I was born in 1970. The year after. So that makes me
almost 35.


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  Thu Jul 21 03:35:07 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:35:07 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
In-Reply-To: <20050720094200.92299.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050720094200.92299.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42DF17EB.3040206@aol.com>

You're hilarious.  May it take you far.

So the story is that some incorrectly chromosomed proto-chicken managed 
to hatch and egg AND find a matching incorrectly chromosomed 
proto-chicken that knew what to do with it to make a REAL chicken come 
out the other side?

But you still have the problem, where'd the proto-chicken come from?

Choices are, as I see it, primordial ooze (which doesn't seem to be 
experimentally viable), space bugs (which leave the same questions 
open), an intelligent designer (which gives some people the willies, 
probably understandably), or life is co-existent with the temporally 
unbounded universe (which may not give anyone the willies but it does 
cause a lot of confusion - especially when you throw in evolution as an 
order-increasing force in the universe with an eternity to organize 
itself...  you'd think we'd have a completely well-ordered universe by 
now inhabited by perfect intelligences - on second thought such a 
proposal might give someone the willies after all).

Best Wishes,

Robbie Lindauer


The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  (Which
>  
>
>>came first, the chicken or the egg - answer
>>"neither".  Response, "wha?").
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Actually. The egg came first. Something that was
>almost, but not quite, a chicken laid an egg and it
>hatched into a chicken. ;)
>
>
>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 aiguy at comcast.net  Thu Jul 21 03:55:02 2005
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:55:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies
In-Reply-To: <20050721004309.70915.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507210355.j6L3tHR09426@tick.javien.com>

 
Avantguardian asked:

>> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of some
secret society in order to cause all the misery >> he has? Because it easier
to believe in an evil club than an evil individual? Or do you believe that
belonging to 
>> the Masons somehow gives Bush more power than he would have without it? 

Maybe because he belonged to Skull and Bones in college.  A very elitist
secret fraternity whose members typically go on to hold positions of great
power in America.  The only fraternity known to have it's own private
island.  People chosen for initiation are the elite of the elite.  Usually
sons of rich power brokers and politicians.

He does not appear to have been chosen to run for president based on either
his academic or moral credentials.

>> If that is the case, how come there are Masons that have trouble making
rent? 

Because the typical Masons are typically viewed as a recruiting organization
or power base.  

A typical Mason is never expected to reach the higher levels of the
organization where it's true doctrine is revealed.

It's not being a Mason that means anything, it's being a 33rd degree Mason
that grants you admittance into the Sanctum Sanctorum.

33rd degree Masons make up a very small percentage of actual Masons.

33rd Degree Masons are secretly nominated meaning they are hand picked by
other 33rd degree Masons.

If you look at 33rd degree Mason roster it does resemble a who's who of
modern day power brokers.

I have never heard of any 33rd degree Masons not being able to pay the rent.

Although the Masons may have added a few by now in an effort to discredit
the conspiracy theorists.

The likelihood of George Bush becoming president is harder for me to believe
than a conspiracy to establish a puppet in the US presidency.

>> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of some
secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?

It is more comforting me to believe in an evil club creating a puppet than a
country that would select him of their free will!





-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The
Avantguardian
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:43 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> First of all let me say that I am sorry to have offended some of you 
> by asking these questions, and I am also sorry to learn that so many 
> of you cannot live with the fact that I believe there is some kind of 
> larger "shall we call it conspiracy" having to do with the masons and 
> the leaders of religious groups and government officials all over our 
> planet.

I am not offended and I am sorry if anything I said to address your theory
was cosindered offensive to you. I am perfectly happy to allow you to
believe your conspiracy theories. I am just one of those people that try
very hard to distinguish between the faces I see in clouds with the faces I
see on Mt. Rushmore.
Our brains are keyed to recognize patterns of information, even when those
patterns are accidents of chance.

 I did  not 
> inted to come off as someone trying to push my ideas, just as someone 
> who wanted to hear the opinions of people who seem to have a great 
> knowledge of the world.  I know now that even people who are 
> supposedly open to discussing the big problems and issues of our 
> planet, can also be very close minded.

Close mindedness is a bugbear of the human condition that goes way beyond
this list. Much of the death and destruction in the world of late is due to
it.

> I will continue to read the extropy chat list, but I believe you 
> suceeded in convincing me that posting about anything other than 
> hard-fact-based issues is something many of you just can't seem to 
> handle.

Many but not all.
  
> I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, but I guess 
> not.
> Thanks to those of you who only tried to answer my questions and did 
> not immediately criticize my views, I appreciate tolerance in all it's 
> forms.

Well I for one would advise you to develop a thicker skin toward criticism.
Even correct ideas and smart talented people get criticized. The true test
of an idea or a person is that they can withstand that criticism. I would
suggest you examine your theories and why you hold them. You don't need a
conspiracy of thousands to explain all the suffering and injustice in the
world, you just need individuals acting in callous self-interest. For
example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of some secret
society in order to cause all the misery he has? Because it easier to
believe in an evil club than than an evil individual? Or do you believe that
belonging to the Masons somehow gives Bush more power than he would have
without it? If that is the case, how come there are Masons that have trouble
making rent? 

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  Thu Jul 21 04:14:53 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:14:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay spandrels?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>
References: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050720225502.01cc1768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:50 PM 7/20/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

>There is an unpopular hypothesis that homosexuality is a side effect of a 
>viral infection. It is not inherently implausible, given what we're 
>learning about the interrelationships between neurochemistry and behavior. 
>It would be difficult, however, to conclusively confirm or rebut.
>...
>
>What if we then identify the virus and create an effective anti-viral 
>treatment, so that we now have the technical means to reliably convert 
>someone either to homosexual or to heterosexual?

Greg Egan had a story on this general theme a decade or so back. Sorry, my 
library's too far away to check the title or the details. As I recall, 
women were encouraged to use a device that optimised the uterine 
environment, and this had the unforeseen side effect of reducing those 
conditions conducive to the developmental biases likely to express 
themselves in gay sentiments and behaviour.

Off the top of my head, various other possibilities suggest themselves. I 
seem to recall that more boys who become homosexual are born shortly after 
a war, and so too with sons born after several other sons to the same 
mother. The former, I think, was attributed to heightened stress hormones 
altering the uterine environment; the latter to changes induced in the 
mother's body by the previous presence of hormones from boy babies.

Suppose the likelihood of this developmental pathway being expressed is 
enhanced in older mothers having babies for the first time. Suppose that 
population pressures worldwide--and other tendencies toward one child 
families after the demographic transition--lead to fewer homosexually 
biased phenotypes.

Or suppose that the majority of women postpone pregnancy until as late as 
possible. Further, in the latter case, suppose very many young women 
routinely store frozen ovarian tissue for implantation in later life, both 
to forestall ageing and to permit pregnancy in their 50s, say.

Any of these modifications might imaginably skew the uterine environment in 
ways that massively decrease or increase the number of gay male offspring. 
(Perhaps similar effects govern the likelihood of lesbian attachments, but 
that seems less clear, as I recall dimly from my reading.)

Such influences would be spandrels in Gould's sense. Neither adaptations 
nor weird chosen perversions nor wonderfully embraced opportunities -- but 
biases introduced or modified until now by accident.

All this might be complete nonsense, of course.

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul 21 04:35:40 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:35:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay spandrels?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050720225502.01cc1768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<B4108EF5-2487-4B92-85BD-5C5747ACC1F2@mac.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050720175201.05e2de48@unreasonable.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050720225502.01cc1768@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050720233330.01db9e20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Let me rephrase this:

>I seem to recall that more boys who become homosexual are born shortly 
>after a war,

Of course I meant: a larger proportion than usual of boys who become 
homosexual (etc)...

Damien Broderick



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu Jul 21 05:56:23 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:56:23 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] for fans of fantasy 
Message-ID: <20050721055623.62414.qmail@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>For those of you who like George R.R. Martin's
>fantasy books, here is
>photographic evidence that some of it may be true 
>
>http://www.georgerrmartin.com/fans02.html
>
>Rafal

Congratulations.  Yes, I read George R.R Martin's
fantasy books.  Quite entertaining.  A bit too much on
the realist side for my tastes though.  It's a bit of
a shame it wasn't a boy, because then the name
'Tyrion' could have been used.  Tyrion has got to be
best character in the serious.  Just the right amount
of sly, devious personality I like ;)  I just hope
Martin doesn't kill Tyrion off.  I hope he lives to
the end of the series.

---

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

---

Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/

---

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 06:51:13 2005
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2005 webcast: conference video streaming
In-Reply-To: <20050718182933.50290.qmail@web52012.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050721065113.87782.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear friends,
 
     Don't miss out any part of TransVision 2005!
 
     We will be webcasting the whole conference, from July 22 to 24:
 
http://www.transhumanismo.org/tv05/en/streaming.htm
 
     TransVisionarily yours,
 
     La vie est belle!
 
     Yos?

gaurav gupta <gandalf_gaurav at yahoo.com> wrote:
Jose,

Please tell me how I and any others interested may be
able to access the live video streams of the
conference (if possible).

Great job with the arrangements. Best of luck! :)

Gaurav


La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org)

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050720/2a6d225e/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 07:20:48 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] On the verge of automated cell-sorting
In-Reply-To: <20050715233957.GA14617@seniti.ugcs.caltech.edu>
Message-ID: <20050721072048.10216.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>

Engineers create optoelectronic tweezers to round up
cells, microparticles

http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php?view=titles

"Optoelectronic tweezers can produce instant
microfluidic circuits without the need for
sophisticated microfabrication techniques." 

"Our design has a strong practical advantage in that,
unlike optical tweezers, a simple light source, such
as a light-emitting diode or halogen lamp, is powerful
enough," said Chiou, a Ph.D. student in electrical
engineering and computer sciences and lead author of
the paper. "That is about 100,000 times less intense
than the power required for optical tweezers." 

The researchers are now studying ways to combine this
technology with computer pattern recognition so that
the sorting process could be automated. "We could
design the program to separate cells by size,
luminescence, texture, fluorescent tags and basically
any characteristic that can be distinguished
visually."

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 21 07:56:51 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:56:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050721025714.74048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721025714.74048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <32861991-31AD-48F9-AC6B-83DE6F8D84DD@mac.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
> I also find it ironic that those who hate George Bush are so militant
> about pushing forward a change in law which was the most responsible
> for Bush's get-out-the-vote. These same persons tend toward the
> blame-America camp wrt 9/11, that it was US policies coming back to
> visit us, but refuse to recognise that their claimed effect became
> reality wrt gay marriage and Bush's reelection from their own domestic
> policy advocacy.
>

So you are going to blame Bush getting rerelected on some your fellow  
citizens simply demanding equality under the law.  You are going to  
goad gays and lesbians and supporters of their rights for what in  
general you heartily (one would presume) support as a libertarian,  
namely a demand for equal rights  and equal treatment under the  
law.    You are further going to insult much of this group with your  
assumptions about their politics and your unasked for opinions about  
the same.   This is a new low even for you.  Or is it?

- samantha

p.s.,  You really should consider applying for work at Fox news.   
They would love your stuff and it is better than a lot of their  
material for the sort of thing it is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050721/17e339b5/attachment.html>

From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 21 10:24:25 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:24:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>

Samantha Atkins wrote:
>Laws do not make something normal they just strive to make things  more 
>just and balanced.
>
>No.  It says that these relationships are just as deep, just as real  and 
>that people of same sex orientation have the same rights as  everyone else 
>including the right to have their relationships as  recognized and 
>respected.

In response to Samantha:

I must respectfully disagree. Laws do not state anything about how deep 
relationships are, or whether they are as meaningful or anything like that. 
They may be interpreted as such, but that would only be your interpretation 
fit into the mold of your personal beliefs. What laws do is outline the 
goals of a society. Saying that homosexuality occurs in X% of the world or 
has been around for X thousand years is totally irrelevant. Murder has 
occured for millions of years and continues to be carried out by a large 
portion of the population, but is still made illegal. Why? Because we want 
to discourage people from killing one another. We as a society think this is 
undesirable behavior.

Mike Lorrey was correct in his defense of my meaning. They all have equal 
rights to marry whomever they wish of the same sex. Additionally, they have 
the right to be with whomever they want, male or female. What they don't 
have is the blessing of society and the government, for whatever that is 
worth (apparently quite a bit, mainly due to the social security benefits, 
although I am mainly approaching this law as a societal symbol) to carry out 
a relationship which may just as well be as deep as any of mine or yours, 
but nonetheless goes against the grain of evolution. One simple reason is 
that a society of purely homosexuals cannot exist without the natural 
reproduction of heterosexuals (barring test tube babies, but is that the 
kind of parentage we want future generations of children to have?).


Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
If you think God exists and moreover this superintelligent creator of the
universe doesn't like gay marriage, you're religious.

This is a mailing list for people who want to grow tails, sprout wings, 
switch
sexes, grow new sex organs, create new sexes, and upload themselves into
Jupiter Brains.  If you can't handle the concept of gay marriage, then what
the hell are you doing here?

PS:  Let the record show that this is the person who chided me for not being
open-minded when I expressed dissatisfaction with David Stiger's posting
quality.  (Ad hominem tu qoque.)

In response to Eliezer:

I said that I am non-religious, which obviously implies a disbelief in a 
higher being which approves or disproves anything. I simply mentioned it for 
the sake of mentioning it for anyone who cared. Religion was, used to, and 
*sometimes* still is an indicator of societal norms, at least in the time 
when their texts were written.

Moreover, I am totally up for growing tails, sprouting wings, creating new 
sexes, and uploading my brain into who-knows-what. The following is kind of 
hard to explain but I'll try. What I am saying is that so long as our 
society has a set of laws which represent a moral code of our society, for 
example making drugs illegal is a moral law more than anything else, we 
should treat it as such. Personally, I would much prefer to see a set of 
'laissez faire' laws replace the current ones, at which point laws will no 
longer represent what is right and wrong, but simply what is legal and 
illegal. When that happens, I would completely expect and accept "legalized" 
homosexuality. Until that happens however, there should be some consistency 
in our laws. I am with Mike in believing that ultimately, marriage should be 
not be something which is licensed anyway. In such a case, opposition to gay 
union would simply be an opinion with no legal ramifications, which is fine 
with me.

In addition, opposing gay marriage is nothing like opposing inter-racial 
marriage. The basis for my objection is evolutionary, not based on bigotry. 
Interracial marriages make perfect sense in the Darwinian sense, and are in 
fact often better (genes and memes and everything we already know). This is 
an unfair analogy designed to make me look as closed minded as those who 
opposed interracial marriages. I wont have it :P

In regards to David Lubkin's post:

This has already occurred. Today, dwarfism has become something which is 
testable during gestation. However, the dwarf community (sounds like 
something out of tolkein) strongly opposes legalization of these tests. They 
claim that dwarves live healthy fulfilling lives and that to legalize the 
test is.... discrimination? Profiling? Its hard to say in this context.

And for those who have asked me to define normal, perhaps I should rephrase 
myself, since normal is an almost meaningless word (a washing machine 
setting? I liked that).

Homosexuality is not something which society should promote in the same way 
that heterosexual marriages are promoted via incentives (all the 
aforementioned benefits).

Keep in mind folks, that those benefits are in place to promote the creation 
of monogamous heterosexual families. Gay marriage/union should occur IN 
SPITE of the law, not be promoted by it, especially if we are finding that 
it could be the side effect of a virus, or the result of some kind of stress 
(Due to the averseness to the word, I'll avoid putting 'abnormal' here).

But perhaps I'm really just shouting all this through the closet door. :)

-Evan
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why 
several of us died of tuberculosis."

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 21 11:19:49 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:19:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <9191E31D-D283-4FA2-AF26-B42DC112C4DE@mac.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 3:24 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> Laws do not make something normal they just strive to make things   
>> more just and balanced.
>>
>> No.  It says that these relationships are just as deep, just as  
>> real  and that people of same sex orientation have the same rights  
>> as  everyone else including the right to have their relationships  
>> as  recognized and respected.
>>
>
> In response to Samantha:
>
> I must respectfully disagree. Laws do not state anything about how  
> deep relationships are, or whether they are as meaningful or  
> anything like that. They may be interpreted as such, but that would  
> only be your interpretation fit into the mold of your personal  
> beliefs. What laws do is outline the goals of a society. Saying  
> that homosexuality occurs in X% of the world or has been around for  
> X thousand years is totally irrelevant. Murder has occured for  
> millions of years and continues to be carried out by a large  
> portion of the population, but is still made illegal. Why? Because  
> we want to discourage people from killing one another. We as a  
> society think this is undesirable behavior.
>

The goals of society.  I am sorry but we appear to be of different  
political species.  The legitimate function of government and law is  
to protect the rights of the people not to shape the people according  
to some "society".    You appear to be a socialist of some variety.


> Mike Lorrey was correct in his defense of my meaning. They all have  
> equal rights to marry whomever they wish of the same sex.  
> Additionally, they have the right to be with whomever they want,  
> male or female. What they don't have is the blessing of society and  
> the government, for whatever that is worth (apparently quite a bit,  
> mainly due to the social security benefits, although I am mainly  
> approaching this law as a societal symbol) to carry out a  
> relationship which may just as well be as deep as any of mine or  
> yours, but nonetheless goes against the grain of evolution.

I had no idea that society is somehow to determine and enforce "the  
grain of evolution" or what some person may consider to be such.

> One simple reason is that a society of purely homosexuals cannot  
> exist without the natural reproduction of heterosexuals (barring  
> test tube babies, but is that the kind of parentage we want future  
> generations of children to have?).
>

All of this has been shown to be irrelevant so many times now.  Lets  
change the music.  Get out of the way of my equal rights or be  
flattened.


>
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> If you think God exists and moreover this superintelligent creator  
> of the
> universe doesn't like gay marriage, you're religious.
>
> This is a mailing list for people who want to grow tails, sprout  
> wings, switch
> sexes, grow new sex organs, create new sexes, and upload themselves  
> into
> Jupiter Brains.  If you can't handle the concept of gay marriage,  
> then what
> the hell are you doing here?
>
> PS:  Let the record show that this is the person who chided me for  
> not being
> open-minded when I expressed dissatisfaction with David Stiger's  
> posting
> quality.  (Ad hominem tu qoque.)
>
> In response to Eliezer:
>
> I said that I am non-religious, which obviously implies a disbelief  
> in a higher being which approves or disproves anything. I simply  
> mentioned it for the sake of mentioning it for anyone who cared.  
> Religion was, used to, and *sometimes* still is an indicator of  
> societal norms, at least in the time when their texts were written.
>
> Moreover, I am totally up for growing tails, sprouting wings,  
> creating new sexes, and uploading my brain into who-knows-what. The  
> following is kind of hard to explain but I'll try. What I am saying  
> is that so long as our society has a set of laws which represent a  
> moral code of our society, for example making drugs illegal is a  
> moral law more than anything else, we should treat it as such.

i.e., as meaningless anti-freedom bullshit doing unnecessary harm to  
real people.   Laws cannot legislate morality.

- samantha


From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Thu Jul 21 11:30:26 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:30:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050721030830.46977.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721030830.46977.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <11136d72263c83b5c868a72bf514c4d9@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are being
> disengenuous in claiming otherwise.

Please point them out, Mike.  Many gay couples would seriously be 
interested.  I know of no way that a gay couple can contract for any of 
these items between themselves.  Even if they did, the contracts are 
not enforceable.  Third parties can and do deny these benefits on the 
basis that the partners are not legally married.  Any contract between 
the couple is unenforceable and can be disallowed by a third party 
despite the couple's wishes.  If you know of any way to force any of 
these items to occur just because the gay couple wants it, please 
explain how.

> --- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>> as I've stated multiple times in the past:
>>> there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage licensing
>>> that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is
>> the
>>> heritability of social security benefits.
>>
>> And Medicare.
>> And joint tax returns.
>> And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner
>> (such
>> that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same job
>>
>> at the same pay with the same benefits).
>> And adoption of their partner's children.
>> And coverage on partner's medical insurance.
>> And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance
>> companies
>> claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
>> And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since
>> most
>> insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in the
>> partner's property).
>> And citizenship for their partner.
>> And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
>> And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.
>> And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.
>> And inheriting their partner's property without a will.
>> And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's
>> property with a will.
>> And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.
>> And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.
>> And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married
>> couples can rent the same car.
>> And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court of
>> law
>> (spousal privilege).
>>
>> And over a thousand other things that just can't be contracted
>> between
>> a gay couple....
>>
>> --
>> Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
>> CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Thu Jul 21 11:33:03 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:33:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <3ba6815c5abfe253d90f39ac1d0d26be@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> One simple reason is that a society of purely homosexuals cannot exist 
> without the natural reproduction of heterosexuals (barring test tube 
> babies, but is that the kind of parentage we want future generations 
> of children to have?).

Great.  So now test-tube babies don't deserve equal rights either, 
because they are also unnatural?  This doesn't bode well for 
transhumanists....

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



From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 21 12:14:12 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:14:12 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F1115325FCE489D23D3B27FFAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <828ab1398a45e4767a028e7bd446204c@aol.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:24 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> Laws do not make something normal they just strive to make things  
>> more just and balanced.

With respect for Samantha, she's mistaken here.  Politically created 
laws strive to ensure that the power of the power-class of a given 
society remains in the hands of that class.

>> No.  It says that these relationships are just as deep, just as real  
>> and that people of same sex orientation have the same rights as  
>> everyone else including the right to have their relationships as  
>> recognized and respected.
>
> In response to Samantha:
>
> I must respectfully disagree. Laws do not state anything about how 
> deep relationships are, or whether they are as meaningful or anything 
> like that. They may be interpreted as such, but that would only be 
> your interpretation fit into the mold of your personal beliefs. What 
> laws do is outline the goals of a society.

A society is technically a third order metapoesis - a way of speaking 
about a group of groups of people.  When one says "outline the goals of 
a society" one actually means which behaviors one wishes to exclude 
from the society by force.  You quote below "this is a mailing list for 
people who want to ...", some of which are interesting goals, but one 
could hardly call them "the goals of our society" remembering that the 
people who actually make laws around these parts have something very, 
very different in mind for us chattle.  One must remember that the 
"goals of a society" are really the goals of some sub-group of a group 
of actual people - that is, the goals of some particular people.  
Keeping this in mind, you can see plainly that if some subgroup of some 
group of people is able to control the behavior of the rest of the 
group by force, then they are the law-makers - you do what they say or 
you dictate what they do depending on which side you're on.  But make 
no mistake, there are sides and you're either on the dictating side or 
on the obeying side depending on, in the US, how much money and 
property you have.  In other countries, straight military might 
continues to rule (as in China or North Korea).

It may be considered by some a major advance that power isn't solely 
invested in the military, e.g. that there is a land-owning non-military 
class (the so-called middle-class).  But such a thing is, in general, 
an illusion.  The middle class's ownership of its land in the United 
States is a sham.  According to the US Census of 2001, 68% of homes in 
the us are owner occupied, 68% of owner-occupied American homes are 
mortgaged more than 40%, and only 3% of owner-occupied homes are owned 
outright.  In 2001 the median monthly home payment was around $700, 
approximately 1/3 of the median monthly income (remembering that there 
are plenty of people who make less than 3000/month and only very few 
people who make more than 6000/month).   So while "ownership" as 
defined in THE LAW really isn't ownership OUTRIGHT, but really just a 
complicated rental system designed to give this so-called middle-class 
the feeling that we are not actually poor despite the fact that we 
don't actually own anything outright (well, I for one own some 
properties outright being willing to buy swampland and such...)

That is, in the case of home ownership, we've simply redefined the term 
"ownership" so as to make it more amenable to the pragmatic goals of 
the ACTUAL wealth-holding classes.  In the US, these are the bankers, 
their subsidiary corporations (remembering that the SNP 500 remains 80% 
in the hands of a small group of institutional owners run by bankers) 
and the political and military system that supports their cause.  This 
remains rather like feudal europe in which baronial estates run by 
those who inherited their wealth utilized military assistance to ensure 
their legacy without themselves dirtying their hands except for sport.  
Our military system exists to ensure that those banks and their 
subsidiary corporations can run rampant worldwide in the name of "free 
trade".

It is a significant fact that while Bush is an anti-globalizer when it 
comes to the International Criminal Court, he's a pro-globalizer when 
it comes to helping the world's largest banks gain access to every 
country in the world with the help of the WTO.

Back to the subject....

I suspect that the only reason Gay Marriage is a political issue at all 
is that it is an excuse for the media not to pay attention to any 
issues that might actually be significant and important economically.  
Remembering the famous study by Noam Chomsky of the ability of the 
national television media to report on weather so consistently but 
unable to cover economic issues at all except in specialized segments 
usually on non-mainstream media (e.g. public television).


> Saying that homosexuality occurs in X% of the world or has been around 
> for X thousand years is totally irrelevant. Murder has occured for 
> millions of years and continues to be carried out by a large portion 
> of the population, but is still made illegal. Why? Because we want to 
> discourage people from killing one another. We as a society think this 
> is undesirable behavior.

Remembering that our laws don't actually discourage people from killing 
each other, it just discourages certain kinds of killing of each other. 
  Other kinds of other-killing are considered good and respectable.  
Which kinds of killing are condoned by the law are related more to the 
protection of the property of the ruling class than anything like a 
"natural morality".  For instance, it's fine to kill people in an 
official war when doing what your superior officer says.  It's not fine 
to kill someone in the process of breaking into someone else's house.  
But it would be sheer hypocrisy to

>
> Mike Lorrey was correct in his defense of my meaning. They all have 
> equal rights to marry whomever they wish of the same sex. 
> Additionally, they have the right to be with whomever they want, male 
> or female. What they don't have is the blessing of society and the 
> government, for whatever that is worth (apparently quite a bit, mainly 
> due to the social security benefits, although I am mainly approaching 
> this law as a societal symbol) to carry out a relationship which may 
> just as well be as deep as any of mine or yours, but nonetheless goes 
> against the grain of evolution. One simple reason is that a society of 
> purely homosexuals cannot exist without the natural reproduction of 
> heterosexuals (barring test tube babies, but is that the kind of 
> parentage we want future generations of children to have?).

It's important to distinguish here between "natural rights" and 
"political rights".  Political rights are those granted by law under a 
given governmental system.   For instance, the political-right to marry 
someone of the same sex doesn't exist in the US right now except in a 
few states.  The "natural right" remains debatable depending on whether 
one thinks one has God-ordained natural inalienable rights (as in the 
US constitution) or whether one believes that natural rights are 
primarily negative in character (Nobody has the right to kill me, so I 
have a right to live, by default), or one thinks that there is a 
number-like third-world of objective moral facts.  In each of these 
cases, any particular claimed right has a well-explored and ancient 
history of debate in each of the traditions both to the positive and 
negative.

On this basis, I think it's true that any legal right held under 
political law SHOULD by natural law be held by any other person under 
the law (I think this a basic constraint on justice).  However, I think 
it's unlikely that natural law could be invoked to support legislation 
on this matter anyway there being a clear religious tradition, no 
apparent reason to expect a platonic solution, and no likely reason to 
believe any negative-ethical theory on the matter.  Certainly your 
evolutionary-principle is ridiculous.


> In response to Eliezer:
>
> I said that I am non-religious, which obviously implies a disbelief in 
> a higher being which approves or disproves anything. I simply 
> mentioned it for the sake of mentioning it for anyone who cared. 
> Religion was, used to, and *sometimes* still is an indicator of 
> societal norms, at least in the time when their texts were written.

Usually quite the opposite.  Religious leaders are typically persecuted 
for speaking out against societal norms.  Without sermonizing, in the 
modern era we have Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., the outstanding 
religious leaders of our century, both of who were fighting a desperate 
battle against the oppressive norms of their society.   Note this is 
also the theme of Moses (freeing slaves), Elijah, Daniel, Habakuk, 
Zechariah and of course Jesus Christ.

> Moreover, I am totally up for growing tails, sprouting wings, creating 
> new sexes, and uploading my brain into who-knows-what. The following 
> is kind of hard to explain but I'll try. What I am saying is that so 
> long as our society has a set of laws which represent a moral code of 
> our society,

This is the two-fold mistake.  There is no such thing as "our society" 
and our laws don't even approximate anything like a "moral code" but 
rather simply the desires of the strong imposed by force upon the weak.

>  for example making drugs illegal is a moral law more than anything 
> else, we should treat it as such.

No, the war on drugs is a profit-center for our police-state.  Inasmuch 
as we need to have something for the police to do to terrorize the 
populace while having an excuse to expend large amounts of money, we 
need a war on drugs to further the goals of "our society".  It's 
important for our police-state to have an effective terrorizing effect 
on the lower-classes to prevent widespread redistribution of property, 
and so it's important for us to have a well-funded police-state.  The 
war on drugs is an  excuse to have one.  It is therefore, precisely in 
line with the "goals of our society".


> Personally, I would much prefer to see a set of 'laissez faire' laws 
> replace the current ones, at which point laws will no longer represent 
> what is right and wrong, but simply what is legal and illegal. When 
> that happens, I would completely expect and accept "legalized" 
> homosexuality. Until that happens however, there should be some 
> consistency in our laws. I am with Mike in believing that ultimately, 
> marriage should be not be something which is licensed anyway. In such 
> a case, opposition to gay union would simply be an opinion with no 
> legal ramifications, which is fine with me.

It's a red herring.  It's only important if you're counting on the 
government and/or "society" to provide legitimation and/or funding of 
your personal actions.  Once you've abandoned that as a goal, who 
cares?

> In addition, opposing gay marriage is nothing like opposing 
> inter-racial marriage. The basis for my objection is evolutionary, not 
> based on bigotry. Interracial marriages make perfect sense in the 
> Darwinian sense, and are in fact often better (genes and memes and 
> everything we already know). This is an unfair analogy designed to 
> make me look as closed minded as those who opposed interracial 
> marriages. I wont have it :P

Wow, wait a minute, so you're against gay marriage because it's 
anti-evolutionary?

If evolution is right, then eventually a gay marriage should produce 
viable offspring which may have significant advantages over offspring 
produced by straight marriages.  In that case, we should take a wait 
and see attitude.

> Homosexuality is not something which society should promote in the 
> same way that heterosexual marriages are promoted via incentives (all 
> the aforementioned benefits).

Maybe "society" should stop promoting behavior at all.   I wish 
"society" would just leave us the heck alone!

> Keep in mind folks, that those benefits are in place to promote the 
> creation of monogamous heterosexual families. Gay marriage/union 
> should occur IN SPITE of the law, not be promoted by it, especially if 
> we are finding that it could be the side effect of a virus, or the 
> result of some kind of stress (Due to the averseness to the word, I'll 
> avoid putting 'abnormal' here).

So now you think homosexuality is a disease of some kind, like 
hypertension or the flu?

Did you have some reputable studies you'd like to cite to support this 
view or did you just make it up?

Robbie Lindauer



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 12:55:48 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <11136d72263c83b5c868a72bf514c4d9@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are
> being
> > disengenuous in claiming otherwise.
> 
> Please point them out, Mike.  Many gay couples would seriously be 
> interested.  I know of no way that a gay couple can contract for any
> of 
> these items between themselves.  Even if they did, the contracts are 
> not enforceable.  Third parties can and do deny these benefits on the
> 
> basis that the partners are not legally married.  Any contract
> between 
> the couple is unenforceable and can be disallowed by a third party 
> despite the couple's wishes.  If you know of any way to force any of 
> these items to occur just because the gay couple wants it, please 
> explain how.
> 
> > --- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>
> >>> as I've stated multiple times in the past:
> >>> there is only ONE THING that gays will gain with marriage
> licensing
> >>> that they can't replicate with regular contract law, and that is
> >> the
> >>> heritability of social security benefits.
> >>
> >> And Medicare.
> >> And joint tax returns.

Not if you organize your family finances as a limited partnership.

> >> And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner
> >> (such
> >> that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same
> >> job at the same pay with the same benefits).

No differently than unmarried het partners or single people.

> >> And adoption of their partner's children.

This happens all the time. The parent needs this specifically written
into their will, with penalties for parents and siblings who interfere.

> >> And coverage on partner's medical insurance.

Again, organize your professional activities as a partnership that is
the contractor of your services.

> >> And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance
> >> companies claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
> >> And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since
> >> most insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in
> >> the partner's property).

Partnership contracts, and get a group insurance policy for your firm.

> >> And citizenship for their partner.

While not automatic, making a foreigner lover your business partner
gives them a leg up in the immigration process.

> >> And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.

Living wills take care of this.

> >> And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.

Living will, again, takes care of this.

> >> And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.

If your partner is a business partner, you certainly can seek wrongful
death compensation.

> >> And inheriting their partner's property without a will.

A will is a contract. A contract must exist for it to have force. Not
contracting is the same as not marrying.

> >> And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's
> >> property with a will.
> >> And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.

Business partnership contract, again.

> >> And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.

FMLA doesn't allow for this sort of discrimination in most states
already.

> >> And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married
> >> couples can rent the same car.

Last time I checked, car rental companies were not state agencies.
Also, last time I checked, "gay" wasn't in the 14th amendment. At least
here in the US, you are going to need a constitutional amendment to get
what you are after.

> >> And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court
> >> of law (spousal privilege).

A privilege isn't a right. If you are an atheist and tell a priest you
don't know and aren't a member of his parish that you killed someone,
you are not protected, just as if you tell a pshrink who is not your
mental health provider.

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 amara at amara.com  Thu Jul 21 12:57:57 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:57:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <p06210200bf0548952336@[150.146.134.133]>


Evan Hamlin:
>(barring test tube
>  babies, but is that the kind of parentage we want future generations
>  of children to have?).

YES, among all of the possible choices.

This is the extropians email list. That is, a list of people working
to improve themselves in every way, which includes broadening the
choices of men, women and families for their future and for having
their offspring. Are you sure you are in the right place ?

I do not have the typing fingers to type my furious response to your
words, nor to probe what exactly are your biases that caused you to
write the above draconian words, which were, in fact, already
printed on the brochure that arrived in my mailbox two months ago
from the Vatican (the so-called 'Committee of Science and Life')
that urged Italians not to vote on the assisted reproductive
assistance laws.

So I will keep this short: The idea of 'parentage' is to give care,
support, guidance, and love to a baby, child, young person, and/or
teenager. Do you really care how that life came to be in this world
and does it matter what person, persons, or combination of persons
give the [support,guidance, and love],

    *as long as the child gets [support,guidance, and love]* ??

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/
********************************************************************
"Once in a great while the temptation to be REALLY DIRTY is just
irresistible." -- W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling
& B. P. Flannery


From etcs.ret at verizon.net  Thu Jul 21 13:13:55 2005
From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (stencil)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:13:55 -0400
Subject: 33rd Degree Who's Who (was RE: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies)
In-Reply-To: <200507211130.j6LBUbR01822@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507211130.j6LBUbR01822@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <od7vd1ts4nc2gheu655ugnepnpa8bjgmsf@4ax.com>

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:30:37 -0600, 
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 47
"Gary Miller"  wrote:

>
>
>If you look at 33rd degree Mason roster it does resemble a who's who of
>modern day power brokers.
>
We'd like to do that .  Please post a copy of that roster,  or cite a URL.  


stencil sends


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jul 21 13:43:24 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:43:24 +0100
Subject: 33rd Degree Who's Who (was RE: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies)
In-Reply-To: <od7vd1ts4nc2gheu655ugnepnpa8bjgmsf@4ax.com>
References: <200507211130.j6LBUbR01822@tick.javien.com>
	<od7vd1ts4nc2gheu655ugnepnpa8bjgmsf@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05072106432bf46f9a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/21/05, stencil wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:30:37 -0600,
> in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 47
> "Gary Miller"  wrote:
> >
> >If you look at 33rd degree Mason roster it does resemble a who's who of
> >modern day power brokers.
> >
> We'd like to do that .  Please post a copy of that roster,  or cite a URL.
> 


David Icke explains it all.  ;)
<http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/hiddenus1.html>


BillK


From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 21 15:21:29 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:21:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <BAY107-F305AF0B392B3F0F2FCA885FAD60@phx.gbl>

Hey all,

What a response, man I love seeing you guys get fired up about something. 
Maybe I'll just play devil's advocate from now on to get those kinds of 
reactions. Just kidding.

The thing about the viruses I took from a previous post, I assume he has the 
scientific backing for it:

At 06:50 PM 7/20/2005 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

>There is an unpopular hypothesis that homosexuality is a side effect of a 
>viral infection. It is not inherently implausible, given what we're 
>learning about the interrelationships between neurochemistry and behavior. 
>It would be difficult, however, to conclusively confirm or rebut.

Amara's argument is the one argument to which I have no answer... In a way I 
somewhat agree that parentage is parentage so long as it has those 
aforementioned elements (support,guidance, and love) are present, but at the 
same time I have a hard time in knowing that homosexual parents are bound to 
produce kids more inclined to homosexuality; vicious cycle continues. But I 
suppose that is a narrowminded way of seeing it. If a life needs nurturing, 
so be it.

What I'm saying is more in regards to the actual legal aspect of it. In my 
opinion, homosexuality shouldn't be incentivized. The way the (legal) 
institution of marriage is set up, it isn't so much rights as benefits; 
incentives promoting the creation of heterosexual families, as I said 
earlier. To not give homosexuals the benefits of a heterosexual union isn't 
really to deny them any rights, simply to deny them benefits. Except in the 
case of adopting children I suppose, following the logic of the previous 
paragraph.

All of you have provided very good arguments, despite the sporatic off-topic 
rant here and there. I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be 
treated not as a new race of people, all of us running with open arms to 
give them equal rights, but as the biological anomaly that it is. It just 
seems strange to me how normal it has become.

-Evan

"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices 
and just laugh at people."

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul 21 15:37:55 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:37:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F305AF0B392B3F0F2FCA885FAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F305AF0B392B3F0F2FCA885FAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050721103528.01d7ae98@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:21 PM 7/21/2005 +0000, Evan wrote:

>man I love seeing you guys get fired up about something. Maybe I'll just 
>play devil's advocate from now on to get those kinds of reactions.

Right, from the troll's mouth.

>I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be treated not as a new 
>race of people, all of us running with open arms to give them equal 
>rights, but as the biological anomaly that it is.

Go away.

Damien Broderick



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Jul 21 15:43:10 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:43:10 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F305AF0B392B3F0F2FCA885FAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F305AF0B392B3F0F2FCA885FAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507211136380.-209629@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> What I'm saying is more in regards to the actual legal aspect of it. In my
> opinion, homosexuality shouldn't be incentivized. The way the (legal)
> institution of marriage is set up, it isn't so much rights as benefits;
> incentives promoting the creation of heterosexual families, as I said
> earlier. To not give homosexuals the benefits of a heterosexual union isn't
> really to deny them any rights, simply to deny them benefits. Except in the
> case of adopting children I suppose, following the logic of the previous
> paragraph.
>
> All of you have provided very good arguments, despite the sporatic off-topic
> rant here and there. I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be
> treated not as a new race of people, all of us running with open arms to
> give them equal rights, but as the biological anomaly that it is. It just
> seems strange to me how normal it has become.
>

Recently I read Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine".  In it she says
the following:

p. 137
| The taboo against homosexuality is especially interesting.
| There is no generally accepted biological explanation of
| homosexuality and superficially it does not appear to be
| adaptive. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that there
| is an inherited predisposition for homosexuality. Assuming
| this is the case, the taboos of the past would, paradoxically,
| have favored the survival of these genes by forcing the people
| who carried them, against their wishes, to marry and have
| children.
|
| This suggests an interesting prediction for the future. As
| horizontal transmission [of the meme of acceptance of
| homosexuality] increases, the taboo should lose its
| power and so can be expected to disappear, as indeed it is
| doing in many societies. Homosexuals are then free to have
| sex with other homosexuals, to have long-term relationships
| with their own sex, and not to have children at all. The short
| term effect is much more overt homosexual behavior and
| acceptance of that behavior by everyone, but the long-term
| effect may be fewer genes for homosexuality!

Food for thought... :)

Regards,
MB





From aiguy at comcast.net  Thu Jul 21 15:55:11 2005
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:55:11 -0400
Subject: 33rd Degree Who's Who (was RE: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies)
In-Reply-To: <od7vd1ts4nc2gheu655ugnepnpa8bjgmsf@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <200507211555.j6LFtMR02236@tick.javien.com>

A small partial listing I have collected.  Masons being a secret
organization does not openly post lists as far as I can find.  33rd Degree
Masons in private industry get a great deal more privacy since they do not
receive near as much public scrutiny. 

Once someone gets up high enough in government there is enough poking into
their past that it usually gets
Added to a list.

Harry S Truman (33rd degree)

Thurman, Strom (33rd degree)-  US Senator and Board member of Bob Jones
University 

Helms, Jesse (33rd degree)-  US Senator-  Alleged defender of the Right. 

Reagan, Ronald (33rd Degree in one session)-  Taken in during Presidency of
the USA 

Bush, George (33rd degree)-  US President, world oil baron, and Ambassador
to the UN

Could not verify what degree some of the following attained...

>From http://www.tryfreemasonry.com/info/faq.php

"Many other leaders in government have been Masons: "They have included
fourteen Presidents and eighteen Vice Presidents of the United States; a
majority of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, of the
Governors of States, of the members of the Senate, and a large percentage of
the Congressmen. Five Chief Justices of the United States were Masons and
two were Grand Masters. The five were Oliver Ellsworth, John Marshall (also
Grand Master of Masons in Virginia), William Howard Taft, Frederick M.
Vinson and Earl Warren (also Grand Master of Masons in California.)" --
Henry C. Clausen 

Industry & Labor: Henry Ford, Samuel Gompers, Walter P. Chrysler, John
Wanamaker, S.S. Kresge, J.C. Penney, John Jacob Astor, John L. Lewis 


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of stencil
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:14 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: 33rd Degree Who's Who (was RE: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:30:37 -0600,
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 47 "Gary Miller"  wrote:

>
>
>If you look at 33rd degree Mason roster it does resemble a who's who of 
>modern day power brokers.
>
We'd like to do that .  Please post a copy of that roster,  or cite a URL.  


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




From astapp at amazeent.com  Thu Jul 21 16:04:51 2005
From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:04:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ET is a Bacterium
Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE04516C23@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

Or perhaps there was a long succession of somewhat chickenish 
creatures, followed by a whole bunch of more-or-less chickens, 
and then quite a few almost chickens, and then someone arbitrarily 
draws a line, et voila, /gallus gallus/. The placement of the
line depends on whether a chicken egg is an egg containing a
chicken or an egg coming out of a chicken. I choose to consider
it an egg containing a chicken, so the egg came first :)

Acy Stapp

Robert Lindauer wrote:
> You're hilarious.  May it take you far.
> 
> So the story is that some incorrectly chromosomed proto-chicken
> managed to hatch and egg AND find a matching incorrectly chromosomed
> proto-chicken that knew what to do with it to make a REAL chicken come
> out the other side?
> 
> But you still have the problem, where'd the proto-chicken come from?
> 
> Choices are, as I see it, primordial ooze (which doesn't seem to be
> experimentally viable), space bugs (which leave the same questions
> open), an intelligent designer (which gives some people the willies,
> probably understandably), or life is co-existent with the temporally
> unbounded universe (which may not give anyone the willies but it does
> cause a lot of confusion - especially when you throw in evolution as
> an order-increasing force in the universe with an eternity to organize
> itself...  you'd think we'd have a completely well-ordered universe by
> now inhabited by perfect intelligences - on second thought such a
> proposal might give someone the willies after all).
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Robbie Lindauer
> The Avantguardian wrote:
>> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>> came first, the chicken or the egg - answer
>>> "neither".  Response, "wha?").
>>> 
>> Actually. The egg came first. Something that was
>> almost, but not quite, a chicken laid an egg and it
>> hatched into a chicken. ;)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 16:32:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507211136380.-209629@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <20050721163242.51198.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> 
> Recently I read Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine".  In it she says
> the following:
> 
> p. 137
> | The taboo against homosexuality is especially interesting.
> | There is no generally accepted biological explanation of
> | homosexuality and superficially it does not appear to be
> | adaptive. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that there
> | is an inherited predisposition for homosexuality. 

Last I heard, the heritability claim has been losing steam. Studies of
gay twins found only 50% of gay identical twins had gay twin siblings.
22% of gay fraternal twins and 11% of gay siblings reported gay twins
and siblings, respectively. Technically speaking, fraternal twins are
no different from normal siblings other than sharing a uterine
environment for 9 months.

Simon LeVay's studies of cadaver brains suffered in peer review because
his classification of  individuals as heterosexual was problematic,
especially given many claimed heteros died of AIDS, nor could LeVay
demonstrate that the brain cell cluster differences he reported were
cause or effect, or why some known gays did not exhibit the claimed
feature.

In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced
"preliminary" findings from research into the connection between
homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual
males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of
homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their
mother's side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link
through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual
brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X
chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence
of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with
the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a
limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers
acknowledged that these were "preliminary" findings. In addition to the
sample size being small, there was no control testing done for
heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the
study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social
histories of the families involved.

Second, similarity does not prove cause. Just because 33 pairs of
homosexual brothers share a genetic variation doesn't mean that
variation causes homosexuality. And what about the other 7 pairs that
did not show the variation but were homosexuals?

Finally, research bias may again be an issue. Dr. Hamer and at least
one of his other team members are homosexual. It appears that this was
deliberately kept from the press and was only revealed later. Dr. Hamer
it turns out is not merely an objective observer. He has presented
himself as an expert witness on homosexuality, and he has stated that
he hopes his research would give comfort to men feeling guilty about
their homosexuality.

By the way, this was a problem in every one of the studies we have
mentioned in our discussion. For example, Dr. Simon LeVay said that he
was driven to study the potential physiological roots of homosexuality
after his homosexual lover died of AIDS. He even admitted that if he
failed to find a genetic cause for homosexuality that he might walk
away from science altogether. Later he did just that by moving to West
Hollywood to open up a small, unaccredited "study center" focusing on
homosexuality.



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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Jul 21 16:17:34 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:17:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf0548952336@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050721105244.03aa3e98@unreasonable.com>

Amara wrote:

>So I will keep this short: The idea of 'parentage' is to give care,
>support, guidance, and love to a baby, child, young person, and/or
>teenager. Do you really care how that life came to be in this world
>and does it matter what person, persons, or combination of persons
>give the [support,guidance, and love],
>
>    *as long as the child gets [support,guidance, and love]* ??

Enter the very messy question of when a third-party can legitimately 
interfere with someone's parenting, now and into a transhuman libertopia, 
when individuals could create sentient slave species or robotic children.

In the outer community, it is often taken as axiomatic that a member of set 
P [ single parent | gay couple | nuclear family | retarded parents | 
atheists | etc. ] either [is] or [is not] equally capable of providing 
[support, guidance, love] as any other member of set P.

This leads to a conviction that legal or social [benefits | restrictions] 
[should | must | should not | must not] be in place for P member p.

These presumed axioms are testable, however. One can measure outcomes in 
both individual children and in the set of children parented by p [i], and 
compare with p [j] or with a normal distribution across P. Life expectancy, 
socio-economic status, incidence of criminal behavior, IQ, malnutrition, 
evidence of physical abuse.

At some outcome-values, extant societies deem that an individual child may 
be removed from their parents, or have their parenting micromanaged. At 
other outcome-values, societies have legislated against member p becoming 
parents by [banning marriage | banning adoption | forced contraception or 
sterilization | imprisonment].

As libertarians, perhaps there should be a rebuttable presumption in favor 
of any p in P. But are there outcome-values that justify pre-emptive steps? 
John murders his son, so the other kids are taken away. Versus statistical 
aggregates -- 1% of children raised by redheads become alcoholics or 93% of 
children raised by sf readers are hypocephalic.


-- David Lubkin.



From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 21 17:12:35 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:12:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <BAY107-F8FBF474D59308D732841CFAD60@phx.gbl>

Ahh c'mon, you don't mean that Damien. Its all in good fun. :)

To be honest, I'm done with the homosexuality debate. Over. Finito. Though 
I'll admit I'm still curious what causes it.

-Evan

"It has been proven that the pig is the only homosexual animal. As this 
perversion is most prevalent in pork-eating nations, it is obvious that it 
gets into your genes through the meat." -Tasleem Ahmed - Islamic missionary, 
from a Muslim mission in Galaway Ireland, first quoted in London's 
"Freethinker" magazine


--------------------------Original Message---------------------------------
At 03:21 PM 7/21/2005 +0000, Evan wrote:

>man I love seeing you guys get fired up about something. Maybe I'll just 
>play devil's advocate from now on to get those kinds of reactions.

Right, from the troll's mouth.

>I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be treated not as a new 
>race of people, all of us running with open arms to give them equal rights, 
>but as the biological anomaly that it is.

Go away.

Damien Broderick

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/



From amara at amara.com  Thu Jul 21 18:54:36 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:54:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
Message-ID: <p06210201bf059f7a3e3f@[23.237.66.13]>

Evan,

I am not gay and found your messages extremely offensive.

These phrases

>I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be treated not as a new
>race of people, all of us running with open arms to give them equal
>rights, but as the biological anomaly that it is.

were something from western cultures >100 years ago, thankfully longer
ago than my lifetime. I never would have thought I would encounter
these (bigoted and narrow-minded to a razor's edge) words from a
new person on this list.

Amara


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 21 21:26:27 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:26:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F8FBF474D59308D732841CFAD60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F8FBF474D59308D732841CFAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C9B63BED-4582-4756-AA28-EFCD4321DD5A@mac.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> Ahh c'mon, you don't mean that Damien. Its all in good fun. :)


Of such "good fun" the oppression of myself and those like me comes.   
If you consider this "good fun" you are worse than a mere troll.

- s



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 21 22:38:57 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:38:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <20050721163242.51198.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004101c58e44$fbe38740$0300a8c0@Nano>

But remember that while twins have the same genetic code and a particular gene that may hardwire them to be predisposed to exhibit a particular behavior, there is the environmental element. Twins do not live the same exact experiences as each other. Take for example the more recent findings of a link between genetics and alcoholism in siblings. They have the gene but they do not all exhibit the behavior. We may not even be able to identify what specific moment(s) activated the predisposition. There are a lot of individual variables to this issue. 


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: Mike Lorrey 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change




  --- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
  > 
  > Recently I read Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine".  In it she says
  > the following:
  > 
  > p. 137
  > | The taboo against homosexuality is especially interesting.
  > | There is no generally accepted biological explanation of
  > | homosexuality and superficially it does not appear to be
  > | adaptive. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that there
  > | is an inherited predisposition for homosexuality. 

  Last I heard, the heritability claim has been losing steam. Studies of
  gay twins found only 50% of gay identical twins had gay twin siblings.
  22% of gay fraternal twins and 11% of gay siblings reported gay twins
  and siblings, respectively. Technically speaking, fraternal twins are
  no different from normal siblings other than sharing a uterine
  environment for 9 months.

  Simon LeVay's studies of cadaver brains suffered in peer review because
  his classification of  individuals as heterosexual was problematic,
  especially given many claimed heteros died of AIDS, nor could LeVay
  demonstrate that the brain cell cluster differences he reported were
  cause or effect, or why some known gays did not exhibit the claimed
  feature.

  In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced
  "preliminary" findings from research into the connection between
  homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual
  males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of
  homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their
  mother's side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link
  through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual
  brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X
  chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence
  of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with
  the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a
  limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers
  acknowledged that these were "preliminary" findings. In addition to the
  sample size being small, there was no control testing done for
  heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the
  study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social
  histories of the families involved.

  Second, similarity does not prove cause. Just because 33 pairs of
  homosexual brothers share a genetic variation doesn't mean that
  variation causes homosexuality. And what about the other 7 pairs that
  did not show the variation but were homosexuals?

  Finally, research bias may again be an issue. Dr. Hamer and at least
  one of his other team members are homosexual. It appears that this was
  deliberately kept from the press and was only revealed later. Dr. Hamer
  it turns out is not merely an objective observer. He has presented
  himself as an expert witness on homosexuality, and he has stated that
  he hopes his research would give comfort to men feeling guilty about
  their homosexuality.

  By the way, this was a problem in every one of the studies we have
  mentioned in our discussion. For example, Dr. Simon LeVay said that he
  was driven to study the potential physiological roots of homosexuality
  after his homosexual lover died of AIDS. He even admitted that if he
  failed to find a genetic cause for homosexuality that he might walk
  away from science altogether. Later he did just that by moving to West
  Hollywood to open up a small, unaccredited "study center" focusing on
  homosexuality.



  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 
   
  _______________________________________________
  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/20050721/be211e5d/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 22:44:41 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Biology of homosexuality- was Gay marriage in Spain
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F8FBF474D59308D732841CFAD60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050721224441.11225.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Evan Hamlin <hamlin_e at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ahh c'mon, you don't mean that Damien. Its all in
> good fun. :)
> 
> To be honest, I'm done with the homosexuality
> debate. Over. Finito. Though 
> I'll admit I'm still curious what causes it.

Ok, I will try to explain it in this post but I don't
have a lot of time so expect it to be short and sweet.

> 
> "It has been proven that the pig is the only
> homosexual animal. As this 
> perversion is most prevalent in pork-eating nations,
> it is obvious that it 
> gets into your genes through the meat." -Tasleem
> Ahmed - Islamic missionary, 
> from a Muslim mission in Galaway Ireland, first
> quoted in London's 
> "Freethinker" magazine

This is patently untrue. Pigs are only one of several
animal species known to engage in homosexual behavior.
There are that do it in the wild like macaques,
bonobos, dolphins, penguins, and flamingos. Others
that don't exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild, do
so in the crowded and limited mating conditions of
captivity. For example mice are not normally
homosexual, but you put a bunch of male mice into a
cage together without any females and they will
brutally fight each other and try to force weaker
males to submit to being mounted and treated like
females.
     Macaques and several other species of monkeys use
homosexuality as a method of enforcing dominance
hiearchies, where alpha males routinely mount the beta
males and the beta males mount the gamma males.    
      Male dolphins on the other hand are just plain
horny and will try to mate with anything including
each other and males and females of other species
(like human divers). They are also known to rape
female dolphins, often cooperating in groups with
other males to do so.
      The most sophiticated expression of
homosexuality in the animal kingdom (apart from humans
of course) is that of the bonobos or pygmy chimps.
Actual chimpanzee culture is one of endless strife and
suffering where the dominant chimps of both sexes
routinely beat the tar out of their subordinates,
taking their shady spot by the tree or their banana or
what have you. This excessive violence of chimpanzee
culture is contrasted by that of the bonobos.
      Bonobo heiarchy seems to operate on the exchange
of sexual favors to appease the dominant individuals
without regard to actual gender. e.g instead of taking
the weaker male's banana a dominant male will likely
settle for oral sex. Females will carress and fondle
each other and life becomes one big orgy with almost
no violent confrontations between anyone. No violence
means more survival and offspring in long run, thus
homosexuality in the bonobo is very obviously an
adaptive trait.
      Interestingly enough human homosexuality
increases in crowded conditions like prisons and
cities as opposed to the wide-open farms of the
midwest. Also while homosexuality might be considered
taboo in historically RECENT western cultures like
Victorian England, it was accepted and even glorified
in ancient western cultures such as the Greeks and the
Romans. Read Plato and Sallust if you don't believe
me.   
      
     Here is a link that could be a good starting
point for those curious about homosexuality in
animals.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.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 nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 21 23:05:29 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:05:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <007101c58e48$b0569160$0300a8c0@Nano>

Evan wrote "Myself, I have gay friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends." 

I've seen this strategy used before. I know gay people so this provides me the authority to decide what is right for them. But you know what would have been better? I am a gay person.....  now that would have given genuine power to the rest of your statements! How about letting the gay person decide for themselves! 

It always blows my mind how fascinated straight people are with the gay's private life. Do we discuss with straight folks what they do behind closed doors? No. But if we did, I bet you would be shocked to find out what they do! For some reason it is recognized that it is none of our business............. we should have the same respect for everybody. 

Evan wrote "Homosexuality is not NORMAL. That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is simply not 
normal."

What this "Normal" reference really comes down to is numbers, statistics. Since heterosexuality appears to be the majority (and I say appears, because not everyone is explicit about their sexual experiences - I don't think I have to explain why) it some how empowers some to believe that dominance equals superior knowledge on the subject - or even rightness. What if it was the other way around? What if your heterosexuality was the minority - how would you explain away why you are attracted to the opposite sex? How would it feel having to justify what just comes natural to you? And that you must always refer to your personal sexual activity when trying to just live your life and obtain equal societal rights?

Note: we here are a group of people who are striving for change, for progress. The future that I envision for myself at least for the time being is not the future that the majority of the mainstream populous would partake of (cryonics, nanotech, A.I.). This is okay, those who do not want to apply future advancements to their lives, are not required to do so. I would not force the rest of society to subscribe to my own lifestyle. I accept this difference and only want the option to be able to choose differently for myself. I shouldn't force them, and they shouldn't force me - we should have a choice. By accepting and allowing differences for others, the allowance of my own choices increases. This is imperative, for people to coexist even though they may have different belief systems. We need to be consistent. 

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
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."


Original Message ----- 
  From: Evan Hamlin 



  I live in Madrid, Spain so this post obviously hits close to home. 
  Personally, I can live with civil unions between homosexuals. I accept the 
  fact that society is beginning to view homosexuality with a degree of 
  normalicy that would have nauseated our forefathers. Myself, I have gay 
  friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends. Hell I 
  even go down to Chueca (Madrid's gay district, what an insane place) to 
  party from time to time. However, I do not believe that gay unions should be 
  made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of union 
  which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that matter 
  (though that matters little to me, being non-religious). To put gay 
  marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is to declare that our 
  society views homosexuality as being as normal as heterosexuality, which 
  makes no sense in the natural order of mankind or all other animals. To say 
  that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate it either. I'm 
  sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years, but does that mean we 
  should allow a man and a tree to marry? I hasten to admit that my example is 
  extreme, but everyone has become so wrapped up in their politically 
  correctness to admit the obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL. That doesn't 
  mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is simply not 
  normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be a step in the wrong 
  direction.

  Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and 
  reevaluate the situation.

  -Evan
  "The trouble with normal is that it only gets worse." -Bruce Cockburn


  -------------------Original Message-----------------------------
  Comment: Viva Zapatero!
  Civilrights.org<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=33631>:
  The church has branded the law, a pet project of Socialist Prime Minister
  Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as an unprecedented threat to Christian
  civilization [!!!].
  Concord 
  Monitor<http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/REPOSITORY/507190316/1037/NEWS04>:
  Although numerous countries today recognize some form of same-sex
  partnership, the Spanish law goes beyond most because it eliminates all
  legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A gay
  married couple has all the same rights as a straight married couple,
  including the right to adopt children. A similar law exists in the
  Netherlands, and one is pending in Canada.
  Zapatero says the law will help transform Spain into a new and "decent
  society."His agenda also includes plans to liberalize divorce, abortion and
  stem-cell research. But the church is incensed, saying the very definition
  of family is being destroyed.
  Some of the opponents of gay marriage said they don't mind legislation
  recognizing civil unions for homosexuals. They draw the line, however, at
  giving it a status equivalent to the marriage of man and woman.
  The issue has roiled debate in a number of countries, including the United
  States. The Bush administration is promising to fight the kind of same-sex
  unions that a number of jurisdictions have enacted.

  _________________________________________________________________
  Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
  Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

  _______________________________________________
  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/20050721/a68ed419/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 21 23:19:26 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:19:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <BAY107-F287D22A3C217DD1E05AAE3FAD70@phx.gbl>
	<007101c58e48$b0569160$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <008201c58e4a$a33aa1e0$0300a8c0@Nano>

I should have said "how fascinated some straight people are........"
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gina Miller 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change


  Evan wrote "Myself, I have gay friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends." 

  I've seen this strategy used before. I know gay people so this provides me the authority to decide what is right for them. But you know what would have been better? I am a gay person.....  now that would have given genuine power to the rest of your statements! How about letting the gay person decide for themselves! 

  It always blows my mind how fascinated straight people are with the gay's private life. Do we discuss with straight folks what they do behind closed doors? No. But if we did, I bet you would be shocked to find out what they do! For some reason it is recognized that it is none of our business............. we should have the same respect for everybody. 

  Evan wrote "Homosexuality is not NORMAL. That doesn't mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is simply not 
  normal."

  What this "Normal" reference really comes down to is numbers, statistics. Since heterosexuality appears to be the majority (and I say appears, because not everyone is explicit about their sexual experiences - I don't think I have to explain why) it some how empowers some to believe that dominance equals superior knowledge on the subject - or even rightness. What if it was the other way around? What if your heterosexuality was the minority - how would you explain away why you are attracted to the opposite sex? How would it feel having to justify what just comes natural to you? And that you must always refer to your personal sexual activity when trying to just live your life and obtain equal societal rights?

  Note: we here are a group of people who are striving for change, for progress. The future that I envision for myself at least for the time being is not the future that the majority of the mainstream populous would partake of (cryonics, nanotech, A.I.). This is okay, those who do not want to apply future advancements to their lives, are not required to do so. I would not force the rest of society to subscribe to my own lifestyle. I accept this difference and only want the option to be able to choose differently for myself. I shouldn't force them, and they shouldn't force me - we should have a choice. By accepting and allowing differences for others, the allowance of my own choices increases. This is imperative, for people to coexist even though they may have different belief systems. We need to be consistent. 

  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
  Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
  "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."


  Original Message ----- 
    From: Evan Hamlin 



    I live in Madrid, Spain so this post obviously hits close to home. 
    Personally, I can live with civil unions between homosexuals. I accept the 
    fact that society is beginning to view homosexuality with a degree of 
    normalicy that would have nauseated our forefathers. Myself, I have gay 
    friends and treat them no differently than any of my other friends. Hell I 
    even go down to Chueca (Madrid's gay district, what an insane place) to 
    party from time to time. However, I do not believe that gay unions should be 
    made equal to the union between a man and woman; the only kind of union 
    which makes sense in the eyes of nature, and even God for that matter 
    (though that matters little to me, being non-religious). To put gay 
    marriages on the same level as heterosexual marriages is to declare that our 
    society views homosexuality as being as normal as heterosexuality, which 
    makes no sense in the natural order of mankind or all other animals. To say 
    that it has existed for thousands of years doesn't validate it either. I'm 
    sure dendrophelia has also existed for many years, but does that mean we 
    should allow a man and a tree to marry? I hasten to admit that my example is 
    extreme, but everyone has become so wrapped up in their politically 
    correctness to admit the obvious: Homosexuality is not NORMAL. That doesn't 
    mean it is evil or terrible or anything of the sort. It is simply not 
    normal. And to pass laws making it so seems to me to be a step in the wrong 
    direction.

    Perhaps I am being harsh, but I think people need to step back and 
    reevaluate the situation.

    -Evan
    "The trouble with normal is that it only gets worse." -Bruce Cockburn


    -------------------Original Message-----------------------------
    Comment: Viva Zapatero!
    Civilrights.org<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=33631>:
    The church has branded the law, a pet project of Socialist Prime Minister
    Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as an unprecedented threat to Christian
    civilization [!!!].
    Concord 
    Monitor<http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/REPOSITORY/507190316/1037/NEWS04>:
    Although numerous countries today recognize some form of same-sex
    partnership, the Spanish law goes beyond most because it eliminates all
    legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A gay
    married couple has all the same rights as a straight married couple,
    including the right to adopt children. A similar law exists in the
    Netherlands, and one is pending in Canada.
    Zapatero says the law will help transform Spain into a new and "decent
    society."His agenda also includes plans to liberalize divorce, abortion and
    stem-cell research. But the church is incensed, saying the very definition
    of family is being destroyed.
    Some of the opponents of gay marriage said they don't mind legislation
    recognizing civil unions for homosexuals. They draw the line, however, at
    giving it a status equivalent to the marriage of man and woman.
    The issue has roiled debate in a number of countries, including the United
    States. The Bush administration is promising to fight the kind of same-sex
    unions that a number of jurisdictions have enacted.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
    Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    _______________________________________________
    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/20050721/9284eafb/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 21 23:27:21 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] my last post on gay marriage (for now)
Message-ID: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is good to see reasonable dissenting views. The only disturbing opposing opinions are those in which the motivation is to pick on gays-- as blacks & jews used to be picked on.

		
---------------------------------
 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/20050721/b58a05ce/attachment.html>

From dgc at cox.net  Fri Jul 22 00:16:48 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:16:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
In-Reply-To: <S378758AbVGTM5r/20050720125747Z+26758@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>
References: <20050720044904.4104.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<S378758AbVGTM5r/20050720125747Z+26758@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>
Message-ID: <42E03AF0.2040508@cox.net>

mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote:

> Mike Lorrey writes:
>
>> Birds imitate mobile phone ring tones   DPA  
>
>
> Interesting story!
>
>> Many of the more common ring tones are themselves imitations of bird
>> calls, so the birds are in some instances mimicking another species.
>
>
> Do birds imitate other species in the wild?  If not, why would a bird 
> imitate another species heard via a cellphone but not heard directly?

Yes. The Mockingbird is so named because it imitates other birds. 
Mockingbirds (and related species such as cowbirds) imitate an 
astonishing range of sounds in addition to other birdsongs. There is a 
story from the 1800's about a mockingbird that managed to imitate the 
sound made by the saw in a sawmill hitting a nail in a log.  In the 
evening in the rural (US) south, you can often hear a mockingbird run 
through a repertoire of perhaps ten different birdsongs.


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Jul 22 00:42:17 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:42:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
In-Reply-To: <42E03AF0.2040508@cox.net>
References: <20050720044904.4104.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<S378758AbVGTM5r/20050720125747Z+26758@ams002.ftl.affinity.com>
	<42E03AF0.2040508@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050722004217.GA7033@ofb.net>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 08:16:48PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> astonishing range of sounds in addition to other birdsongs. There is a 
> story from the 1800's about a mockingbird that managed to imitate the 
> sound made by the saw in a sawmill hitting a nail in a log.  In the 

I've *heard* a lyre bird (on TV) imitate a camera shutter... and then a
chainsaw.  Which latter was sadly funny.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 22 01:46:26 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: EVOLUTION: Birds learning cell ring-tones
In-Reply-To: <42E03AF0.2040508@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050722014626.92250.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Yes. The Mockingbird is so named because it imitates
> other birds. 
> Mockingbirds (and related species such as cowbirds)
> imitate an 
> astonishing range of sounds in addition to other
> birdsongs. There is a 
> story from the 1800's about a mockingbird that
> managed to imitate the 
> sound made by the saw in a sawmill hitting a nail in
> a log.  In the 
> evening in the rural (US) south, you can often hear
> a mockingbird run 
> through a repertoire of perhaps ten different
> birdsongs.

Mockingbirds in my neighborhood make car alarm sounds
which is really annoying.




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 dgc at cox.net  Fri Jul 22 02:15:09 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:15:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] On the verge of automated cell-sorting
In-Reply-To: <20050721072048.10216.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721072048.10216.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E056AD.1070803@cox.net>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>Engineers create optoelectronic tweezers to round up
>cells, microparticles
>
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php?view=titles
>
>"Optoelectronic tweezers can produce instant
>microfluidic circuits without the need for
>sophisticated microfabrication techniques." 
>
>"Our design has a strong practical advantage in that,
>unlike optical tweezers, a simple light source, such
>as a light-emitting diode or halogen lamp, is powerful
>enough," said Chiou, a Ph.D. student in electrical
>engineering and computer sciences and lead author of
>the paper. "That is about 100,000 times less intense
>than the power required for optical tweezers." 
>
>The researchers are now studying ways to combine this
>technology with computer pattern recognition so that
>the sorting process could be automated. "We could
>design the program to separate cells by size,
>luminescence, texture, fluorescent tags and basically
>any characteristic that can be distinguished
>visually."
>
>  
>
Cell sorting was reduced to practice about 20 years ago.
Google "cell sorting." get a great many hits, including
http://www.bdbiosciences.com/immunocytometry_systems/products/display_product.php?keyID=53

Commercial cell sorters use a system similar to a jet on an ink-jet
head to produce tiny droplets that (statistically) contain either 0 one 
cell.
Each droplet is given an electrical charge, and is sampled (e.g. with a UV
probe to see if it contains a cell of interest. if so, the droplet is 
diverted into
the "collected"stream using a static charge.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 22 02:58:56 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] On the verge of automated cell-sorting
In-Reply-To: <42E056AD.1070803@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050722025856.15218.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:



> >
> Cell sorting was reduced to practice about 20 years
> ago.
> Google "cell sorting." get a great many hits,
> including
>
http://www.bdbiosciences.com/immunocytometry_systems/products/display_product.php?keyID=53
> 
> Commercial cell sorters use a system similar to a
> jet on an ink-jet
> head to produce tiny droplets that (statistically)
> contain either 0 one 
> cell.
> Each droplet is given an electrical charge, and is
> sampled (e.g. with a UV
> probe to see if it contains a cell of interest. if
> so, the droplet is 
> diverted into
> the "collected"stream using a static charge.

      Yes, but the flow cytometry and cell sorting
(FACS) system you describe can only dilleanate cells
by levels of specific proteins on their membranes. The
most powerful of these cannot distinguish between more
than 5 proteins at the same time and the cells have to
be run thorugh a big bulky machine to make it happen.
     The system described by the article is different
because the cells can be directly chosen off of a
microscope slide in real-time by someone looking
through a microscope who is looking at the morphology
of the cell and not proteins on the cell surface.
Trust me, every microbiologist will want one of these
puppies. 



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 megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jul 22 03:28:20 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:28:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E067D4.90703@sasktel.net>

If we are truly objective and discuss the utility to gayness in the 
current world scheme we might consider that
for every gay couple there is zero possibility for procreation for males 
and perhaps less than average procreation
for females.   Thus gayness is a modest method of population control.  I 
would make the suggestion that
the population curve of a group of 50/50 gay males and females is  less 
than 2 children per couple,(flat or curving downwards)  be it by 
adoption or extramarital impregnation.

As well gayness culturally is about tolerance for minority viewpoints in 
relationships so might be deemed
a less than average aggressive lifestyle.

As well , as a trend, the acceptance of unusual lifestyles is something 
that preceeds the acceptance of
unusual manefestations of human physical forms.

So from this perspective gayness has some value to support tolerance of 
cultural and physical evolution.




Al Brooks wrote:

> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is good 
> to see reasonable dissenting views. The only 
> disturbing opposing opinions are those in which the motivation is to 
> pick on gays-- as blacks & jews used to be picked on.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050721/6c40fbd4/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 22 11:46:13 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:46:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <42E067D4.90703@sasktel.net>
References: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42E067D4.90703@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <0DC7D572-E83E-437A-9D01-D54338792003@mac.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

> If we are truly objective and discuss the utility to gayness in the  
> current world scheme we might consider that

"truly objective"? "utility"  What is the "utility" of your very  
life?   Is it "truly objective" to try to find some "utility" for it?

> for every gay couple there is zero possibility for procreation for  
> males and perhaps less than average procreation
> for females.   Thus gayness is a modest method of population  
> control.  I would make the suggestion that
> the population curve of a group of 50/50 gay males and females is   
> less than 2 children per couple,(flat or curving downwards)  be it  
> by adoption or extramarital impregnation.
>
> As well gayness culturally is about tolerance for minority  
> viewpoints in relationships so might be deemed
> a less than average aggressive lifestyle.

Tolerance?  You are talking about my life.  Not tolerating my life  
would be fighting for my life time not some cold "objectivity" or  
some place for you to maybe be generous if you could rationalize  
yourself some excuse.

>
> As well , as a trend, the acceptance of unusual lifestyles is  
> something that preceeds the acceptance of
> unusual manefestations of human physical forms.

LIFESTYLE??  Get a clue.  Is your life a "lifestyle"?

>
> So from this perspective gayness has some value to support  
> tolerance of cultural and physical evolution.


I am sooo glad.

- samantha


From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Jul 22 14:22:23 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:22:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
Message-ID: <470a3c5205072207222ea34eba@mail.gmail.com>

I am listening to Nick Bostrom's opening speech at Transvision
2005<http://transhumanismo.org/tv05/>in Caracas, Venezuela. The WiFi
connection works flawlessly and everyone
here can check email and the web. Everything is webcasted to the world. Kudos 
to Jose Cordeiro and the organizing committee for their great work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050722/13f159c6/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 22 14:50:24 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:50:24 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
Message-ID: <p06210200bf06b7dd299f@[150.146.134.133]>

>I am listening to Nick Bostrom's opening speech at Transvision
>2005<http://transhumanismo.org/tv05/>in Caracas, Venezuela. The WiFi
>connection works flawlessly and everyone
>here can check email and the web. Everything is webcasted to the world. Kudos
>to Jose Cordeiro and the organizing committee for their great work.


Most of the video frames in my VLC are dropping :-(
(the error message says that maybe my computer is too slow ?! )

Still.. it is impressive to be connected at all, given the
distance/connections involved between here and there.

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 amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 22 15:27:56 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:27:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Penn and Teller on The Patriot Act
Message-ID: <p06210200bf06c05b26fb@[150.146.134.133]>


Since the Patriot Act looks like it is moving in the direction of
renewal,

'House votes to keep anti-terror law
But Senate version puts more limits on federal agents'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/22/MNG0VDS1SH1.DTL

I will point you to Penn and Teller's opinion on the subject:

'The Patriot Act is Bullshit'
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/14.html#a3444

(17 minutes of comedy and tragedy, but mostly tragedy)

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/
********************************************************************
"No computer has ever been designed that is ever aware of what it's
doing; but most of the time, we aren't either." --Marvin Minsky


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Jul 22 17:27:44 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:27:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <42E067D4.90703@sasktel.net>
References: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050722125213.05914490@unreasonable.com>

Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

>If we are truly objective and discuss the utility to gayness in the 
>current world scheme we might consider that for every gay couple there is 
>zero possibility for procreation for males and perhaps less than average 
>procreation or females.   Thus gayness is a modest method of population 
>control.  I would make the suggestion that the population curve of a group 
>of 50/50 gay males and females is  less than 2 children per couple,(flat 
>or curving downwards)  be it by adoption or extramarital impregnation.

Except that there is no overpopulation problem. To the contrary, the 
dramatically low birth rates -- especially in Western Europe -- are a 
substantial social concern.

Still and all, Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_ (1974) postulated that 
future powers-that-be would respond to a perceived population explosion by 
promoting homosexuality as the norm and stigmatizing heterosexuality, viz.,

"William, everybody on Earth is homosexual. Except for a few thousand or 
so;" ... "[Heterosexuality] was only a crime for a short period. Then it 
was considered to be a, oh, curable ... dysfunction."

and then Samantha wrote:

>"truly objective"? "utility"  What is the "utility" of your very
>life?   Is it "truly objective" to try to find some "utility" for it?

Samantha responded forcefully to Lifespan's posting, for reasons that 
escape me. We've often had dispassionate analyses of social or economic 
phenomena posted, and have been able to consider them here without rancor, 
even when list members were part of the phenomenon being considered.

Moreover, while you might fault his phrasing, he's arguing a position that 
supports your goals. I'd think that merits encouragement, not condemnation.


-- David Lubkin.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 22 19:28:38 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050722125213.05914490@unreasonable.com>
References: <20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050721232721.53035.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050722125213.05914490@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <4B610F20-F0B1-48C4-A8D6-EE0035A710B3@mac.com>


On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:27 AM, David Lubkin wrote:

>
>
>> "truly objective"? "utility"  What is the "utility" of your very
>> life?   Is it "truly objective" to try to find some "utility" for it?
>>
>
> Samantha responded forcefully to Lifespan's posting, for reasons  
> that escape me. We've often had dispassionate analyses of social or  
> economic phenomena posted, and have been able to consider them here  
> without rancor, even when list members were part of the phenomenon  
> being considered.
>

Perhaps when it is your life being justified or not dispassionately  
you will understand.

> Moreover, while you might fault his phrasing, he's arguing a  
> position that supports your goals. I'd think that merits  
> encouragement, not condemnation.

This is not a subject for arid detached debate.  What I wrote needed  
to be said and heard.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050722/67b3911f/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 22 19:43:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf06b7dd299f@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p06210200bf06b7dd299f@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <10C20C21-96FB-4B3B-965E-AA500A8DC4A0@mac.com>

It would be nice to have some insturctions in English.  What is this  
talking about?

   Choose the following option from the menu: Archivo:F ? ?Abrir  
Volcado de Red?

Which menu since the menus are shown in the diagram in a non-English  
language?

Help please.


On Jul 22, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Amara Graps wrote:

>> I am listening to Nick Bostrom's opening speech at Transvision
>> 2005<http://transhumanismo.org/tv05/>in Caracas, Venezuela. The WiFi
>> connection works flawlessly and everyone
>> here can check email and the web. Everything is webcasted to the  
>> world. Kudos
>> to Jose Cordeiro and the organizing committee for their great work.
>>
>
>
> Most of the video frames in my VLC are dropping :-(
> (the error message says that maybe my computer is too slow ?! )
>
> Still.. it is impressive to be connected at all, given the
> distance/connections involved between here and there.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050722/531bc257/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 22 20:06:37 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:06:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
Message-ID: <p06210203bf070243daf1@[23.237.66.13]>

Samantha:
>Which menu since the menus are shown in the diagram in a non-English
>language?

>Help please.


Yeah, I didn't follow the instructions... :-)

(I already knew VLC because it is the way I can play Europe
DVDs on my US-Macintosh laptop.)

* Run VLC

* Under the File Menu choose 'Open Network'

* Then paste the following in the 'HTTP ...' part

http://videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080

and that is it! I hope your frames are not dropped as much as mine
are (presently the video connection is off, but I guess it will
come back)


-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 22 20:16:44 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
In-Reply-To: <p06210203bf070243daf1@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210203bf070243daf1@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <0690165E-72BC-4395-A69D-81A9556EC581@mac.com>

Thanks.  I tried that and got errors of the form:
access_http: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
access_http: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
access_mms: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
main: no suitable access module for `http:// 
videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080/'

This is on my PowerMac G5 under Tiger.

- samantha

On Jul 22, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Amara Graps wrote:

> Samantha:
>
>> Which menu since the menus are shown in the diagram in a non-English
>> language?
>>
>
>
>> Help please.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I didn't follow the instructions... :-)
>
> (I already knew VLC because it is the way I can play Europe
> DVDs on my US-Macintosh laptop.)
>
> * Run VLC
>
> * Under the File Menu choose 'Open Network'
>
> * Then paste the following in the 'HTTP ...' part
>
> http://videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
>
> and that is it! I hope your frames are not dropped as much as mine
> are (presently the video connection is off, but I guess it will
> come back)
>
>
> -- 
>
> ********************************************************************
> 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/
> ********************************************************************
> "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 22 20:23:01 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <4B610F20-F0B1-48C4-A8D6-EE0035A710B3@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050722202301.23102.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

I sense there is an attempt to pick on gays now that blacks can't be manipulated the way they were in the past. Related to this, I passed by a group of antiabortion protesters outside a clinic a few days ago, the appearance was almost like that of an exorcism, "we have been annointed and must cleanse the evil of abortion from this Family Planning building". It is almost as if the so-called Christians are daring their opponents to dislike them so they can be vindicated as being the Annointed Ones versus those evil ones who oppose their God. You can trace this back to ancient times.
The same people dislike gays, though they say they dislike homosexuality but not homosexuals. "We have been annointed to cleanse the sin of homosexuality from our communities".This is a means to an end, an excuse to exclude those they don't like. And if one were to turn it around against them in saying,  "I don't like Christianity, but I like Christians" they would become incensed, "what do you MEAN you don't like our religion?". By 'what do you MEAN?' they are asking, "what IS your intention? Are you trying to exclude us as we are trying to exclude you? We cannot have that, we are the annointed, you are the target of our pious wrath".
Tell you one thing for sure, heterosexual couples who don't take adequate care of their children are much more of a plague to societies than gays who marry.





__________________________________________________
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/20050722/e5ea349a/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Fri Jul 22 20:36:15 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:36:15 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
Message-ID: <p06210205bf070709f964@[23.237.66.13]>

Samantha
>access_http: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
>access_http: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
>access_mms: cannot connect to videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080
>main: no suitable access module for `http://
>videoconferencia.cnti.gov.ve:8080/'

exactly the same errors as I am receiving right now, but not earlier
today, when I could actually connect and hear/see pieces of things.
This error must be some problem happening on their side.

Amara


(you can pass the time (for two mins ) listening to me, instead,
talking about Amara's adventures in Italy trying...life...and science
in Real Audio format, click 'Ascolta'
http://www.radio.rai.it/radio3/terzo_anello/scienza/mostra_evento.cfm?Q_EV_ID=140044&Q_PROG_ID=344
and jump 7 and a half minutes into the broadcast )



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 22 20:42:04 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] On the verge of automated cell-sorting
In-Reply-To: <20050722025856.15218.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050722204204.52283.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
wrote: 
>       ... the flow cytometry and cell sorting
> (FACS) system you describe can only dilleanate cells
> by levels of specific proteins on their membranes.
> The
> most powerful of these cannot distinguish between
> more
> than 5 proteins at the same time and the cells have
> to
> be run thorugh a big bulky machine to make it
> happen.
>      The system described by the article is
> different
> because the cells can be directly chosen off of a
> microscope slide in real-time by someone looking
> through a microscope who is looking at the
> morphology
> of the cell and not proteins on the cell surface.
> Trust me, every microbiologist will want one of
> these
> puppies. 
> 

My own layman's thoughts on the utility of this new
tech tend toward the sorting, for subsequent
culturing/amplification, of (1)all manner of adult
stem cells, and (2)sorting (the few?) normal T-cell
precursor cells in cases of lymphoma (where it is my
impression that a massive out-of-balance proliferation
of (immature?) T-cells eventually "clogs"(?) the blood
and kills the afflicted individual.)  In one lymphoma
"therapy", the deadly runaway defective T-cell
overproduction is terminated by destroying the bone
marrow.  Unfortunately, this leaves the patient with
no immune system, a giant walking free lunch for every
nearby microorganism.  With effective high throughput
cell sorting perhaps an adequate volume of bone marrow
could be cleared of the bad bits and then used for an
autologous transplant to reestablish a healty bone
marrow population.

Whatever the actual utility turns out to be, I am, as
always a dynamically optimistic techno-?berzealot.

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 Jul 22 21:54:03 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Danish Scientists Developing Long-Lasting Plastic
	Solar Cell 
In-Reply-To: <20050722025856.15218.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050722215403.82355.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

Danish Scientists Developing Long-Lasting Plastic
Solar Cell

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/ap/ap_071505.asp?trk=nl

Note the 50-fold improvement in cost. When adjusted
for the plastic cell's lower efficiency--which for
discussion's sake I'll put at one-third of
silicon's--we get a 16-fold price improvement.  Which
is merely 
v 0.9

Now this is not the only plastic solar cell newsbit
I've seen, so others are racing to achieve the obvious
grail.  What do youse guys know?  Who's got the best
mousetrap and what's it gonna look like and when will
we see the breakout?  How long before we get to two
cents a kilowatt hour and the stuff's coming off the
industrial production line in thousand square meter
rolls?
 
"Silicon!  Single crystal silicon?  Whaddah ya talkin'
about?  You mean inorganic?  Sheesh, that's
antediluvian!  How old are you anyway?  Two hundred
eighty-seven!?  Whoa!  Sorry, old timer, didn't know
who I was talking to.  Man, you don't look a day over
twenty-five.  You must be one of those early adopters,
right?  Way cool.  Seen it all... Say, it's ancient
history I know, and arcane, but did that Guckert guy
actually do the Lewinsky on forty-three, or was it
just a threesome with Turd Blossom and Scotty Mac?   I
mean you were around back then, right?..."

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 mail at harveynewstrom.com  Fri Jul 22 23:43:02 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:43:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>

>> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>> Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are 
>>> being
>>> disengenuous in claiming otherwise.
>>
>> Please point them out, Mike.  Many gay couples would seriously be
>> interested.  I know of no way that a gay couple can contract for any
>> of these items between themselves.  Even if they did, the contracts 
>> are
>> not enforceable.  Third parties can and do deny these benefits on the

OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items can be 
contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I totally 
forgot about that possibility, even though I am currently in an S-corp. 
  This certainly does create a legal partnership between the members 
that given them rights or privileges in relationship to each other.

I do object to some of the items that you claim can be solved, because 
I don't think they are solved by your suggestions.  I list these below 
for discussion purposes, but want to stress that these do not refute 
your overall claim.  I agree with your main premise, and found the 
majority of your suggestions very well thought out.

On Jul 21, 2005, at 8:55 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>> --- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>>>> And Medicare.
>>>> And joint tax returns.
>
> Not if you organize your family finances as a limited partnership.

How does this get gay partners Medicare or allow them to file joint tax 
returns?  The government won't pay gay partners no matter how your 
family finances are structured.  The government won't accept joint tax 
returns from gay partners.  How does a limited partnership help?

>>>> And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner
>>>> (such
>>>> that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same
>>>> job at the same pay with the same benefits).
>
> No differently than unmarried het partners or single people.

Unmarried het partners choose this.  Or they can choose to enter into a 
marriage contract to get these benefits if they want.  Gay partners can 
never do this.  That's the difference.

>>>> And adoption of their partner's children.
>
> This happens all the time. The parent needs this specifically written
> into their will, with penalties for parents and siblings who interfere.

State law outlaws gay adoption.  It doesn't matter what the will says, 
it would be illegal for it to be followed.  The will is nullified by 
the state.  The will won't help.

>>>> And coverage on partner's medical insurance.
>
> Again, organize your professional activities as a partnership that is
> the contractor of your services.

I'm talking about an employee getting health insurance getting their 
partner covered.  Companies cannot be made to do this no matter how the 
gay partners arrange their own business partnership.

>>>> And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance
>>>> companies claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
>>>> And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since
>>>> most insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in
>>>> the partner's property).
>
> Partnership contracts, and get a group insurance policy for your firm.

OK, I know this works.  I forgot about business partners, which can 
cover a lot of these by adding a legal relationship between the two 
partners.

>>>> And citizenship for their partner.
>
> While not automatic, making a foreigner lover your business partner
> gives them a leg up in the immigration process.

OK, this is a good attempt at a work around.

>>>> And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
>
> Living wills take care of this.

OK, I concede this too.

>>>> And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.
>
> Living will, again, takes care of this.

I think Living will is the wrong legal document, but the executor of 
the regular (not living) will should be able to do this.

>>>> And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.
>
> If your partner is a business partner, you certainly can seek wrongful
> death compensation.

Again, good.

>>>> And inheriting their partner's property without a will.
>
> A will is a contract. A contract must exist for it to have force. Not
> contracting is the same as not marrying.

Alright, good logical argument.  Not being bothered to write a will is 
a poor excuse for complaining about inheritance going awry.

>>>> And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's
>>>> property with a will.
>>>> And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.
>
> Business partnership contract, again.

Right, again.

>>>> And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.
>
> FMLA doesn't allow for this sort of discrimination in most states
> already.

A quick google seems to show that FMLA cannot be used by gay partners 
because they are not legally related to each other.

>>>> And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married
>>>> couples can rent the same car.
>
> Last time I checked, car rental companies were not state agencies.
> Also, last time I checked, "gay" wasn't in the 14th amendment. At least
> here in the US, you are going to need a constitutional amendment to get
> what you are after.

Right.  This is a different class of issue than the other ones, and 
shouldn't be in this list.

>>>> And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court
>>>> of law (spousal privilege).
>
> A privilege isn't a right. If you are an atheist and tell a priest you
> don't know and aren't a member of his parish that you killed someone,
> you are not protected, just as if you tell a pshrink who is not your
> mental health provider.

I don't see your point.  The gay partners cannot tell each other their 
secrets with privilege protection as they could do with their lawyer, 
doctor, priest, etc., or as married partners can.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful responses.  I still disagree with your 
point that prohibiting gay marriage is not discrimination, but on the 
above matter I concede you are right to reject at least half the list 
of "unobtainable" benefits that I posted.

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



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul 23 00:06:58 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:06:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <42E18A22.7020705@humanenhancement.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items can 
> be contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I totally 
> forgot about that possibility, even though I am currently in an 
> S-corp.  This certainly does create a legal partnership between the 
> members that given them rights or privileges in relationship to each 
> other.


Now THAT's how I spell romance:

"Do you, Adam, take Steve to be your limited-liability partner, to have 
and to hold your designated assets as co-officers of the corporate 
entity designated "Adam and Steve, Inc." (hereafter referred to as "The 
Corporation"), to assign those privileges and powers as defined by the 
Incorporation Act of 1954 in the State in which the corporation is to be 
formed (a registered corporate agent for which shall be designated 
should you both move from the state of incorporation), for as long as 
you both shall retain the corporation as a legal entity in its state of 
incorporation (designation of the dispensation of corporate assets 
having been already registered with the State in your organizing 
documents, subject to modification through exercise of the applicable 
paragraphs of the corporate bylaws), subject to the Incorporation Act of 
1954 and any applicable Federal statutes and those regulations of the 
Internal Revenue Service, which shall or may subsequently, apply?"

"Umm... may I consult my attorney?"

;-)

Joseph


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 00:45:43 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <42E18A22.7020705@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050723004544.44449.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> > OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items
> can 
> > be contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I
> totally 
> > forgot about that possibility, even though I am currently in an 
> > S-corp.  This certainly does create a legal partnership between the
> 
> > members that given them rights or privileges in relationship to
> each 
> > other.
> 
> 
> Now THAT's how I spell romance:

Snip a very funny oath of marriage....

Romance has never been the legal basis of marriage in any jurisdiction
I am aware of. Marriage is the transfer of property out of a
partnership and/or sole proprietorships into a new partnership or sole
proprietorship (depending on the legal status of women in a particular
jurisdiction). Under common law jurisdictions, historically, it has
been the transfer of ownership of a dowry and a womb from a womans
father to her groom, although this has evolved to be a more equitable
partnership transfer over time as women gained civil and other rights
to equality with men.

However, being a form of property transfer and partnership contract, it
is a private contract, requiring no licensing (as the Hart case states
"the power of the individual to contract is unlimited".)

Romance as the basis of marriage is a fictional construct of the modern
publishing industry.

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  Sat Jul 23 00:56:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Danish Scientists Developing Long-Lasting Plastic
	Solar Cell 
In-Reply-To: <20050722215403.82355.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050723005615.6514.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Extropes,
> 
> Danish Scientists Developing Long-Lasting Plastic
> Solar Cell
> 
>
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/ap/ap_071505.asp?trk=nl
> 
> Note the 50-fold improvement in cost. 

They are still crap. A life span of 2.5 years with a 0.5 to 5 %
conversion efficiency? The competition for this product isn't silicon,
it's corn. On the bright side, I forsee this product getting just as
many stupid underserved government subsidies as corn farmers get...

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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul 23 00:48:27 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:48:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050722204007.0618d530@unreasonable.com>

Harvey wrote:

>OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items can be 
>contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I totally forgot 
>about that possibility, even though I am currently in an S-corp.  This 
>certainly does create a legal partnership between the members that given 
>them rights or privileges in relationship to each other.
         :
>Again, thanks for the thoughtful responses.  I still disagree with your 
>point that prohibiting gay marriage is not discrimination, but on the 
>above matter I concede you are right to reject at least half the list of 
>"unobtainable" benefits that I posted.

This exchange accrues to Harvey's and Mike's reputations, and validates my 
satisfaction at naming them both among my friends.


-- David.



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 23 02:11:29 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:11:29 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <42E1A751.3010704@aol.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>>> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are 
>>>> being
>>>> disengenuous in claiming otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please point them out, Mike.  Many gay couples would seriously be
>>> interested.  I know of no way that a gay couple can contract for any
>>> of these items between themselves.  Even if they did, the contracts are
>>> not enforceable.  Third parties can and do deny these benefits on the
>>
>
> OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items can 
> be contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I totally 
> forgot about that possibility, even though I am currently in an 
> S-corp.  This certainly does create a legal partnership between the 
> members that given them rights or privileges in relationship to each 
> other.
>
> I do object to some of the items that you claim can be solved, because 
> I don't think they are solved by your suggestions.  I list these below 
> for discussion purposes, but want to stress that these do not refute 
> your overall claim.  I agree with your main premise, and found the 
> majority of your suggestions very well thought out.


Being a member of an S-Corp requires some financial resources and 
business smarts that -most people who just want to get married- don't 
necessarily have.  Is it fair that only business-savvy people are 
allowed to have marriage-relationships?  Are marriage relationships 
really -only- financial arrangements?  How sad.

As long as we're social engineering, we have to look out for who we're 
social-engineering - who benefits from our social engineering project.  
The world where only wealthy well-educated people can enjoy the benefits 
of marriage is a sad one indeed.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 23 02:18:23 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:18:23 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <42E1A751.3010704@aol.com>
References: <20050721125548.75118.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<42E1A751.3010704@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42E1A8EF.8030203@aol.com>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

>
> Being a member of an S-Corp requires some financial resources and 
> business smarts that -most people who just want to get married- don't 
> necessarily have.  Is it fair that only business-savvy people are 
> allowed to have marriage-relationships?  Are marriage relationships 
> really -only- financial arrangements?  How sad.
>
> As long as we're social engineering, we have to look out for who we're 
> social-engineering - who benefits from our social engineering 
> project.  The world where only wealthy well-educated people can enjoy 
> the benefits of marriage is a sad one indeed.



Let me make that into a question.

If we wish to make marriage into a purely legal and financial affair 
akin to a partnership, should we simultaneously lower the bar 
sufficiently to make entering into a limited liability partnership as 
easy as getting married.

If we did such a thing, wouldn't it make the whole LLP/LLC construct 
nearly worthless?  Also imagine the legal mess it would create - as if 
divorce and business litigation weren't complicated enough - imagine if 
it was grounds for dissolving an LLC that your partner was sleeping with 
someone else!

Robbie Lindauer



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 23 02:18:59 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:18:59 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love.  was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
Message-ID: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>


Statement:

All sentient entities, with the desire and commitment to do so,  
should be able to enjoy any and all rights, benefits, and protection  
by law, guaranteed to any other group. And that these intelligences,  
in the engagement of forming a family, shall do so without hinderance  
or bound of law, no matter what the nature of their manifestation,  
but by their declaration, understanding and choice.

Like it? Hate it? Do better.

What about more than two people? Do you think that marriage and  
families are bounded by rules made by key demographics? They've only  
existed as long as the major religions? What about AI? What about  
your uploaded self? Your selves?

How can you be a member of this list and contemplate a 'gay gene'?  
Many, many years from now people will look over this archive. Some of  
you will be embarrassed. Some very. I can not believe that this list  
- this list - is hamstrung on these notions. I am stunned. What list  
am I on again?

Any policy of exclusivity is written to the advantage of a given  
group. We, and the effort before us, will live and die by how we  
include. If our species is to embrace Transhumanist notions, we have  
to do better than this.


]3


ps - I began with the message below.


On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:
> . One simple reason is that a society of purely homosexuals cannot  
> exist without the natural reproduction of heterosexuals

yet. 50 years, tops. Then what will you do, Evan?


On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Off the top of my head, various other possibilities suggest  
> themselves.

I am curious, Damien:  Do you spend as much time coming up with  
'reasons' for heterosexuality?


On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:19 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> The goals of society.  I am sorry but we appear to be of different  
> political species.  The legitimate function of government and law  
> is to protect the rights of the people not to shape the people  
> according to some "society".    You appear to be a socialist of  
> some variety.

Although I greatly enjoy the meter of this remark, I have to  
interject: Taxation is more social policy and agenda than anything  
else. Just take a look at the tax law. Truly. And it is annoying.


On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is  
> good to see reasonable dissenting views.

Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050722/557794b9/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 23 02:30:10 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:30:10 -1000
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>


> On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
>
>> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is 
>> good to see reasonable dissenting views. 
>
>
> Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.
>

The only, I think, reasonable dissenting view would be the purely 
religious objection that Marriage is a Sacred and Holy thing ordained by 
God.

The only reasons to reject it are substantive ones for which there 
aren't any obviously definitive arguments (prove "God doesn't exist." or 
"God didn't ordain marriage" or "God doesn't care what people do", 
etc.).  It's sufficient for a dissenting view to not have any definitive 
arguments against it to call them reasonable.

However, I don't think such a position would necessarily carry over to 
having any consequences for a secular government and though a dilution 
of what is meant by "marriage" might occur (we'd just have to specify 
what -kind- of married two people are - church-married or 
not-church-married) this would really just be a continuance of the 
already evolved meaning of the term.

With suprisingly high regards for all,

robbie lindauer



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul 23 02:32:52 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:32:52 -0500
Subject: The Future of Love.  was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage
	in Spain, a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.co
 m>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:18 PM 7/22/2005 -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>I am curious, Damien:  Do you spend as much time coming up with 'reasons' 
>for heterosexuality?

I spend almost all my time coming up with reasons for almost everything. 
What's your point?

Damien Broderick 



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul 23 03:04:26 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:04:26 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage	in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42E1B3BA.5080001@humanenhancement.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> I spend almost all my time coming up with reasons for almost 
> everything. What's your point?
>

When do you find time to actually _do_ the things you find reasons for 
doing?

Joseph


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul 23 03:18:38 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:18:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] time enough for love and everything
In-Reply-To: <42E1B3BA.5080001@humanenhancement.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42E1B3BA.5080001@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050722221733.01e13690@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:04 PM 7/22/2005 -0400, Joseph wrote:

>When do you find time to actually _do_ the things you find reasons for doing?

I have this gold watch...

Damien Broderick 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 03:35:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <42E1A8EF.8030203@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050723033533.12898.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Robert Lindauer wrote:
> 
> >
> > Being a member of an S-Corp requires some financial resources and 
> > business smarts that -most people who just want to get married-
> don't 
> > necessarily have.  Is it fair that only business-savvy people are 
> > allowed to have marriage-relationships?  Are marriage relationships
> > really -only- financial arrangements?  How sad.
> >
> > As long as we're social engineering, we have to look out for who
> we're 
> > social-engineering - who benefits from our social engineering 
> > project.  The world where only wealthy well-educated people can
> > enjoy the benefits of marriage is a sad one indeed.
> 
> Let me make that into a question.
> 
> If we wish to make marriage into a purely legal and financial affair 
> akin to a partnership, should we simultaneously lower the bar 
> sufficiently to make entering into a limited liability partnership as
> easy as getting married.
> 

I don't know what you are talking about. I've set up S corps with very
little paperwork or assets. Depending on your state, the filing fees
can be less than $100. I've also set up partnerships, and co-operative
corporations. It doesn't take business savvy or special training or a
lot of money. There are companies you can find online to set up a
Delaware or Nevada partnership, LLC, Corporation, etc electronically
with no muss or fuss, you just fill out the simple forms online, no
blood tests or oaths before a justice of the peace.

> If we did such a thing, wouldn't it make the whole LLP/LLC construct 
> nearly worthless?  Also imagine the legal mess it would create - as
> if divorce and business litigation weren't complicated enough -
> imagine if it was grounds for dissolving an LLC that your partner
> was sleeping with someone else!

Adultery isn't grounds for divorce in a number of states already,
however from a financial standpoint, a divorce is really not
significantly different than dissolving a Partnership. If you make
sexual fidelity to your partner a condition of your partnership
agreement (not that much different from a monk agreeing to chastity,
silence, etc to be a partner in the monastic community), then it is
merely one clause in a contract that must be enforced by the parties
involved.

Secondly, I don't see the need to get tricky looking at liability
limiting constructs. Liability limitation is another benefit that
government gives you for the right to incorporate. Don't incorporate,
partner up. Take responsibility for your actions.

And I want to thank Harvey for his open mindedness on all this. There
were a few things beyond Social Security, but they generally all fall
into the general area of social insurance (medicare/medicaid, etc)
which I regard as illegitimate government controlled coercive
monopolies to begin with. Someone who wants them, IMHO, generally is
not a pro-freedom person, so I'm not too put out that they are out of
reach of at least part of the population.

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  Sat Jul 23 03:37:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <42E1B3BA.5080001@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050723033731.49392.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

> Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> > I spend almost all my time coming up with reasons for almost 
> > everything. What's your point?
> >
> 
> When do you find time to actually _do_ the things you find reasons
> for doing?

Such is the state of the modern anarchist: rationalizing everything,
doing nothing.

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


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


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Jul 23 04:22:58 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:22:58 -0700
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050723042258.GA19477@ofb.net>

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:18:59PM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

> How can you be a member of this list and contemplate a 'gay gene'?  

How not?  It's not a learned orientation, so genetics or developmental oddity
seem to be the options.

> >Off the top of my head, various other possibilities suggest  
> >themselves.
> 
> I am curious, Damien:  Do you spend as much time coming up with  
> 'reasons' for heterosexuality?

People do spend lots of time coming up with reasons for sex to have evolved.
Given evolved sex, heterosexuality is a no-brainer, while homosexuality is a
puzzle.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 23 07:45:32 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:45:32 -0700
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
Message-ID: <77DE5ECC-D3A8-4463-9E48-C4D717259A92@mac.com>


On Jul 22, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is  
>>> good to see reasonable dissenting views.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.
>>
>>
>
> The only, I think, reasonable dissenting view would be the purely  
> religious objection that Marriage is a Sacred and Holy thing  
> ordained by God.

Huh?  Which God?  As apprehended or the purported wishes thereof  
apprehended supposedly by whom? Many theological positions (several  
Christian sects for instance) have no problem with gay marriage.    
What I am getting at is how does adding in this or that groups  
religious views constitute "reasonable" dissent?

- samantha


From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 23 08:29:55 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:29:55 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723033533.12898.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050723033533.12898.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d4be08907de766d11b3dfe60e681ef23@aol.com>


On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>

>> Let me make that into a question.
>>
>> If we wish to make marriage into a purely legal and financial affair
>> akin to a partnership, should we simultaneously lower the bar
>> sufficiently to make entering into a limited liability partnership as
>> easy as getting married.
>>
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. I've set up S corps with very
> little paperwork or assets.

You're a smart cookie.  I suggest a tour of south central or east los 
angeles bordelos to give a sense of the kind of people who often just 
get married because they want to.  I suspect you qualify because you:

1)  Can read and write.
2)  Finished high school.
3)  Finished college.
4)  Read books for pleasure and education.
5)  Can tell when you're being conned.
6)  Have more than 100 of disposable money right now.

Many, many, many married people (even happily married people) don't 
qualify under any of these.    Marriage is just something different 
than "entering into a business arrangement".

> Depending on your state, the filing fees
> can be less than $100. I've also set up partnerships, and co-operative
> corporations. It doesn't take business savvy or special training or a
> lot of money.

It takes a certain amount of business savvy and money to enter into a 
corporate agreement and even more (of both) to enforce one and relative 
to the actual bar of education in our new-deal learn-to-work educated 
society it's a bar that's slightly too high - remember we're dealing 
with people who read the McDonald's "healthy choices" brochure and are 
convinced that eating at McDonalds is healthy.  (I'm not claiming this 
is the average american, but it is certainly a large public segment.)

> There are companies you can find online to set up a
> Delaware or Nevada partnership, LLC, Corporation, etc electronically
> with no muss or fuss, you just fill out the simple forms online, no
> blood tests or oaths before a justice of the peace.

Yes, you can if you're a smart cookie.  You're a fool to form such a 
partnership without a good lawyer's advice if you have potentially 
adversarial partners.  For anything more complicated than sharing 
profits on a lemonade stand, this isn't a great idea.  But I suspect 
you know this.  Perhaps you're being facetious?

>> If we did such a thing, wouldn't it make the whole LLP/LLC construct
>> nearly worthless?  Also imagine the legal mess it would create - as
>> if divorce and business litigation weren't complicated enough -
>> imagine if it was grounds for dissolving an LLC that your partner
>> was sleeping with someone else!
>
> Adultery isn't grounds for divorce in a number of states already,
> however from a financial standpoint, a divorce is really not
> significantly different than dissolving a Partnership. If you make
> sexual fidelity to your partner a condition of your partnership
> agreement (not that much different from a monk agreeing to chastity,
> silence, etc to be a partner in the monastic community), then it is
> merely one clause in a contract that must be enforced by the parties
> involved.

Divorce law has a rich tradition of its own separate from partnership 
and corporate law and that the merging of the two would be a 
legislative and judicial nightmare, practically speaking, assuming you 
wanted to keep either.  JUST the taxation and inheritance issues are 
volumes and volumes different.  Why make, for instance, married people 
choose between distributing or retaining profits or annually filing 
separate and corporate tax returns.  Alternatively, would it be 
appropriate for corporations to pay taxes like a married couple, I'm 
sure that would be a tremendous benefit for them.  Have you thought 
this through?  Is there an official Libertarian Party suggestion on 
this matter?  Which tax law would apply to these hybrid 
corporation-marriages?

I say throw the baby out with the bath-water, but if you insist on 
keeping the baby, I'm insisting on keeping the bath-water.  Get rid of 
the corporate law and taxation and social security and you no longer 
have the felt need to legitimize homosexual marriages with official 
government badges and gold stars.

> Secondly, I don't see the need to get tricky looking at liability
> limiting constructs. Liability limitation is another benefit that
> government gives you for the right to incorporate. Don't incorporate,
> partner up. Take responsibility for your actions.

There are LLP's.  Marriages are, in many ways, like LLP's, in other 
ways like LLC's, in other ways like sole proprietorships, in some ways 
like a slavery arrangement sometimes.  The absurd example given before 
by someone else isn't so absurd.  The paperwork that would have to be 
created (and therefore understood to be something other than fraud) by 
the various parties would be so extensive as to make a marriage a near 
impossibility.  If someone could understand the paperwork involved, 
they probably simply wouldn't do it.

Remember that Corporate and Partnership laws are invented for 
potentially adversarial relationships on the assumption that the 
members in the partnership or corporate don't essentially have any 
common interests and will, if given the chance, take whatever advantage 
possible in their arrangement.

In many ways, the assumption in marriage laws are different, but in 
particular the assumption in marriage law is that the parties act 
effectively as a single interest.  Only when things go wrong does the 
adversarial law kick in - and even then the way it kicks in is very 
different.    So again, your official position on whether we should 
throw out the marriage-law stuff or the corporate-law stuff?

Both!!!!

> And I want to thank Harvey for his open mindedness on all this. There
> were a few things beyond Social Security, but they generally all fall
> into the general area of social insurance (medicare/medicaid, etc)
> which I regard as illegitimate government controlled coercive
> monopolies to begin with.

Alongside the federal reserve system, I assume?  The Federal Reserve 
System is the worst illegitimate government controlled coercive 
monopoly next to, of course, the armed forces.  Funny how that works 
out.  The same people control the money and the guns...

> Someone who wants them, IMHO, generally is
> not a pro-freedom person,

Is the official stance of the libertarian party that a 65-year-old 
retiree and disabled veteran who receives their social security and 
veterans disability insurance is not a pro-freedom person.

Boy, I bet that wins you a lot of votes with AARP!  Why not just 
officially align yourself with the Church of Satan and the American 
Nazi Party or something?

>  so I'm not too put out that they are out of
> reach of at least part of the population.

I say the same with regard to the Federal Reserve System.

R



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 23 08:59:27 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:27 -1000
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <77DE5ECC-D3A8-4463-9E48-C4D717259A92@mac.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
	<77DE5ECC-D3A8-4463-9E48-C4D717259A92@mac.com>
Message-ID: <a17194104a068a6e77d9fe0ae1c4c532@aol.com>

On Jul 22, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>>
>> The only, I think, reasonable dissenting view would be the purely 
>> religious objection that Marriage is a Sacred and Holy thing ordained 
>> by God.
>
> Huh?  Which God?  As apprehended or the purported wishes thereof 
> apprehended supposedly by whom? Many theological positions (several 
> Christian sects for instance) have no problem with gay marriage.   
> What I am getting at is how does adding in this or that groups 
> religious views constitute "reasonable" dissent?
>

In the rest of my post you may have seen my brief attempt at a genuine 
clarification my meaning of "reasonable dissenting view" which I'll 
repeat.

A reasonable dissenting view is one that is not -obviously- false and 
for which there is no available clearly falsifying evidence.  A 
convincing dissenting view would be one for which, in addition to there 
being no falsifying evidence, there is positive evidence.  So for 
instance, the theory that there is lots of dark matter in the universe 
is a reasonable view, but not a convincing view because we can't 
actually find any of it.  As long as there are other viable 
explanations for the evidence at hand, one theory is as good as the 
next.

So there are lots of religious and non-religious groups (modern 
Platonists come to mind) whose views are not -obviously- false and for 
which there is no -clearly falsifying evidence- who, on the basis of 
their faith (which can be rational faith - what one person calls faith 
another calls rationality) reject Gay Marriage for what they regard as 
-reasonable- reasons (say the personal revelation of God to some 
particular historical person, perhaps even themselves if they are 
prophets...).  Some of these also have some convincing evidence (maybe 
perhaps not on this particular issue which explains the wide-ranges of 
opinions on the matter even within specific religious communities).  I 
say not -obviously- false because, as far as I know, there is no clear 
argument that establishes any of:

    God does not exist.
    God doesn't care what people do.
    God doesn't have a preference for Heterosexual marriages.

Absent any such arguments, the religious person who believes that God 
does exist and cares what people do and prefers Heterosexual Marriages, 
has a legitimate point of view.  That's just what I mean by legitimate.

NOW, if you'd gotten past the original explanation of that you'd have 
also read that I don't think that there is a convincing argument for:

Therefore the government should legislate about the ways people can 
interact.

There is no convincing evidence for something like this, at least in 
any otherwise convincing religious position of which I am aware.  
Certainly a Buddhist is not required to think such a thing, neither is 
a Christian.  Moslems are probably required to think this to a certain 
extent except "sophisticated" Islam which doesn't identify religious 
and worldly authority.  Hinduism doesn't appear to make this kind of 
claim -anymore- it having evolved from a state-run religion many 
hundreds of years ago.   But say, for instance, that someone believes 
that Christ's words are accurately reported in the modern translations 
of the bible and that Christ said that God created people male and 
female and thereby ordained marriage would still not count in evidence 
for the government making rules about it for Christ also says let 
whoever is without sin cast the first stone and advises people not to 
go to court and to settle their matters between themselves, etc..  
You'd need something much stronger which isn't found in the bible, 
anyway, to the effect that the Government is and should be God's hand 
on Earth (which is very clearly NOT true in the Bible anyway) and a 
very much better explanation of the inerrancy of the new testament, 
etc.

Best,

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 09:20:54 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:20:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <d4be08907de766d11b3dfe60e681ef23@aol.com>
References: <20050723033533.12898.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<d4be08907de766d11b3dfe60e681ef23@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05072302207d1d04c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/23/05, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> 
> There are LLP's.  Marriages are, in many ways, like LLP's, in other
> ways like LLC's, in other ways like sole proprietorships, in some ways
> like a slavery arrangement sometimes.  The absurd example given before
> by someone else isn't so absurd.  The paperwork that would have to be
> created (and therefore understood to be something other than fraud) by
> the various parties would be so extensive as to make a marriage a near
> impossibility.  If someone could understand the paperwork involved,
> they probably simply wouldn't do it.
> 


If ordinary people had to understand all of marriage law and divorce
law then they simply wouldn't do it.

Marriage was designed for rich families to combine estates and keep
their families getting richer and richer through the generations.

The law still applies to poor people. Poor people can get married and
divorced easily because they have no assets, so there is nothing for
them to argue over and nothing to pay the lawyers.

But if you are reasonably well-off, then you will find out all about
marriage and divorce law when you have to fight your way through a
two-year long contested divorce action.

If both partners are 'equal' in the sense of equal incomes and
bringing equal assets into the marriage, then an equal split of the
marriage assets can be arranged at reasonable cost.

But, as seen in celebrity divorces, marriage can be a method for a
starlet with little income or property to enter the millionaire class.
It does work as well for 'toy boys' nowadays, though it is less
common. Lower down the scale, marriage law gives an income and asset
poor partner a big claim  to acquire a lot (often up to half) of the
income and assets of the richer partner.


BillK


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 10:41:36 2005
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transvision 2005, Caracas
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050722232547.0470cba8@mail.nwinet.net>
Message-ID: <20050723104136.24670.qmail@web32810.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.transhumanismo.org/tv05/en/program.htm
 
http://www.transhumanismo.org/tv05/en/streaming.htm

Becky Cooper <rcooper at nwinet.com> wrote:
I was able to get a few bursts of the audio and several video frames, 
but I've got a slow DSL connection, so most of the frames were 
delayed too long and eventually skipped. I must've only seen four 
"scenes" altogether. Of course, it's the wee hours in Caracas right 
now, so I suppose nothing would be happening until morning 
anyway. Have any of you seen a program schedule? I was hoping to 
perhaps go elsewhere to use a computer with a faster connection if I 
found a presentation that I didn't want to miss. Please let me know 
if you know where the schedule is posted.

I had to create a special rule for my firewall to get the hookup to 
work at all, so if you're having trouble, perhaps it's related to 
something like that.

Becky


At 11:12 PM 7/22/2005, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/22/2005 11:39:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>jay.dugger at gmail.com writes:
>
>Has anyone managed to capture this stream?
>
>
>
>
>Nope. But I plan to keep trying.
>Joe
>_______________________________________________
>wta-talk mailing list
>wta-talk at transhumanism.org
>http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk

Regards,

Becky Cooper



"If the world were merely seductive, that would be easy. If it were 
merely challenging, that would be no problem. But I arise in the 
morning torn between a desire to improve the world, and a desire to 
enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day."

-E. B. White




_______________________________________________
wta-talk mailing list
wta-talk at transhumanism.org
http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk



La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org)

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050723/5c8a5f95/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Sat Jul 23 11:05:56 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:05:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <200507211800.j6LI07R17625@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507211800.j6LI07R17625@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42E22494.2060607@lineone.net>

Evan Hamlin:
"I have a hard time in knowing that homosexual parents are bound to
produce kids more inclined to homosexuality; vicious cycle continues."

"In my opinion, homosexuality shouldn't be incentivized."


Gaaa!

Evan, you seem to be posting to the wrong list.

Anyway, apart from the bigotry displayed in the above statements, 
homosexuality is completely trivial compared to some of the things that 
many transhumanists and extropians consider to be desirable and/or 
likely for the future.

Biology won't continue to tyrannise intelligence for much longer. 
Talking about the un/desirability of homosexuality is a bit like 
discussing phlogiston.

The reason that legalised homosexual marriage is a GOOD THING is because 
it signifies a move toward the acceptance that people should be able to 
do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm other people. Maybe.

ben


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 11:37:36 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:07:36 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
Message-ID: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I thought some people here might know their open source stuff.

I'm putting together a simple .net library for monitoring files for
changes at the moment. I've written a bit about it at the bottom of
the post, but it's really quite banal. The point of doing it for me is
in learning how the open source world works, and the services
available to its citizens.

I was hoping to host it on SourceForge, but found that it's not just a
matter of getting an account and throwing a project at it. You have to
know all kinds of difficult detail such as the exact open source
license conditions that you want to release the code under, detail
about what the project is, etc etc. It appears that a human moderator
then assesses your project for worthiness, before it is allowed on
SourceForge.

Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my code
for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
want some kind of acknowledgement.

What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
(ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
I'm not clear here.

So does anyone have any advice?

Also, does anyone know if the bar is set higher than I will be able to
jump, regarding project approval on SourceForge? Is it the right place
to host a new tiny open source project, or is there something better?

What the library is:
The library is a simple .net library for monitoring files for changes.
It will be able to support different paradigms (append-only log files,
text files where changes appear anywhere (like source code), binary
files that have internal updates and might grow or shrink (like
database files), etc). I've got a bunch of stuff to base on it, like
 - a realtime viewer for log files with user definable filtering,
colouring, based on regular expressions,
 - a windows service that can monitor log files, again with user
definable filtering, alerts, etc, based on regular expressions
 - maybe a file replication facility for any of these types of files
 - maybe a source control system based on the diff capabilities of the library
 - etc etc etc
I know these kinds of products already exist, but I can't find open
source, .net based code for this functionality. File change monitoring
seems really low tech, but you can build some really strong higher
level functionality on it, gaining robustness and a loose-coupling
that I really favour in enterprise applications.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 23 12:10:22 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:10:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050721025714.74048.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-BF542FE4FB7211D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/20/05 19:57) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>I also find it ironic that those who hate George Bush are so militant
>about pushing forward a change in law which was the most responsible
>for Bush's get-out-the-vote. These same persons tend toward the
>blame-America camp wrt 9/11, that it was US policies coming back to
>visit us, but refuse to recognise that their claimed effect became
>reality wrt gay marriage and Bush's reelection from their own domestic
>policy advocacy.


I don't find that ironic at all - I find it refreshing that people are willing to still stand on their principles. I distrust people who are willing to sacrifice such in order to gain fleeting victories over the political opposition, mainly because ALL political victories are fleeting and in the end, only consistent principles have endured.  Ask Churchill. He understood this.

Brent

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 23 12:18:36 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:18:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <488f99e88c9c2d7838c0761bed2a76b8@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-E57025C7FB7311D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/22/05 19:43) Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

>Again, thanks for the thoughtful responses.  I still disagree with your 
>point that prohibiting gay marriage is not discrimination, but on the 
>above matter I concede you are right to reject at least half the list 
>of "unobtainable" benefits that I posted.


Harvey,

I think Mike's point is not that it is "not discrimination," but rather that it doesn't matter whether or not it is because everyone should take his position against government interference in private affairs. A Machiavellian take on this would be that he hopes that the government gets MORE discriminatory so that we have more reasons to not use it and distrust it (as if we don't have plenty of reasons now!) 

However, as to your list of benefits, as long as there is ONE item on that list, there is a problem in our government as far as I'm concerned.  While I'm all for limited government, I certainly don't believe right way to get there is to encourage "different amounts of government" for different types of people.  Equal opportunity, equal benefit, equal interference. :)

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 12:38:05 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:08:05 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] A post-IP mechanism for funding creativity
Message-ID: <710b78fc05072305381394f703@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Ever since Damien (Damien Broderick) posted about the idea of putting
a book online and soliciting donations from readers, I've been
thinking about mechanisms for funding creative work, where the work is
given away for free. Finally, I think I've come up with something that
might be workable.

I'm assuming a post-IP world. I know that IP is very much with us, but
enforcing it in the digital environment, especially for individuals,
is practically impossible, so it is best to start from the premise
that individuals can't control the copying of their work.

Giving away work online is fine, I do it myself as much as possible.
And that choice is fine if, like me, you get your income elsewhere.
But if you want to be able to create full time and not starve, you
need to get money from somewhere. It's not clear to me that the paypal
busker's hat is a good enough mechanism to do that (although I have
yet to try it).

It is clear to me that there are actually people who are willing to
pay for work by favoured artists. The presence of near frictionless
acquisition of artworks for free through P2P mechanisms means that
even the most principled are turned off by too high a price, and the
pricing of the pre-internet world for music, books, movies, etc is way
too high, reflecting lots of physical media distribution costs, middle
people rents, etc. But if we could get people to pay a little online,
and have nearly all of that go to artists, that'd be a big
achievement.

The first thing that occurs to me is that you need a larger grouping
than a single artist to get incentive to pay. Some of the problem with
the paypal busker's hat is that it's a bit painful to pay, and you'd
be put off doing it just to send someone 10 cents, say. You might do
it a couple of times, but then you start not bothering, telling
yourself that you'll get around to it later...

But if people could pay a chunk of money periodically, then distribute
it painlessly, or have it distributed for them, that might work.
People would set up subscription once, have a credit card (or paypal
account) billed yearly say, and have no more monetary hassles apart
from that.

---

So the idea is that you have an organisation (a web site in practice)
where people come along, pay up as members (patrons of the arts!) and
artists could also register to be able to receive grants to help them
create. The paying members would have some say over where subscription
fees went, but probably not directly. Rather, they would vote in some
way for the artists they liked, and that would contribute to a
reputation score for the artists. Artists would propose projects, and
based on their reputations and probably on direct voting for their
projects by Patrons, the system would allocate grants to artists on a
project basis.

You'd probably want a system following up the funded projects, to
publicly report the results. It's my feeling that funding should be
restricted to projects which produce free (as in liberty) artworks,
which would encourage a lot of new online artforms where you otherwise
can't get anyone to pay (like a wiki based collaborative novel, for
instance). Artist reputation should then be affected by the difference
between the proposal and the actual result produced (ie: those failing
to follow through would damage their reputations, and it would stay on
their record). Much like reputations on e-bay.

Patrons should have publicly visible reputations, and some of the
money from memberships should go into promoting the organisation,
rather than just to grants. You need to promote the idea that it is a
Good Thing (tm) to be a member and fund artists, and also that it is a
Cool Thing (tm), and also that it is a Status Thing (tm). I find that
people love to climb a ladder if you place it before them and if they
think their peers are looking, so you want to promote the idea that
the reputation score on this site is actual social capital.

To encourage the status side of things, different levels of reputation
amongst Patrons could be set, you know, like silver, gold, platinum
and diamond status, that kind of thing. There could also be special
events held which are only available for higher reputation levels,
maybe some or all artworks are released to high reputation members
only for a short period of time before being opened up to everyone.
There should be benefits, benefits, benefits!!! And reputation level
should be as visible as possible at all times. There should be as many
ways as possible of comparing one's reputation with that of others, to
see where one ranks.

Over and above the basic membership fee, it should also be allowable
to sponsor individual artists, or areas of interest (like "folk music
in northern albania"). For individual artists, it would result in
direct cash contributions to the artists (maybe for their latest
project), and increasing those artists reputations; for subject areas
it would increase the pool of grant money available for the artists
who place themselves in that grouping. Any direct grants should be
split though, so that for instance half goes where it is intended, and
the other half goes to the general pool.

There probably needs to be something like a lottery system for those
artists with no existing reputation; if you win a grant, you get a
chance to get off the ground. Is there some other way to do this?

Also, maybe the above could be a fully fledged reputation market?
Contributing money to an artist might boost reputation of the artist,
and the patron would get reputation shares in that artist, which could
then be traded on the reputation market; you could then have
speculation trading purely in reputation. I get out of my depth here,
this is something for Robin Hanson I think.

----

That's it in a nutshell.

My main motivation here is to provide a mechanism for artists to be
able to fund their creativity. It's not about a few getting rich, and
the rest being hobbyists, as is the current model. It mustn't tend
toward winner take all. So the grants should tend to be small and
many, rather than few and large.

I think that the current model of fame out there is a very pointy
pyramid, ever pointier in a global market. It seems to not be scaling
well; a few people become bazillionarres and the rest are paupers. I
think this is the result of mass production and distribution, which
favours few, expensively produced artists, meeting globalisation. But
in the post-IP world of the net, this is bad; there is huge incentive
to rip off a globally famous artist in as many ways as possible, and
we definitely see it happening (whether by P2P pirates or by their own
management).

The idea is aimed at small groups and individuals, and isn't about
funding huge lavish productions and the like. State grants bodies can
continue to pump endless money into their friend's high art pieces
that no one else cares about. This is about funding the common or
garden self actualiser in producing things that enrich us all.

I think an idea like the one I've outlined above can move us to a
situation where there are many more artists, less of a peak on the
much wider fame mountain (facilitated by the measured reputation
scores in such a system) and a much more decentralised artistic
economy where many people can live comfortably making the art they
want to make.

Also, if this meme can take hold, and many people pay because it is
Good, Cool or Status, then artists can give the products of their art
away for free (all the better to boost reputation!) and all the
problems of "piracy" go away. If we could get to that point (ie: to
Wuffie), maybe we could start thinking about throwing the IP system
out once and for all.

Comments?

-- 
Emlyn

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


From amara at amara.com  Sat Jul 23 12:45:01 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:45:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Transvision 2005, Caracas
Message-ID: <p06210206bf07eaed17a8@[23.237.66.13]>

>From: FromYosee at aol.com
>
>In a message dated 7/22/2005 11:39:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, 
>jay.dugger at gmail.com writes:
>
>Has  anyone managed to capture this stream?
>
>Nope.  But I plan to keep trying.
>Joe


There were periodic dropouts in the frames for me yesterday.
This morning was better, but you just switched off the camera...
Question: I noticed from the schedule that there are
concurrent sessions. So which room is the video camera
going to be running in today?

Amara


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 23 14:05:25 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:05:25 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C64BAD1F-CC77-40DE-997A-58E161994D81@bonfireproductions.com>



... But by involving government, and having a separation of church  
and state (ok stop laughing, Rob) we are bypassing religion, aren't we?



On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is  
>>> good to see reasonable dissenting views.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.
>>
>>
>
> The only, I think, reasonable dissenting view would be the purely  
> religious objection that Marriage is a Sacred and Holy thing  
> ordained by God.
>
> The only reasons to reject it are substantive ones for which there  
> aren't any obviously definitive arguments (prove "God doesn't  
> exist." or "God didn't ordain marriage" or "God doesn't care what  
> people do", etc.).  It's sufficient for a dissenting view to not  
> have any definitive arguments against it to call them reasonable.
>
> However, I don't think such a position would necessarily carry over  
> to having any consequences for a secular government and though a  
> dilution of what is meant by "marriage" might occur (we'd just have  
> to specify what -kind- of married two people are - church-married  
> or not-church-married) this would really just be a continuance of  
> the already evolved meaning of the term.
>
> With suprisingly high regards for all,
>
> robbie lindauer
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 23 14:08:20 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:08:20 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4452C150-4731-40EE-854F-85899A00EC5B@bonfireproductions.com>



Does it need such grand inspection and justification? Does eye color?  
I mean no offense, and yes, you did really put a lot of effort in,  
but why is it so seemingly critical for our society to try and  
justify something that seems both innate and personal? When we go  
down this road, it seems to only lead to fuel separatist argument.  
Think of the 'genetic' reasons different members of the human species  
were subject to in the past. See what I mean?

]3


On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 10:18 PM 7/22/2005 -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>> I am curious, Damien:  Do you spend as much time coming up with  
>> 'reasons' for heterosexuality?
>>
>
> I spend almost all my time coming up with reasons for almost  
> everything. What's your point?
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sat Jul 23 14:17:20 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:17:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-E57025C7FB7311D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <r02010500-1038-E57025C7FB7311D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <a8d6ff9c7f61384c62360c05c0c7260d@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Brent Neal wrote:

> Harvey,
>
> I think Mike's point is not that it is "not discrimination," but 
> rather that it doesn't matter whether or not it is because everyone 
> should take his position against government interference in private 
> affairs.

That would be great.  if the government got out of the marriage 
business and let any two people contract their own marriages.  When he 
was arguing against gay marriage, I did not hear him also arguing 
against heterosexual marriage.

> However, as to your list of benefits, as long as there is ONE item on 
> that list, there is a problem in our government as far as I'm 
> concerned.  While I'm all for limited government, I certainly don't 
> believe right way to get there is to encourage "different amounts of 
> government" for different types of people.  Equal opportunity, equal 
> benefit, equal interference. :)

I agree totally.  This is totally about government interference 
focussed at creating different classes of citizens of people with 
different levels of recognition by the state.

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



From etcs.ret at verizon.net  Sat Jul 23 15:26:22 2005
From: etcs.ret at verizon.net (etcs.ret at verizon.net)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:26:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] time enough for love and everything
In-Reply-To: <200507230830.j6N8UFR15430@tick.javien.com>
References: <200507230830.j6N8UFR15430@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <e5o4e1l7s68urnjqf5h29p1tbu5ccrelvv@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:30:15 -0600, 
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 50
Damien Broderick  wrote:

>At 11:04 PM 7/22/2005 -0400, Joseph wrote:
>
>>When do you find time to actually _do_ the things you find reasons for doing?
>
>I have this gold watch...
>

Hey!!  You can keep the girl and everything, but gimme back my damn watch.


stencil sends


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 15:30:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <a8d6ff9c7f61384c62360c05c0c7260d@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Brent Neal wrote:
> 
> > Harvey,
> >
> > I think Mike's point is not that it is "not discrimination," but 
> > rather that it doesn't matter whether or not it is because everyone
> > should take his position against government interference in private
> > affairs.
> 
> That would be great.  if the government got out of the marriage 
> business and let any two people contract their own marriages.  When
> he was arguing against gay marriage, I did not hear him also arguing 
> against heterosexual marriage.

Maybe you've been ignoring some of my posts, but I've stated this
several times. This is my position, which I've stated on this list on
quite a number of occasions.

> 
> > However, as to your list of benefits, as long as there is ONE item
> > on that list, there is a problem in our government as far as I'm 
> > concerned.  While I'm all for limited government, I certainly don't
> > believe right way to get there is to encourage "different amounts
> > of government" for different types of people.  Equal opportunity,
> > equal benefit, equal interference. :)
> 
> I agree totally.  This is totally about government interference 
> focussed at creating different classes of citizens of people with 
> different levels of recognition by the state.

Sure, but at the same time, the gay community, in its push for its own
equal recognition, is doing the "we're not with them" with regard to
polyandrists & polygamists in a crass appeal to supporters of
"traditional" monogamist 'family values' and trying desperately to
portray themselves as willing and ready to launch their own nuclear
families in suburban homes with picket fences. This is hypocritical to
their 'equal rights for all' schtick.

The facts don't reflect reality wrt gay use of the institution, either,
such as the fact that the rate of gay marriage/civil unions in areas
that have recognised them for more than a few years is under 10% of the
gay population, and the rate of gay divorce is much higher than the
hetero population. Maybe the gay community needs to relearn what
marriage is about, but this does seem to indicate that it isn't an
institution that fits their demonstrated 'culture'.

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  Sat Jul 23 15:32:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] time enough for love and everything
In-Reply-To: <e5o4e1l7s68urnjqf5h29p1tbu5ccrelvv@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20050723153228.33501.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- etcs.ret at verizon.net wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:30:15 -0600, 
> in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 22, Issue 50
> Damien Broderick  wrote:
> 
> >At 11:04 PM 7/22/2005 -0400, Joseph wrote:
> >
> >>When do you find time to actually _do_ the things you find reasons
> for doing?
> >
> >I have this gold watch...
> >
> 
> Hey!!  You can keep the girl and everything, but gimme back my damn
> watch.

Sorry Damien, the obscure SF references don't always get recognised...

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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul 23 15:42:57 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:42:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
Message-ID: <42E26581.5020501@humanenhancement.com>

 From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite 
literally conquer the world:

http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul 23 15:44:21 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:44:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] time enough for love and everything
In-Reply-To: <e5o4e1l7s68urnjqf5h29p1tbu5ccrelvv@4ax.com>
References: <200507230830.j6N8UFR15430@tick.javien.com>
	<e5o4e1l7s68urnjqf5h29p1tbu5ccrelvv@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050723104115.01d3e1a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:26 AM 7/23/2005 -0400, stencil wrote:

> >I have this gold watch...
>
>Hey!!  You can keep the girl and everything, but gimme back my damn watch.

For those who missed the reference, see John D. MacDonald's delightful 
quasi-sf romp THE GIRL, THE GOLD WATCH & EVERYTHING (1962). The watch stops 
or slows time.

Damien Broderick 



From hal at finney.org  Sat Jul 23 14:59:10 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
Message-ID: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>

Emlyn writes, regarding open source:

> I was hoping to host it on SourceForge, but found that it's not just a
> matter of getting an account and throwing a project at it. You have to
> know all kinds of difficult detail such as the exact open source
> license conditions that you want to release the code under, detail
> about what the project is, etc etc. It appears that a human moderator
> then assesses your project for worthiness, before it is allowed on
> SourceForge.

I don't think they set the bar too high.  It is more that it takes them a
couple of days to get back to you.  Probably 90% of the approved projects
never go anywhere.  You do have to have a little write-up for it but
if you look at other projects it is usually just a couple of sentences.
This should not be an obstacle for you.

> Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
> trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
> net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
> to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my code
> for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
> want some kind of acknowledgement.

The "standard" list of open source licenses is at
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php>.

> What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
> of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
> maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
> similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
> commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
> (ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
> acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
> and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
> closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
> open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
> used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
> bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
> I'm not clear here.

The old BSD license used to have a requirement that any advertising for
the product include a reference to the University of California.  It was
considered very objectionable and in 1999 the UC officially rescinded
that requirement, so it is no longer operative even for old BSD software.

opensource.org only has the new BSD license without the advertising
clause.  I don't know if any of the other licenses there have one.
You can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License to see the
language of the old version if you wanted to use it, as well as some
discussion of the problems it caused.  I don't know whether Sourceforge
includes an old-BSD license as one of their options.

Hal


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul 23 16:23:35 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:23:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <a8d6ff9c7f61384c62360c05c0c7260d@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <r02010500-1038-E57025C7FB7311D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
	<r02010500-1038-E57025C7FB7311D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050723101800.04000e80@unreasonable.com>

This reply is a little muddled, but it's not likely to get better without 
more sleep.

Harvey wrote:

>I agree totally.  This is totally about government interference focussed 
>at creating different classes of citizens of people with different levels 
>of recognition by the state.

Every society and every state divides beings into classes with differing 
rights, benefits, and obligations.

In our own, we distinguish human / non-human, military / civilian, adult / 
child, citizen / non-citizen, felon / non-felon, competent / incompetent, 
resident / non-resident, male / female, voter / non-voter, taxpayer / 
non-taxpayer, legal / illegal, approved minority / unapproved minority, 
married / single, law enforcement / civilian, profession with privilege / 
other profession, senior / non-senior, physician / non-physician, lawyer / 
non-lawyer, judge / non-judge, eligible to marry / not eligible to marry, 
press / non-press, etc.

Some of these distinctions have justifications that are acceptable to a 
libertarian. Some we would accept now but want to ultimately abolish. 
Others are acceptable to rational, thought-ful non-libertarians, whose 
premises or priorities differ from ours.

With the issue of gay marriage, as with most other issues, there are points 
of common ground between opposing positions. Exploring the "needs and 
wants" of different camps -- and distinguishing between needs and wants -- 
could lead to workable partial or complete solutions that would be widely 
acceptable. But, as with abortion or guns, a partisan can't acknowledge any 
legitimacy to opposing arguments or partial solutions for fear of losing 
political ground.

In the arena of marriage, consider the prohibition on incestuous marriage. 
Where, amusingly, all societies have bans on some marriages, while 
permitting others, without direct connection to genetic hazard.

When you step beyond religious arguments, the rationale for prohibiting 
consenting adult close-relatives from marrying is a concern over creating 
deformed babies. A libertarian may reasonably argue that it is only the 
business of those involved. But one may counter that someone must speak on 
behalf of those future babies to prevent short, hard lives.

A workable compromise might be that an incestuous adult couple may marry 
after receiving mandatory genetic counseling. The counseling is waived if 
the couple is not biologically capable of reproduction.

No one would be happy with this, but it would address the key legitimate 
concerns of each group.

Similarly, with regard to gay marriage, there are non-religious, legitimate 
arguments in opposition. Not necessarily ones that a libertarian would 
agree with, but I don't presume that all decent and rational people are 
libertarian.

As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be 
replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned that new 
members are created, and that they are protected until adulthood.  It is 
reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the 
presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive in the 
face of a profound technological collapse.

One place a compromise may lie on gay marriage is a variant of Mike's 
approach. Retain marriage as a legal construct, but refocus the benefits, 
and remove them from government as much as is practicable.

This is done in Israel, albeit imperfectly. Jews and Arabs are largely 
treated indistinguishably under law. A non-governmental entity, the Jewish 
Agency, wants to ensure that the country remains majority Jewish. To this 
end, they have a program of giving a substantial cash payment to any Jewish 
Israeli mother each time she gives birth.

In the US, if one believed that an existing benefit of marriage served a 
useful goal, say social stability or providing a nurturing home to raise 
children, one would be free to privately subsidize and support that goal.

We should not confuse "I don't want X done" with "I don't want X done as a 
state function."


-- David.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 17:26:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <42E26581.5020501@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <20050723172656.95136.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:

>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite 
> literally conquer the world:
> 
> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
> 

That isn't all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072200709_pf.html

Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says

By Gideon Long
Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005; 10:57 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain
until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one
of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a
day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network,
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more
violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the
root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on
July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again,"
he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts
with people planning to carry out attacks.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001
when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the
bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British
Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described
attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life"
and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader
of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights
against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared
he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10
Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

MESSAGE OF PEACE ... MESSAGE OF WAR

A hate figure for the British tabloid press, the bearded and
bespectacled Bakri said Islam contained "a message of peace for those
who want to live with the Muslims in peace."

"But Islam is a message of war for those who declare war against
Muslims," he said.

"I condemn any killing and any bombing against any innocent people in
Britain or abroad, but I expect the British people to condemn the
killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan."

However, asked about Islamist attacks on British and U.S. troops and on
Israelis, he said: "If violence is pro-life I don't condemn it."

Britain has around 1,100 troops in Afghanistan and 8,500 in Iraq. Prime
Minister Tony Blair supported the United States in its respective
invasions of both countries in 2001 and 2003.

Bakri, a 46-year-old father of six, was born in Syria and lived in
Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi government expelled him in
1985 he came to London.

Nicknamed "The Tottenham Ayatollah" after the area of north London in
which he lives, he has infuriated many Britons with his firebrand
speeches and refusal to condemn suicide bombings.

He founded the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which describes itself
as a non-violent political party dedicated to creating an Islamic
caliphate centered on the Middle East.

But he split from the group in 1996 and set up al Muhajiroun, which won
notoriety in 2001 for celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center
and Pentagon which killed nearly 3,000 people.

Bakri has Syrian and Lebanese citizenship and says he thinks the
British government might deport him to one of those two countries in
the wake of this month's bombings.

"But I think that would be political suicide for the British government
if they started to deport and imprison all extremists and radicals," he
said.

"Because if, God forbid, something happened again, they would have
nobody left to blame."

-- end quote --

It is clear that, despite the claims of the blame-America crowd,
Islamist thugs like this are not just 'defending the muslim world', it
is, instead, they who are the imperalists, infiltrating in the sheeps
clothing of victimhood.

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 dgc at cox.net  Sat Jul 23 17:22:18 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:22:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42E27CCA.9050600@cox.net>

Emlyn wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I thought some people here might know their open source stuff.
>
>I'm putting together a simple .net library for monitoring files for
>changes at the moment. I've written a bit about it at the bottom of
>the post, but it's really quite banal. The point of doing it for me is
>in learning how the open source world works, and the services
>available to its citizens.
>
>I was hoping to host it on SourceForge, but found that it's not just a
>matter of getting an account and throwing a project at it. You have to
>know all kinds of difficult detail such as the exact open source
>license conditions that you want to release the code under, detail
>about what the project is, etc etc. It appears that a human moderator
>then assesses your project for worthiness, before it is allowed on
>SourceForge.
>  
>
It's trivial to host on sourceforge:
see e.g.
   http://ttypatch.sourceforge.net/
This is tiny project that actually got to the code complete stage.

>Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
>trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
>net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
>to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my code
>for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
>want some kind of acknowledgement.
>  
>
>What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
>of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
>maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
>similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
>commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
>(ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
>acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
>and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
>closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
>open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
>used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
>bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
>I'm not clear here.
>
>So does anyone have any advice?
>  
>
Release it under the GPL. Anyone who plays by the GPL rules will 
automatically
make your code, comments, and copyright notices available to other 
users, and will
not be otherwise constrained. If you do not use a GPL-compatible 
license, then your
code cannot be used by the biggest and most main-stream open source 
community,
and you fail to meet your "reputation" goal.   Also make it known that 
you will
license your code to anyone who contacts you, at no cost, under a 
license with an
"acknowledgment" similar to the original BSD license. This meets your other
goals.  Since you are the copyright holder, you are free to dual-license 
the code
in this fashion.


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Sat Jul 23 18:10:31 2005
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:10:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <42E28817.8000202@mydruthers.com>

Getting something hosted on sourceforge is pretty simple.  I'm working 
on open source software for prediction markets, 
(sourceforge.net/projects/zocalo) and it didn't take long to fill out 
the forms.  My software uses the MIT license, 
(http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) which is among the most 
open and short licenses.  It allows people to use, re-use, or modify it 
at will.  It does have this clause, which might be enough to satisfy 
your desire for acknowledgment:

   The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
   included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

That requires people to include your license with your code if they ship 
it to others, but doesn't require a display banner at run time.  If your 
code gets used in a server product, the end-users won't see your logo 
anyway.

Chris
-- 
It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so
easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
-- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy.

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org
http://mydruthers.com


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 23 18:20:39 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:20:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-79D18492FBA611D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/23/05 8:30) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sure, but at the same time, the gay community, in its push for its own
>equal recognition, is doing the "we're not with them" with regard to
>polyandrists & polygamists in a crass appeal to supporters of
>"traditional" monogamist 'family values' and trying desperately to
>portray themselves as willing and ready to launch their own nuclear
>families in suburban homes with picket fences. This is hypocritical to
>their 'equal rights for all' schtick.

Given my own personal views and lifestyle choices, I would very much prefer to have polyamorous relationships be recognized immediately. However, I don't see campaigning hard for gay marriage to be campaigning against recognized polyamories or any other sort of "We're not with them" behavior.  One small step at a time.  

Your assertion that it is hypocritical for people to push for gay marriage when polyamory isn't recognized is just plain silly. This is exactly identical to saying that it was hypocritical for black people to launch their campaign for civil rights when Native Americans were still ghettoized on reservations. Any time one group stands up and demands equality it makes it that much easier for another group to do so. 


>hetero population. Maybe the gay community needs to relearn what
>marriage is about, but this does seem to indicate that it isn't an
>institution that fits their demonstrated 'culture'.

And what culture is that, Mike?  Please, please, go ahead and vomit out the right wing pabulum about the "gay culture of promiscuity;" it will allow us all to understand just how ignorant you really are about the issue.

There is no more a "gay culture" than there is a "straight culture."  And until you've figured that out (or at least met and talked to some committed gay couples), then as far as I'm concerned you have exactly zero credibility on that subject.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 23 18:28:33 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:28:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050723101800.04000e80@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-941D7FBCFBA711D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/23/05 12:23) David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

>As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be 
>replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned that new 
>members are created, and that they are protected until adulthood.  It is 
>reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
>reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the 
>presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive in the 
>face of a profound technological collapse.


Wow.  So, you're "concerned about gay marriage" because you're afraid that without at least a replacement rate of population, we won't be able to maintain our society.  This is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. 

1) If we maintained our society with 4 billion people 30 years ago, why do you think that a population decline back to 4 billion people will lead to a collapse? Especially if that means that the per capita resources will be higher for each of those people? Quality, not quantity....

2) I assume, then, that het couples who choose to remain childless concern you just as much?

3) Do you really think that not having the government provide incentives to get married will keep people from having babies? Heck - do you really think that having the government involved is necessary for a "social mechanism" to be in place?  (The ruder way to ask this is 'Do you wait for W to tell you to go get laid?')

B

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 18:54:47 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-79D18492FBA611D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050723185447.79763.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/23/05 8:30) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
> >hetero population. Maybe the gay community needs to relearn what
> >marriage is about, but this does seem to indicate that it isn't an
> >institution that fits their demonstrated 'culture'.
> 
> And what culture is that, Mike?  Please, please, go ahead and vomit
> out the right wing pabulum about the "gay culture of promiscuity;" it
> will allow us all to understand just how ignorant you really are
> about the issue.
> 
> There is no more a "gay culture" than there is a "straight culture." 

The gay community maintains it has its own culture. That isn't me
talking, that is the gay community. You can dispute that if you wish, I
certainly have questions about just as I have questions about deaf
'culture', blind 'culture', etc.

The statistic I posted (which you deleted) tends to support arguments
that marriage as a stable long term family relationship is not
something that has significant commonality with the lifestyles of the
overwhelming majority of the gay community. This is not to say that
there are not committed and loving gay couples. I am sure many such
exist, a relative of mine has one such. They are not, it seems from the
stats, even a major minority of the gay community. If this changes over
time, fine, but it doesn't look that way now. 

Given the psych issues many gays need to work through for self and
family acceptance, it isn't surprising that many are not prepared to
have stable long term commitments. This may change with greater social
acceptance. We'll have to see what happens, but it doesn't look that
way now.

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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul 23 18:48:06 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:48:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-79D18492FBA611D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.1
	23.152]>
References: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>

Brent wrote:

>Given my own personal views and lifestyle choices, I would very much 
>prefer to have polyamorous relationships be recognized immediately. 
>However, I don't see campaigning hard for gay marriage to be campaigning 
>against recognized polyamories or any other sort of "We're not with them" 
>behavior.  One small step at a time.
>
>Your assertion that it is hypocritical for people to push for gay marriage 
>when polyamory isn't recognized is just plain silly. This is exactly 
>identical to saying that it was hypocritical for black people to launch 
>their campaign for civil rights when Native Americans were still 
>ghettoized on reservations. Any time one group stands up and demands 
>equality it makes it that much easier for another group to do so.

In both your responses to me and to Mike, you are either misunderstanding 
or ignoring the plain meaning of what we're saying.

Mike is remarking on advocates of gay marriage who, when it is said to them 
that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polyamory or that they 
are substantively the same issue, respond by voicing their opposition to 
polyamory. I have seen that sequence play out at least two dozen times in 
tv or radio discussions.

It *is* hypocritical, if forgivable.

>Wow.  So, you're "concerned about gay marriage" because you're afraid that 
>without at least a replacement rate of population, we won't be able to 
>maintain our society.  This is mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

Again, I did not write any of the things you are responding to. I have said 
nothing at all about my personal views or concerns wrt sexuality or marriage.

That I present a position does not mean that I either agree with it or do 
not. That was, in fact, a central theme of what I *was* saying -- I don't 
start from the premise that people who have different concerns or 
conclusions than I do are necessarily stupid, evil, or wrong. Rather, that 
there are viewpoints other than my own that are worth understanding, 
considering, and taking into account. And that, in most everything I 
believe to be true, I may in fact be wrong. Viz., extropian principle 7 --

>Rational Thinking  Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over 
>dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in 
>pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing 
>beliefs while being open to new ideas.


-- David Lubkin.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jul 23 19:03:45 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:03:45 -0500
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in
	Spain, a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <4452C150-4731-40EE-854F-85899A00EC5B@bonfireproductions.co
 m>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<4452C150-4731-40EE-854F-85899A00EC5B@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050723135649.01cf3bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:08 AM 7/23/2005 -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>Does it need such grand inspection and justification? Does eye color?

What the other Damien said.

If the basis of eye color were unknown -- strictly optional, strictly 
inherited, developmentally mutable, imposed or heavily biased by culture -- 
it surely would be of interest to enquiring minds. However, "grand" and 
"justification" are completely gratuitous terms to introduce accusingly *in 
the context of my post*, I would have thought.

Damien Broderick



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 19:08:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-941D7FBCFBA711D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050723190828.44878.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

>  (7/23/05 12:23) David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> 
> >As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be
> >replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned
> >that new members are created, and that they are protected until
> > adulthood. It is 
> >reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
> >reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the
> >presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive
> >in the face of a profound technological collapse.
> 
> 
> Wow.  So, you're "concerned about gay marriage" because you're afraid
> that without at least a replacement rate of population, we won't be
> able to maintain our society.  This is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. 
> 
> 1) If we maintained our society with 4 billion people 30 years ago,
> why do you think that a population decline back to 4 billion people
> will lead to a collapse? Especially if that means that the per capita
> resources will be higher for each of those people? Quality, not
> quantity....

The baby bust in the western nations by choice, and the legislated one
in China, may cause more than a crisis in social security funding
methods, it may cause just the sort of technological collapse David
worries about, if nations choose to kill off public and private funding
of scientific research in favor of funding retirement systems. Killing
technological advancement through the tax structure WILL cause a
Malthusian crisis.

> 
> 2) I assume, then, that het couples who choose to remain childless
> concern you just as much?

Depends. Are they saving and investing, or spending their income on
consumption and expecting to retire on social security? Is their
activity any better than hets not marrying at all, like myself? There
are enough hets who are IMHO too irresponsible to have kids but do
anyways. 

> 
> 3) Do you really think that not having the government provide
> incentives to get married will keep people from having babies? Heck -
> do you really think that having the government involved is necessary
> for a "social mechanism" to be in place?  (The ruder way to ask this
> is 'Do you wait for W to tell you to go get laid?')

It will for the lower classes who have a definite economic inscentive
from welfare to have babies. It isn't an accident that the cutting of
the welfare rolls by 1/3 in the 1990's resulted in massive reductions
in teenage pregnancy. Clinton adopting that GOP project is one of the
few things I give him credit for being smart enough to see the value of.

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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Jul 23 19:13:04 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:13:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723185447.79763.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <r02010500-1038-79D18492FBA611D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050723145141.04eb1208@unreasonable.com>

Steinem's famous "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" 
is clearly wrong, from what I know of women and of men. And I rather doubt 
that she still holds that opinion.

I was hunting recently for an analogy that I thought actually captured my 
perspective succinctly. The best I've come up with is

"A woman without a man is like a pillow without a blanket." (Lubkin, 30 May 
2005)

They are each fine and useful in of themselves, and have distinct 
strengths. One can use a pillow as a blanket, or a blanket as a pillow, but 
this is less satisfactory. A pillow with a blanket is a useful combination, 
and is what is most often seen. But some prefer two pillows and no blanket, 
or two blankets and no pillow. Some want several of each.

Beyond my personal preference for a single pillow and a single blanket, I 
can present a rational argument for its superiority and "normalcy." But 
such a case is just an intellectual exercise to me; in truth, whatever gets 
people through the night is fine by me.


-- David Lubkin.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 23 20:09:53 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:09:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87830BBA-1805-4180-BC46-735162C49311@mac.com>

It is not that hard really.  It sounds like the old BSD license would  
be sufficient for your needs.  No extra hoops.

- samantha

On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:37 AM, Emlyn wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I thought some people here might know their open source stuff.
>
> I'm putting together a simple .net library for monitoring files for
> changes at the moment. I've written a bit about it at the bottom of
> the post, but it's really quite banal. The point of doing it for me is
> in learning how the open source world works, and the services
> available to its citizens.
>
> I was hoping to host it on SourceForge, but found that it's not just a
> matter of getting an account and throwing a project at it. You have to
> know all kinds of difficult detail such as the exact open source
> license conditions that you want to release the code under, detail
> about what the project is, etc etc. It appears that a human moderator
> then assesses your project for worthiness, before it is allowed on
> SourceForge.
>
> Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
> trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
> net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
> to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my code
> for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
> want some kind of acknowledgement.
>
> What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
> of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
> maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
> similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
> commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
> (ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
> acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
> and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
> closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
> open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
> used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
> bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
> I'm not clear here.
>
> So does anyone have any advice?
>
> Also, does anyone know if the bar is set higher than I will be able to
> jump, regarding project approval on SourceForge? Is it the right place
> to host a new tiny open source project, or is there something better?
>
> What the library is:
> The library is a simple .net library for monitoring files for changes.
> It will be able to support different paradigms (append-only log files,
> text files where changes appear anywhere (like source code), binary
> files that have internal updates and might grow or shrink (like
> database files), etc). I've got a bunch of stuff to base on it, like
>  - a realtime viewer for log files with user definable filtering,
> colouring, based on regular expressions,
>  - a windows service that can monitor log files, again with user
> definable filtering, alerts, etc, based on regular expressions
>  - maybe a file replication facility for any of these types of files
>  - maybe a source control system based on the diff capabilities of  
> the library
>  - etc etc etc
> I know these kinds of products already exist, but I can't find open
> source, .net based code for this functionality. File change monitoring
> seems really low tech, but you can build some really strong higher
> level functionality on it, gaining robustness and a loose-coupling
> that I really favour in enterprise applications.
>
> -- 
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050723/65bb3eba/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 23 20:27:22 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:27:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <42E26581.5020501@humanenhancement.com>
References: <42E26581.5020501@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <B5E4E21F-1420-4A2C-9325-71549BC08463@mac.com>

This little tract is actually relatively mild and thoughtful for a  
religion based look at these things.  I have seen many worse  
Christian and even secular tracts on these subjects.  There is  
nothing in the tract about conquering the world and such.   So I take  
it you simply wish to raise the level of fear and reaction?

- s

On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite  
> literally conquer the world:
>
> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 23 20:32:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:32:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <87830BBA-1805-4180-BC46-735162C49311@mac.com>
References: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<87830BBA-1805-4180-BC46-735162C49311@mac.com>
Message-ID: <9F5E805F-0B7C-4BCE-BF50-E2A3F728361C@mac.com>

Oops.  Make that the "new" BSD license.

-s

On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> It is not that hard really.  It sounds like the old BSD license  
> would be sufficient for your needs.  No extra hoops.
>
> - samantha
>
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:37 AM, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I thought some people here might know their open source stuff.
>>
>> I'm putting together a simple .net library for monitoring files for
>> changes at the moment. I've written a bit about it at the bottom of
>> the post, but it's really quite banal. The point of doing it for  
>> me is
>> in learning how the open source world works, and the services
>> available to its citizens.
>>
>> I was hoping to host it on SourceForge, but found that it's not  
>> just a
>> matter of getting an account and throwing a project at it. You  
>> have to
>> know all kinds of difficult detail such as the exact open source
>> license conditions that you want to release the code under, detail
>> about what the project is, etc etc. It appears that a human moderator
>> then assesses your project for worthiness, before it is allowed on
>> SourceForge.
>>
>> Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
>> trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
>> net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
>> to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my  
>> code
>> for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
>> want some kind of acknowledgement.
>>
>> What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
>> of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
>> maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
>> similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
>> commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
>> (ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
>> acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
>> and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
>> closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
>> open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
>> used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
>> bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
>> I'm not clear here.
>>
>> So does anyone have any advice?
>>
>> Also, does anyone know if the bar is set higher than I will be  
>> able to
>> jump, regarding project approval on SourceForge? Is it the right  
>> place
>> to host a new tiny open source project, or is there something better?
>>
>> What the library is:
>> The library is a simple .net library for monitoring files for  
>> changes.
>> It will be able to support different paradigms (append-only log  
>> files,
>> text files where changes appear anywhere (like source code), binary
>> files that have internal updates and might grow or shrink (like
>> database files), etc). I've got a bunch of stuff to base on it, like
>>  - a realtime viewer for log files with user definable filtering,
>> colouring, based on regular expressions,
>>  - a windows service that can monitor log files, again with user
>> definable filtering, alerts, etc, based on regular expressions
>>  - maybe a file replication facility for any of these types of files
>>  - maybe a source control system based on the diff capabilities of  
>> the library
>>  - etc etc etc
>> I know these kinds of products already exist, but I can't find open
>> source, .net based code for this functionality. File change  
>> monitoring
>> seems really low tech, but you can build some really strong higher
>> level functionality on it, gaining robustness and a loose-coupling
>> that I really favour in enterprise applications.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050723/5fcf4f6d/attachment.html>

From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jul 23 20:54:29 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:54:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <B5E4E21F-1420-4A2C-9325-71549BC08463@mac.com>
References: <42E26581.5020501@humanenhancement.com>
	<B5E4E21F-1420-4A2C-9325-71549BC08463@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42E2AE85.3070405@humanenhancement.com>

Nope... just providing context. These are the extremist Muslims we all 
keep hearing about.

If you read the main website, you will see the stuff about 
re-establishing the Caliphate and bringing the world under Islam. See, 
for example http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html where we 
see such gems as "It [their political party] also strives to bring her 
back to her previous might and glory such that she wrests the reins of 
initiative away from other states and nations, and returns to her 
rightful place as the first state in the world, as she was in the past, 
when she governs the world according to the laws of Islam."

And, personally, I don't think "it's forbidden because an old book says 
that God said it's evil" to be a thoughtful analysis in any context; be 
it Christian, Muslim, or anything else.

Joseph

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> This little tract is actually relatively mild and thoughtful for a  
> religion based look at these things.  I have seen many worse  
> Christian and even secular tracts on these subjects.  There is  
> nothing in the tract about conquering the world and such.   So I take  
> it you simply wish to raise the level of fear and reaction?
>
> - s
>
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>> From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite  
>> literally conquer the world:
>>
>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 23 20:56:30 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:56:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723190828.44878.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-3EC866B1FBBC11D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/23/05 12:08) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>The baby bust in the western nations by choice, and the legislated one
>in China, may cause more than a crisis in social security funding
>methods, it may cause just the sort of technological collapse David
>worries about, if nations choose to kill off public and private funding
>of scientific research in favor of funding retirement systems. Killing
>technological advancement through the tax structure WILL cause a
>Malthusian crisis.

Static thinking. You assume that any retirement system will look like and behave like the one we have now.  My guess is that as the last "large" generation passes out of the mortal coil or is uploaded or whatnot, the generations following will have the political will to change the system. This is borne out by the statistics on the support for social security reform broken down by age bracket.


>
>> 
>> 3) Do you really think that not having the government provide
>> incentives to get married will keep people from having babies? Heck -
>> do you really think that having the government involved is necessary
>> for a "social mechanism" to be in place?  (The ruder way to ask this
>> is 'Do you wait for W to tell you to go get laid?')
>
>It will for the lower classes who have a definite economic inscentive
>from welfare to have babies. 

While that is a fabulous story, it doesn't really bear on the subject.  The question was stated as "without an incentive to marriage, will birthrates drop."  You're talking about removing an incentive to childbirth. Further, I will point out the second question isn't really touched upon by your anecdote either. People were not only having babies, but were pairing off in marriage without the kinds of government incentives we have now.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jul 23 20:56:17 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:56:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
References: <r02010500-1038-941D7FBCFBA711D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <001f01c58fc8$feb47e40$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Brent Neal" <brentn at freeshell.org>

> (7/23/05 12:23) David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
>
>>As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be 
>>replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned that new 
>>members are created, and that they are protected until adulthood.  It is 
>>reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
>>reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the 
>>presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive in the 
>>face of a profound technological collapse.

> Wow.  So, you're "concerned about gay marriage" because you're afraid that 
> without at least a replacement rate of population, we won't be able to 
> maintain our society.  This is mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

Agree.  I couldn't believe I was reading what Mr. Lubkin wrote up there - 
had to read it twice to make certain I didn't misread the first time.

> 2) I assume, then, that het couples who choose to remain childless concern 
> you just as much?

Furthermore, many gay couples DO have children - there are biological 
options (thanks to the technological and cultural advances that are making 
spawning other than the "old fashioned way" possible), and there are 
adoption options.

Ball's in your court Mr. Lubkin.

Olga 




From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 20:57:11 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-941D7FBCFBA711D9A28C000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050723205711.5498.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Reading this sort of Randian thinking is enough to make me want to join a religion-- perhaps a gay unitarian church-- even being an atheist. Though your intention & logic are impeccable, human nature is reactive, most rebel instinctively at mechanistic thinking applied to pair bonding. No wonder so many mistrust intellectuals, something like this would be almost enough to lead one to luddism.
 

>As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be 
>replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned that new 
>members are created, and that they are protected until adulthood. It is 
>reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
>reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the 
>presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive in the 
>face of a profound technological collapse.

__________________________________________________
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/20050723/6302c6fb/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 23 21:17:25 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:17:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723205711.5498.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050723205711.5498.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D68F3F31-5ACC-46BA-9A95-CBC6420ACC58@mac.com>


On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

> Reading this sort of Randian thinking is enough to make me want to  
> join a religion-- perhaps a gay unitarian church--

Is any thinking you disapprove of "Randian".  Nothing in this bit has  
anything to do with any of the writings of Ayn Rand.

> even being an atheist.

Try the Metropolitan Community Church, the first gay, lesbian,  
transgendered Christian denomination.

> Though your intention & logic are impeccable, human nature is  
> reactive, most rebel instinctively at mechanistic thinking applied  
> to pair bonding. No wonder so many mistrust intellectuals,  
> something like this would be almost enough to lead one to luddism.

And this level of reaction leads to what?

- samantha


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 21:32:16 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <D68F3F31-5ACC-46BA-9A95-CBC6420ACC58@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050723213216.90420.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>

It leads to very many people doing the opposite of what you advise them to do. For instance, telling them too often to engage in safesex makes many think 'to hell with your preaching' and they engage in unprotected sex. It is called rebellion. I'll bet if you told adolescents they could have all the sex they wanted to have but that they could not read the bible, they'd be in the bathroom with the door locked reading the bible.


And this level of reaction leads to what?

- samantha

__________________________________________________
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/20050723/b32fec68/attachment.html>

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sat Jul 23 21:43:01 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:43:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] A post-IP mechanism for funding creativity
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05072305381394f703@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc05072305381394f703@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050723214301.GA23542@or.pair.com>

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:08:05PM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
> I'm assuming a post-IP world. I know that IP is very much with us, but
> enforcing it in the digital environment, especially for individuals,
> is practically impossible, so it is best to start from the premise
> that individuals can't control the copying of their work.

It may not hurt to start from that premise, but it isn't true, now.
It's impossible to completely control distribution, but it is
possible to limit it to the net equivalent of the informal enconomy.
But mainstream sites being willing to take down unauthroized content
doesn't really help if nobody wants your creation in the first
place.

[aggregate donations, patrons get reputation, artists grants]

Many people have made similar proposals, particularly around five
years ago.  Most were a good deal less coherent than yours. :)  You
should be able to find some if you search for some combination of
gift or sharing economy, distributed patronage, reputation.

For the most part the ideas were never implemented.  The best attempt
I can think of was called Fairtunes.  They actually collected some
(thousands of dollars?) money and distributed to artists, but I
don't think they got to the point of sponsoring new work nor any
sort of automated collection mechanism.

A contemporary example that isn't focused on funding artists but
could be used for that is http://fundable.org.

> I think an idea like the one I've outlined above can move us to a
> situation where there are many more artists, less of a peak on the
> much wider fame mountain (facilitated by the measured reputation
> scores in such a system) and a much more decentralised artistic
> economy where many people can live comfortably making the art they
> want to make.

I doubt there would be many more artists or many (not if you mean
many more anyway) would be able to live comfortably purely from
making their art.  There are already a bazillion artists who lose
money making their stuff.  Regardless of how frictionless patronage
becomes or how locked down distribution becomes, most wannabe
artists aren't going to make any financial profit from their art
making.

However, I think a functioning patronage system would be useful for
funding some artists (and more interestingly scientists and public
goods in general) and serve as a check against those who want to
lock down all digital devices, so I encourage you to implement your
idea.  I'd love to help, but probably can't commit any time.  Some
related ideas that could be complementary:

http://freenetproject.org/?page=fairshare
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/
http://www.openknowledge.org/writing/open-source/scb/
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/05/assurance_contr.html

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


From p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 22:19:27 2005
From: p.c.vanvidum at gmail.com (Paul)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:19:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <20050723213216.90420.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <D68F3F31-5ACC-46BA-9A95-CBC6420ACC58@mac.com>
	<20050723213216.90420.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9b8a7dc005072315195ba8dc82@mail.gmail.com>

I don't believe I'm eloquent enough to contribute much to this discussion, 
so I'm just going to point to someone who is. Jane Galt of the Asymmetrical 
Information <http://www.janegalt.net/blog> blog did a significant
piece<http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html>on this issue
a few months ago. Illustrates my uncertainty on this issue
perfectly.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050723/2d65f5ac/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sun Jul 24 01:37:30 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:37:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
Message-ID: <00b801c58ff0$421ac1e0$0600a8c0@Nano>

The Nanogirl News
July 23, 2005

Nanowires In Blood Vessels May Help Monitor, Stimulate Neurons In The Brain. Working with platinum nanowires 100 times thinner than a human hair--and using blood vessels as conduits to guide the wires--a team of U.S. and Japanese researchers has demonstrated a technique that may one day allow doctors to monitor individual brain cells and perhaps provide new treatments for neurological diseases such as Parkinson's. Writing in the July 5, 2005, online issue of The Journal of Nanoparticle Research, the researchers explain it is becoming feasible to create nanowires far thinner than even the tiniest capillary vessels. That means nanowires could, in principle, be threaded through the circulatory system to any point in the body without blocking the normal flow of blood or interfering with the exchange of gasses and nutrients through the blood-vessel walls. (ScienceDaily 7/19/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050718234252.htm

UCLA chemists create nano valve. UCLA chemists have created the first nano valve that can be opened and closed at will to trap and release molecules. The discovery, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, will be published July 19 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "This paper demonstrates unequivocally that the machine works," said Jeffrey I. Zink, a UCLA professor of chemistry and biochemistry, a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA, and a member of the research team. "With the nano valve, we can trap and release molecules on demand. We are able to control molecules at the nano scale. (Medicalnewstoday 7/17/05) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27532

JILA study of RNA dynamics may help in drug design. Biophysicists have developed a method for studying, in real time, a nanoscale "docking and undocking" interaction between small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA), a technique that may be broadly useful in studying structural changes in RNA that affect its function. The research at JILA, a joint institute of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and University of Colorado at Boulder, may have applications in the design of effective new drugs based on small RNA strands. (Eurekalert 7/14/05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/nios-jso071405.php

Scientists making self-cleaning building products. From catalytic converters to alternative fuels, the fight against big-city smog has for years been fought inside combustion engines and exhaust pipes. Now, scientists are taking the fight to the streets by developing "smart" building materials designed to clean the air with a little help from the elements. Using technology already available for self-cleaning windows and bathroom tiles, scientists hope to paint up cities with materials that dissolve and wash away pollutants when exposed to sun and rain. (Clarionledger 7/23/05)
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050723/BIZ/507230323/1005
Or at CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/22/smog.scrubbing.surface.ap/

Nano-surgeons break the atomic bond. The science of the small has moved a huge step forward following work in a subterranean Birmingham laboratory, reports Roger Highfield. The ultimate in surgery has been carried out in a vibration-free bunker in deepest Birmingham. Not only have scientists working there managed to remove a single atom of matter, measuring about a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across, but they have achieved this feat even though their subject was thrashing around wildly. The feat is the ultimate in the science of the small, nanotechnology, that the practitioners hope will one day help to remove contaminants from the environment. One can also see it as an extreme version of precision chemistry, a far cry from what usually happens in a laboratory.
(TelegraphUK 7/20/05) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/07/20/cfnano20.xml&sSheet=/connected/2005/07/20/ixconnrite.html

Molecular Logic Gate Operates In Nanospace. Computation molecule is confined within a detergent micelle. Chemists in Northern Ireland and Japan have designed a fluorescent molecule that carries out a logical computation in the nanospace of a membrane (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 8920). The system operates as a two-input AND logic gate, in which two conditions must both be satisfied to produce an output. (C&Enews 6/20/05) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i25/8325notw4.html

The first nanoparticle drug delivery system reaches the market. On 8th February 2005, the first nanoparticulate drug delivery product, Abraxane for the treatment of breast cancer was launched by Abraxis Oncology, a division of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. The initial announcement in late 2004 saw the company's share prices rise by 50% and required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a new class of therapeutic products. Operating at scales of billionths of a metre, nanoparticle drug delivery systems involve binding a therapeutic compound to a nanoparticle, or encasing it within a nanoshell. Common materials in development include gold or silicon nanoparticles, with the Abraxane system using a nanoparticle shell constructed from albumin. A key advantage of nanoshells is that they can be targeted to specific cell populations through conjugation with a monoclonal antibody. 
(Pharmalicensing 7/19/05) http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/1121690117_42dba205262cb

Nano-Tex makes nasty stains disappear like magic. Matt Hurwitz flies around the country spilling things on himself. That cheap red wine tucked into his oversized suitcase isn't for drinking. Neither is the grape juice. Point a camera at this guy and he cheerfully sloshes red wine over shirt, tie and pants. Whoa! What kind of a magic trip is this? Hurwitz is a man on a mission with a message. He's out to tell the world about fabrics treated with Nano-Tex, a nanotechnology treatment originated in California to "bathe" fabrics with nano molecules ("1 million times smaller than a grain of sand," he explains). (SeattlePI 7/9/05) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/231842_stains09.html?source=rss

Nobel Prize winner to join cancer research team. A Nobel laureate who has leukemia has joined an all-star team of researchers testing a Washington County native's novel cancer treatment. John Kanzius, 61, of Millcreek, Erie County, formerly of South Strabane, is seeking five patents for his radio-wave cancer treatment that could offer an alternative to surgery and chemotherapy. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center began testing his inventions on rats in May, and University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, the nation's top-ranked cancer center, plans to begin testing it on rabbits and pigs. Now Richard E. Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry for creating carbon-based molecules known as buckyballs and nanotubes, will collaborate with M.D. Anderson on Kanzius' inventions. Smalley, founder of the Rice University Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory in Houston, has the same B-cell leukemia afflicting Kanzius. (PostGazette 7/22/05) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05203/541885.stm

New Method Purifies Nanoparticles. To meet the stringent purity requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical manufacturers will need robust, economical methods for cleaning up and recovering nanoparticles. While many methods exist for purifying small amounts of nanoparticles, such techniques are often difficult or uneconomical to use on even the modest scale needed to produce an approved pharmaceutical or imaging agent. (National Cancer Institute 7/18/05)
http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-07-18c.asp

Disease diagnosis, bioengineering covered at state nano summit, USA. Research into the evolution of protein design by a University of Houston professor will be featured among nearly 20 presentations at the 2005 Nano Summit Research Conference July 28. Kurt L. Krause, an associate professor of biology and biochemistry at UH, will give a presentation at 11 a.m. on the "Role of Protein Design in Bionanotechnology." Sponsored by the Nanotechnology Foundation of Texas, the 2005 Nano Summit is a daylong forum for Texas natural science, engineering and medical researchers to meet and exchange information on their respective areas of expertise. (Medicalnewstoday 7/23/05) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27876

In the July 8 issue of Science, scientists from the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience Delft and Philips present the first superconducting transistors based on semiconductor nanowires. These nanoscale superconductor/semiconductor devices enable the fabrication of new nanoscale superconducting electronic circuits and at the same time they provide new opportunities for the study of fundamental quantum transport phenomena. (PhysOrg 7/8/05) http://www.physorg.com/news5043.html

NanoBio Corporation, announced today that it has successfully completed its Phase 2 study of NB-001 in patients with herpes labialis (cold sores) and is moving ahead with plans to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials next year. NB-001 is a topical emulsion comprised of nanometer-size water/oil droplets coated with a surfactant that has demonstrated potent anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-fungal activity in previous studies. These uniformly small antimicrobial particles are designed to accelerate the healing of skin ulcers by killing the herpes viruses at the lesion site. (Nanotechnology Now 7/22/05) http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=10677

Industrial Nanotech Inc. said it is testing a prototype of Nansulate Translucent to be delivered via a spray can. The company says the spray delivery method of the nanotechnology coating was engineered for household and industrial applications that can benefit from the smaller quantity offered and the ease of application that comes from a spray can. (Smalltimes 7/21/05)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=46&document_id=9593

The market for the instruments and tools needed to work on the nanoscale faces substantial challenges in the future, experts told UPI's Nano World. Atomic-force microscopes, or AFMs, and other tools that experiment on carbon nanotubes and other areas outside the semiconductor industry "are the things that make nanotechnology possible to begin with," said Nathan Tinker, co-founder and executive vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance in New York City."They represent the state of the art, and the ability for nanotechnology to drive forward institutionally across industrial sectors."Nanotech analysis group Lux Research, also in New York, has estimated the global impact of nanotech-enabled goods at $2.6 trillion by 2015...Still, the costs for ramping up the mostly research-oriented tools used to work on the nanoscale to large-scale production processes are going to be substantial, Tinker said.Moreover, this ramping up is only a fraction of the challenge ahead. "The big problem seems to me in getting these machines to the point of reliability needed at an industrial scale," he said." (PhysOrg 7/22/05) http://www.physorg.com/news5379.html

'Tall' crystals from tiny templates. Ames Lab Researchers Modify Old Technique to Make 3-D Multilayered Structures. Achieving a first in the world of novel optical materials, researchers at the U. S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory are making 3-D photonic band gap crystals four millimeters square (approximately one-eighth of an inch square) and 12 layers high without benefit of a "clean room" environment or the multimillion dollar equipment traditionally required to create such structures. The fundamental research, supported by the Basic Energy Sciences Office of the DOE's Office of Science, holds potential for significantly reducing the costs associated with fabricating PBG crystals, devices that make it possible to route, manipulate and modify the properties of light. (AmesLab 7/21/05) http://www.ameslab.gov/final/News/2005rel/tallcrystals.htm

Nano-imprint makes its mark. Nano-imprint lithography (NIL) could become more than just a novel process - it could replace conventional lithography completely. Although most of the semiconductor industry is still learning to build chips with circuits as narrow as 90 nanometres, Hewlett-Packard researcher Stan Williams is using a novel process called nano-imprint lithography (NIL) to make experimental memory chips with tiny electrical pathways less than half that size. "We're now using imprint lithography to routinely make real, operating circuits with a half-pitch [width] of 30 nanometres," says Williams, a senior fellow and director of quantum science research at HP Labs. (ElectronicsWeekly 7/21/05) http://62.189.48.35/Articles/2005/07/21/35899/Nano-imprintmakesitsmark.htm

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/20050723/29511423/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sun Jul 24 01:38:21 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:38:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
References: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>


Thank you David, for this and your earlier post. Very refreshing.

]3


On Jul 23, 2005, at 2:48 PM, David Lubkin wrote:

> That I present a position does not mean that I either agree with it  
> or do not. That was, in fact, a central theme of what I *was*  
> saying -- I don't start from the premise that people who have  
> different concerns or conclusions than I do are necessarily stupid,  
> evil, or wrong. Rather, that there are viewpoints other than my own  
> that are worth understanding, considering, and taking into account.  
> And that, in most everything I believe to be true, I may in fact be  
> wrong. Viz., extropian principle 7 --

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050723/d344cd42/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sun Jul 24 01:42:59 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:42:59 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050723135649.01cf3bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050722213124.01cc1ab8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<4452C150-4731-40EE-854F-85899A00EC5B@bonfireproductions.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050723135649.01cf3bc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <D23FD26A-35B8-44DD-AD7D-9097325EE617@bonfireproductions.com>


Well said. I am sorry to have you spell it out for me. When you  
illustrate the approach in that manner it has a different quality. I  
am sorry I jumped on your remarks. It was callous of me.

Thanks for your response.

]3


On Jul 23, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 10:08 AM 7/23/2005 -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>> Does it need such grand inspection and justification? Does eye color?
>>
>
> What the other Damien said.
>
> If the basis of eye color were unknown -- strictly optional,  
> strictly inherited, developmentally mutable, imposed or heavily  
> biased by culture -- it surely would be of interest to enquiring  
> minds. However, "grand" and "justification" are completely  
> gratuitous terms to introduce accusingly *in the context of my  
> post*, I would have thought.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Jul 24 01:51:44 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:51:44 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat]  The meanings of marriage
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05072302207d1d04c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050723033533.12898.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<d4be08907de766d11b3dfe60e681ef23@aol.com>
	<ee50357e05072302207d1d04c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf4ffb9fdb77450f3106f94c791a1bdc@aol.com>


On Jul 22, 2005, at 11:20 PM, BillK wrote:

> On 7/23/05, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
>>
>> There are LLP's.  Marriages are, in many ways, like LLP's, in other
>> ways like LLC's, in other ways like sole proprietorships, in some ways
>> like a slavery arrangement sometimes.  The absurd example given before
>> by someone else isn't so absurd.  The paperwork that would have to be
>> created (and therefore understood to be something other than fraud) by
>> the various parties would be so extensive as to make a marriage a near
>> impossibility.  If someone could understand the paperwork involved,
>> they probably simply wouldn't do it.
>>
>
>
> If ordinary people had to understand all of marriage law and divorce
> law then they simply wouldn't do it.

Marriage predates civil society in the sense of predating marriage law 
and divorce law - marriages existed before laws were codified.

>
> Marriage was designed for rich families to combine estates and keep
> their families getting richer and richer through the generations.

Modern "american" marriage was certainly so designed from a legal 
perspective, but that's just because the US is so materialistically 
based.

>
> The law still applies to poor people. Poor people can get married and
> divorced easily because they have no assets, so there is nothing for
> them to argue over and nothing to pay the lawyers.

Actually, the easiest way to get unmarried to to have a civil 
dissolution if you had a civil union in the first place.  Notice that 
this has NOTHING whatever to do with marriage in the sense of "I 
promise to have you as my lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold, for 
richer or for poorer, for better or for worse till death do us part" 
which while among the most often broken promises, is still an oath - an 
oath that even a 3-year-old can understand.


> But, as seen in celebrity divorces, marriage can be a method for a
> starlet with little income or property to enter the millionaire class.
> It does work as well for 'toy boys' nowadays, though it is less
> common. Lower down the scale, marriage law gives an income and asset
> poor partner a big claim  to acquire a lot (often up to half) of the
> income and assets of the richer partner.

I noted before that the original meaning of marriage - e.g. the merging 
of interest of two separate persons into one - is all but gone in 
modern American Civil Society but this doesn't mean that it is 
completely gone - the meaning of the term "marriage" has been diluted 
from its original social and moral and religious meanings to a having a 
purely civil and legal meaning.  This may in itself go a long way 
toward explaining the divorce rate, for instance.

Note in particular how it is the wealthy that tend to have these kinds 
of issues be central to a marriage vow whereas the poor, when they 
marry, don't marry with the intention of getting rich usually but, more 
often than not, someone is pregnant because someone jumped the gun, so 
to speak.  If you want to go primitive - marriage exists primarily to 
enable efficiencies in child-rearing as well as to promote civil 
relationships between people (so while I'm out hunting the wife doesn't 
go out hunting for another man, and assumes that I'm not out hunting 
for another woman).

Best wishes,

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Jul 24 01:53:32 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:53:32 -1000
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <C64BAD1F-CC77-40DE-997A-58E161994D81@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<42E1ABB2.3050505@aol.com>
	<C64BAD1F-CC77-40DE-997A-58E161994D81@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <e6ebc1e0a83948f30ca0213e0562b3d4@aol.com>

How did you say that with a straight face without giggling yourself?




On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:05 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
>
> ... But by involving government, and having a separation of church and 
> state (ok stop laughing, Rob) we are bypassing religion, aren't we?
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is 
>>>> good to see reasonable dissenting views.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The only, I think, reasonable dissenting view would be the purely 
>> religious objection that Marriage is a Sacred and Holy thing ordained 
>> by God.
>>
>> The only reasons to reject it are substantive ones for which there 
>> aren't any obviously definitive arguments (prove "God doesn't exist." 
>> or "God didn't ordain marriage" or "God doesn't care what people do", 
>> etc.).  It's sufficient for a dissenting view to not have any 
>> definitive arguments against it to call them reasonable.
>>
>> However, I don't think such a position would necessarily carry over 
>> to having any consequences for a secular government and though a 
>> dilution of what is meant by "marriage" might occur (we'd just have 
>> to specify what -kind- of married two people are - church-married or 
>> not-church-married) this would really just be a continuance of the 
>> already evolved meaning of the term.
>>
>> With suprisingly high regards for all,
>>
>> robbie lindauer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Sun Jul 24 01:55:24 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:55:24 -0400
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20050723042258.GA19477@ofb.net>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050723042258.GA19477@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <454AA1AB-F0A6-4554-941F-132DFBCBA9D1@bonfireproductions.com>



I am now trying to better track my 'Damien's!

Being introspective of one's species is rational enough. It seemed to  
me last night that there was just one post after the other of people  
on this list having a variety of issues where I thought there would  
be none.

Not that I dislike the diversity of opinion here, it just seems very  
obvious to me that there is a group that is not being treated  
equally, and that it would simply be recognized as unfair.

]3


On Jul 23, 2005, at 12:22 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

>
> People do spend lots of time coming up with reasons for sex to have  
> evolved.
> Given evolved sex, heterosexuality is a no-brainer, while  
> homosexuality is a
> puzzle.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Sun Jul 24 01:56:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:56:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <20050723172656.95136.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050723172656.95136.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <96b2e34ee4db260b3a2e52477c21b0fc@aol.com>


On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
>
>>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
>> literally conquer the world:
>>
>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>>
>>

Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on the 
roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace is 
recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish 
mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't relevantly 
like you.


Robbie Lindauer



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jul 24 02:35:39 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:35:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F39358E39061070FC543582E7D70@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F39358E39061070FC543582E7D70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42E2FE7B.1080506@neopax.com>

david stiger wrote:

> First of all let me say that I am sorry to have offended some of you 
> by asking these questions, and I am also sorry to learn that so many 
> of you cannot live with the fact that I believe there is some kind of 
> larger "shall we call it conspiracy" having to do with the masons and 
> the leaders of religious groups and government officials all over our 
> planet.  I did  not inted to come off as someone trying to push my 
> ideas, just as someone who wanted to hear the opinions of people who 
> seem to have a great knowledge of the world.  I know now that even 
> people who are supposedly open to discussing the big problems and 
> issues of our planet, can also be very close minded.  I will continue 
> to read the extropy chat list, but I believe you suceeded in 
> convincing me that posting about anything other than hard-fact-based 
> issues is something many of you just can't seem to handle.  I thought 
> it would make for an interesting discussion, but I guess not.  Thanks 
> to those of you who only tried to answer my questions and did not 
> immediately criticize my views, I appreciate tolerance in all it's forms.

Some people on these lists can only tolerate memes compatible to the 
ones that already infect them.
They are highly resistant to novel worldviews.

-- 
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: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Jul 24 02:53:28 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:53:28 -0700
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <454AA1AB-F0A6-4554-941F-132DFBCBA9D1@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <FB7B2C2E-9CCF-4E29-AA3D-DBF8433C081D@bonfireproductions.com>
	<20050723042258.GA19477@ofb.net>
	<454AA1AB-F0A6-4554-941F-132DFBCBA9D1@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050724025328.GA31724@ofb.net>

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:55:24PM -0400, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

> Not that I dislike the diversity of opinion here, it just seems very  
> obvious to me that there is a group that is not being treated  
> equally, and that it would simply be recognized as unfair.

I think both Damien would completely agree; certainly I do.  That doesn't stop
us from wondering, as amateur biologists, what's behind the persistence of
homosexuality.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jul 24 03:25:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:25:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
	<B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>

Perhaps.  I don't find arguing positions I do not hold a particularly  
fruitful activity.  At least not publicly.  It seems to be too easily  
arguing as mere sport without really saying what you hold to be  
true.   I have little patience for such.

- samantha


On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> Thank you David, for this and your earlier post. Very refreshing.
>
> ]3
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 2:48 PM, David Lubkin wrote:
>
>> That I present a position does not mean that I either agree with  
>> it or do not. That was, in fact, a central theme of what I *was*  
>> saying -- I don't start from the premise that people who have  
>> different concerns or conclusions than I do are necessarily  
>> stupid, evil, or wrong. Rather, that there are viewpoints other  
>> than my own that are worth understanding, considering, and taking  
>> into account. And that, in most everything I believe to be true, I  
>> may in fact be wrong. Viz., extropian principle 7 --
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050723/29d6267d/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 24 03:38:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20050724025328.GA31724@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050724033801.42824.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> I think both Damien would completely agree;
> certainly I do.  That doesn't stop
> us from wondering, as amateur biologists, what's
> behind the persistence of
> homosexuality.

Well I am in the process of reading "The Third
Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. It is interesting book
where he compares humans to our nearest ancestors, the
chimpanzee and the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo. He
brings up a very important point and that is that we
are 98% related to chimpanzees and bonobos. The 2%
difference is about twice as much as there is between
chimps and bonobos who are 99% identical genetically.
And chimps and bonobos are about 4% different than
gorillas and orangatang. Long story short, for all
intents and purposes, we are more like a sub-species
of chimpanzee than our own genus.
     Thus, IMHO the key to the biological
understanding of homosexuality is studying the bonobos
who are almost all bi-sexual trading sexual favors
with members of the same sex as often as with the
opposite. For the bonobos, sex is a social lubricant
that prevents violent dominance squabbles.
      My suggestion is that homosexuality evolved in
the common ancestor of humans, bonobos, and chimps. In
chimps it went away completely. Chimps have many
fights over dominance even amongst family members. In
bonobos, homosexuality became the rule, with every
member of bonobo society being homosexual (yet still
having enough heterosexual sex to reproduce). In
humans it appears that homexuality persisted in some
individuals yet went away in most. What that
percentage is, I am not certain. If the university's
gay and lesbian fellowship is to be believed, it is
about 10%. It may STILL act as a social lubricant
allowing for men to "sleep their way to top" with
other men. At least that's how it seems to work in
Hollywood. ;)

     

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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Jul 24 05:47:58 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:47:58 -0700
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20050724033801.42824.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050724025328.GA31724@ofb.net>
	<20050724033801.42824.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050724054758.GA30600@ofb.net>

On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 08:38:01PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> chimpanzee and the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo. He
> brings up a very important point and that is that we
> are 98% related to chimpanzees and bonobos. The 2%
> difference is about twice as much as there is between
> chimps and bonobos who are 99% identical genetically.

Yet have strikingly different social structures and behaviors.  And humans are
more different still.

> gorillas and orangatang. Long story short, for all
> intents and purposes, we are more like a sub-species
> of chimpanzee than our own genus.

No, more like a third species of chimpanzee; sub-species implies interbreeding
and not too much difference.

As far as sex goes, all of the ape species are different, which makes
reconstructing the ancestral pattern kind of difficult.  As far as the two
chimps go, both have a particular highly visible female estrous (which lasts
much longer in bonobos (the signal, not the actual fertility)).  But it's not
obviously a matter of humans losing it, since the other apes don't have that
either, AFAIK, though they probably have other ways of signalling being in
heat, unlike humans.  Parsimoniously, the chimp red bottom evolved after the
chimp-human split (but before the chimp-bonobo split).

There are some hints in the second edition of _The Selfish Gene_ that sexual
strategies may cycle a lot, and quickly; in a lot of cases there may not be
stable strategies, and anything we see would be a snapshot of an eternally
evolving population.  Though he was just talking about coyness and looseness
and good fathers vs. philanderers, not homosexuality.

>      Thus, IMHO the key to the biological understanding of homosexuality is
>      studying the bonobos who are almost all bi-sexual trading sexual favors
>      with members of the same sex as often as with the opposite. For the

Different kind of sex, though, if I recall De Waal's book.  Lots of
brief stimulation without going to orgasm, and none or little of the dedicated
homosexuality we see in humans.

>       My suggestion is that homosexuality evolved in
> the common ancestor of humans, bonobos, and chimps. In

I'm not sure "mystery X evolved at the root, then got heavily modified 3
times" is more parsimonious than "mystery X evolved a couple of times".

> bonobos, homosexuality became the rule, with every
> member of bonobo society being homosexual (yet still
> having enough heterosexual sex to reproduce). In

You used bisexual earlier, which seems more accurate...

> humans it appears that homexuality persisted in some

It didn't just persist, it became the dominant mode for some people.  There's
a big difference between social lubricant and "I am strongly attracted to my
own sex and not to the one I could actually make babies with."

-xx- Damien X-) 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 24 06:29:32 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20050724054758.GA30600@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050724062932.28747.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Yet have strikingly different social structures and
> behaviors.  And humans are
> more different still.

Relative differences in sophistication aside,
behaviorly it seems humans are in between chimps and
bonobos. That is to say the majority act as chimps and
a minority act as bonobos with a bunch of additional
details that add to the complexity but not the
over-all nature of the behavior. 

> No, more like a third species of chimpanzee;
> sub-species implies interbreeding
> and not too much difference.

Well ok. Still rumors abound of manpanzees.

> As far as the two
> chimps go, both have a particular highly visible
> female estrous (which lasts
> much longer in bonobos (the signal, not the actual
> fertility)).  But it's not
> obviously a matter of humans losing it, since the
> other apes don't have that
> either, AFAIK, though they probably have other ways
> of signalling being in
> heat, unlike humans.

Well the female bonobos run things, they are the
dominant sex, and they are in heat MOST of the time.

 > 
> Different kind of sex, though, if I recall De Waal's
> book.  Lots of
> brief stimulation without going to orgasm, and none
> or little of the dedicated
> homosexuality we see in humans.

No their homosexuality isn't dedicated in the sense
that they form monogamous homosexual relationships.
But they are pretty dedicated to sexually pleasing
members of their own sex to avoid conflict and
reinforce social bonds. Thus they engage in penis
fencing, oral sex, and labial-labial stimulation with
each other.

> I'm not sure "mystery X evolved at the root, then
> got heavily modified 3
> times" is more parsimonious than "mystery X evolved
> a couple of times".

Well I am not certain it is necessarily parsimonious
either, but either way, the biology is there in both
bonobos and humans, and it my hypothesis is that both
adaptations were EVOLVED to serve a similar function
but may have been adapted to other uses in man since
the advent of civilization. Just like my fingers were
not evolved to operate this keyboard, but they serve
to do so quite admirably. Nature is full of traits
that evolve to fulfill one purpose and end up serving
another. Any way, this holistic approach to biological
under-pinnings of homosexuality, seems a bit more
plausible than a "gayness gene" or the size of
someone's hypothalamus. Although if a gayness gene is
sought, I would concentrate on the genes that DIFFER
between chimps and bonobos and then test those genes
against those of gay and straight humans. After all
without some manner of experimentation, all this
speculation is mere hand-waving.



   


> 
> > bonobos, homosexuality became the rule, with every
> > member of bonobo society being homosexual (yet
> still
> > having enough heterosexual sex to reproduce). In
> 
> You used bisexual earlier, which seems more
> accurate...

Homosexual sex is homosexual sex regradless of how
exclusively one performs it as opposed to heterosexual
sex. After all, quite a few openly gay men are
sometimes married and have children. And I am
reasonably certain many heterosexual men have
experimented with homosexuality and then stopped. The
labels of homosexual and bi-sexual are just different
points along this continuum of behavior.
 
> 
> It didn't just persist, it became the dominant mode
> for some people.  There's
> a big difference between social lubricant and "I am
> strongly attracted to my
> own sex and not to the one I could actually make
> babies with."

No, they are not that big of a difference, they are
just points on the continuum of gayness.


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 amara at amara.com  Sun Jul 24 11:46:20 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:46:20 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Peter Watts: views on writing science fiction and
	the future
Message-ID: <p06210201bf092ca053c1@[23.237.66.13]>

Boing Boing pointed me to this science-fiction writer with books
available under the Creative Commons License. I had not heard of
this writer, mostly because I haven't been reading science fiction
for a long time.

http://rifters.com/real/shorts.htm

The site contains this author description (hilarious)

----
''He has spent much of his adult life trying to decide whether to be a
writer or a scientist, ending up as a marginal hybrid of both. He's
won a handful of awards in fields as diverse as marine mammal science,
video documentary, and science fiction. These accolades have not gone
to his head since they never involved a lot of cash.

He spent ten years getting a bunch of degrees in the ecophysiology of
marine mammals (how's that for unbridled optimism), and another ten
trying make a living on those qualifications without becoming a whore
for special-interest groups. This proved somewhat tougher that it
looked; throughout the nineties he was paid by the animal welfare
movement to defend marine mammals; by the US fishing industry to sell
them out; and by the Canadian government to ignore them. He eventually
decided that since he was fictionalising science anyway, he might as
well add some characters and plot and try selling to a wider market
than the Journal of Theoretical Biology.''
----

And if you go here, you will find his opinion on Tipler's _Physics
of Immortality_ (also hilarious) among other ponderings of the
future and why he says it sucks to be a science fiction author.

Peter Watts lecture June 16, 2001
http://voyageur.idic.ca/Wattslec01.htm

An excerpt:

----
''So the bottom line is, if you want to know what your future looks
like, don't waste your time on Analog; read Time magazine. We are
already saturated in the future. You don't need me or any other SF
writer to tell you what the future looks like. And if we do tell you
what the future looks like, we will not only be wrong-which we pretty
much always were anyway-but we will be immediately and spectacularly
wrong in record time, because the corollary to this whole exponential
increase in knowledge is that although the population at large is
getting dumber and dumber with each passing day, the target audience
for science fiction by definition has an interest in science. They're
scientifically more savvy, so their rate of intolerance for bad
science basically follows the same curve. So in one sense, not only
has the future caught up and surpassed us, but you guys have as well.''
----

-- 

********************************************************************
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 have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
   -- Jorge Luis Borges


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 12:39:29 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:39:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Don't panic
Message-ID: <470a3c5205072405392b2f7dac@mail.gmail.com>

At TransVision 2005 <http://transhumanismo.org/tv05/>, Sir Arthur C.
Clarke<http://www.clarkefoundation.org/>was just asked (on the phone)
which message he wishes to broadcast to the
world. His answer: "Don't panic".
"The achievements of Arthur C. Clarke, unique among his peers, bridge the 
arts and sciences. His works and his authorship have ranged from scientific 
discovery to science fiction, from technical application to entertainment, 
and have made a global impact on the lives of present and future 
generations."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050724/d05960a4/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jul 24 14:39:04 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:39:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Peter Watts: views on writing science
	fiction and the future
In-Reply-To: <p06210201bf092ca053c1@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06210201bf092ca053c1@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050724093747.01e03ae8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:46 PM 7/24/2005 +0200, Amara wrote:

>Peter Watts lecture June 16, 2001
>http://voyageur.idic.ca/Wattslec01.htm

*Excellent*, thoughtful, funny speech! Already out of date, of course... :)

Damien Broderick 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jul 24 16:49:57 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:49:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Science fiction words
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050724124912.03e24250@unreasonable.com>

The site http://www.jessesword.com/sf/ documents terminology from works of 
sf, sf criticism, and sf fandom as needed for inclusion into the Oxford 
English Dictionary. It is a beautiful site for anyone who enjoys sf and has 
ever wanted a copy of the OED.


-- David.



From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sun Jul 24 17:32:20 2005
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:32:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Biology of homosexuality- was Gay marriage in Spain
In-Reply-To: <20050721224441.11225.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050721224441.11225.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0a0f45af390ab5d1c56700038c67a3f0@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:44 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Also while homosexuality might be considered
> taboo in historically RECENT western cultures like
> Victorian England, it was accepted and even glorified
> in ancient western cultures such as the Greeks and the
> Romans. Read Plato and Sallust if you don't believe
> me.

Yes.  People need to remember that in these cultures, women were not 
equal to men.  Women were property, illiterate, stayed at home, did not 
conduct business, etc.  When greek philosophers debated whether 
homosexual partnerships were superior than heterosexual partnerships, 
they were not discussing similar relationships.  Homosexual partners 
(of equal class or citizenship) could discuss philosophical topics, 
conducted business, fight together in battle, journey together on 
exploration, work together on projects, etc.  Heterosexual partners 
were usually an unequal partnership between a roman citizen and his 
sexual property who was illiterate and couldn't discuss philosophy, 
couldn't conduct business, couldn't fight in the military, stayed at 
home while the man journeyed the world, couldn't assist with projects, 
etc.  It is not surprising that the philosophers argued the superiority 
of the cooperative partnership over the simply sexual use of a woman.  
They were definitely not looking at the modern world where there is 
more equality and choices.

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



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sun Jul 24 17:48:04 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:48:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
References: <20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
	<B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
	<37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <90F8A3B0-1D01-49F1-B872-7EDF74180E42@bonfireproductions.com>


I try to do it, to understand where people are coming from. Honestly  
it scares me sometimes, I see someone I respect or at least suspect  
of intelligence and they have an incompatible opinion. "Playing  
things out" - can help especially when wanting to explain your side  
to people who of the opposite opinion.

]3


On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Perhaps.  I don't find arguing positions I do not hold a  
> particularly fruitful activity.  At least not publicly.  It seems  
> to be too easily arguing as mere sport without really saying what  
> you hold to be true.   I have little patience for such.
>
> - samantha
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you David, for this and your earlier post. Very refreshing.
>>
>> ]3
>>
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2005, at 2:48 PM, David Lubkin wrote:
>>
>>> That I present a position does not mean that I either agree with  
>>> it or do not. That was, in fact, a central theme of what I *was*  
>>> saying -- I don't start from the premise that people who have  
>>> different concerns or conclusions than I do are necessarily  
>>> stupid, evil, or wrong. Rather, that there are viewpoints other  
>>> than my own that are worth understanding, considering, and taking  
>>> into account. And that, in most everything I believe to be true,  
>>> I may in fact be wrong. Viz., extropian principle 7 --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20050724/6de67385/attachment.html>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jul 24 18:21:08 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:21:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <90F8A3B0-1D01-49F1-B872-7EDF74180E42@bonfireproductions.co
 m>
References: <37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
	<20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
	<B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
	<37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050724135343.045696b8@unreasonable.com>

Bret wrote:

>I try to do it, to understand where people are coming from. Honestly it 
>scares me sometimes, I see someone I respect or at least suspect of 
>intelligence and they have an incompatible opinion. "Playing things out" - 
>can help especially when wanting to explain your side to people who of the 
>opposite opinion.

I'm surprised that anyone here would question its value, as Samantha did. 
It is an extraordinarily useful skill, beyond its value in detecting error 
in your own viewpoint.

If you want to persuade someone, you're more likely to succeed if you can 
present your position in a way that is compatible with their perspective. 
Libertarians are notoriously bad at this. They ignore their audience, and 
-- at best -- present their ideas in a way that would persuade themselves; 
just as often, they indulge in Libertarian Macho Flash.

If you want to argue against someone's position, think of it as opposition 
research. When a presidential candidate is prepping for a debate, they pick 
their best person to role-play the opponent.

If you want to defeat someone militarily or politically, the better you can 
predict their responses, the more likely you are to prevail.

At a social level, it seems like a necessary component to building 
relationships with other people.

Of course, for writers it's essential to creating believable characters.

Futuristic element -- wouldn't you expect that an AI/IA would run 
simulations of other beings in walled-off sandboxes inside itself?


-- David Lubkin.



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jul 24 18:44:31 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:44:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050724135343.045696b8@unreasonable.com>
References: <90F8A3B0-1D01-49F1-B872-7EDF74180E42@bonfireproductions.co m>
	<37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
	<20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
	<B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
	<37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050724143722.05999008@unreasonable.com>

David Lubkin wrote:

>I'm surprised that anyone here would question its value, as Samantha did. 
>It is an extraordinarily useful skill, beyond its value in detecting error 
>in your own viewpoint.
         :

I apologize to anyone whose response to this posting is "Duh." It's hard 
for me to predict which of my insights are worth sharing and to whom. 
Sometimes I take for granted erroneously that everyone sees something 
that's clear to me; other times I have a sense of relevation which, when 
shared, leads my daughter to dub me Captain Obvious.


-- David.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 24 20:01:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <96b2e34ee4db260b3a2e52477c21b0fc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050724200156.26329.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
> >> literally conquer the world:
> >>
> >> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
> >>
> >>
> 
> Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on
> the roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
> 
> Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace is 
> recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish 
> mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't relevantly 
> like you.

If you actually read that report, the islamic group is only for fetal
cloning (twins), stem cell therapy, and transplanting non-critical
organs from live persons, everything else, most fertility treatment,
cloning for cryonicists, etc are all Haram. They are not on "our side".

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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 24 21:09:20 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <D23FD26A-35B8-44DD-AD7D-9097325EE617@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050724210920.1881.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>

I got a nice message offlist from spike concerning some of you complaining about my posts. 
So to add one more comment: I chose bisexuality as I aged because heterosexuality simply got boring. One might say that bisexuality can be considered a whole different category from homosexuality.
 
The only issue that matters to me in this context is freedom of choice, not inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, the survival of the species, or anything else related to the topic. 



		
---------------------------------
 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/20050724/dcff2a4b/attachment.html>

From stiger420 at hotmail.com  Sun Jul 24 21:26:19 2005
From: stiger420 at hotmail.com (david stiger)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:26:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back 
Message-ID: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>

I have been very ill for the past few days, and without internet access, so 
I am very pleased to have read my email and discovered that I am still a 
part of this group, which I do so respect.  In response to the 
Avantguardian's reply to my last post, I would like to clarify something.  
It was not the criticism of my idea's which was hindering my desire to keep 
posting etc.  It was the fear of being removed from the ExIlist for having 
expressed them.

I find this list mentally invigorating and quite possibly the greatest 
cerebral excercise I have ever encountered.  It is for that reason that I 
was afraid to post things that would warrant my expulsion.  Now that I am a 
little clearer on the parameters necessary for removal from the list, I will 
continue to post, but I will try to make sure that I structure my arguments 
soundly and with factual information.  And just so some of you (i.e. Eugen 
Lietl) don't cringe when you read this, I do not plan to post anymore 
KonspiracyKooks/Forteana worthy materials on the list.  I will try to keep 
it on-topic and reality based, although I do in fact believe my original 
post to have been as such.

Thanks to Matus for the suggested reading and the support.  I will be sure 
to pick both of those books up in short order.

Thanks to Gary Miller for this reply.  The responses I recieved have not 
shaken my ideas and I am glad to know I am not the only one of us who thinks 
that there is something sinister going on "behind the scenes" in the 
politics of the United States.

<Avantguardian>
For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of some
secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?
<Gary Miller>
It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil club creating a puppet 
than a
country that would select him of their free will!


David Stiger

"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The 
mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow 
blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his 
opinions courageously and honestly."  -Einstein




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 24 23:51:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back 
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050724235156.67125.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <Avantguardian>
> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of
> some secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?
> <Gary Miller>
> It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil club creating a
> puppet than a country that would select him of their free will!
> 

The thing to consider is all the intelligent people operating off of
different facts feel the same way about Kerry, and that despite all the
election fraud we saw by democrats on election day (that I witnessed
personally), the media blackout of libertarian candidates by the
liberal controlled media (that I witnessed personally), and the dirty
tricks by Democrats to keep Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist
candidates (plus Ralph Nader) off the ballot in as many places as
possible (that I witnessed personally), that despite the shenanigans by
union thugs in assaulting teenage girls campaigning for GOP candidates
(I witnessed this personally), and the hundreds of millions spent by
527 groups like those owned by George Soros, while citizen run 501c3
groups were muzzled by unconstitutional anti-speech laws, that enough
people got to the polls to prevent a theft of the election.

That all being said, what makes you think that, even if your paranoid
conspiracy theory was right, that Skull and Bones member John Kerry
would have been any LESS controlled by that secret society than Skull
and Bones member George Bush? Your statements here, like your
statements regarding faces on Mars, are not logically consistent.

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 25 00:01:44 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:01:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050724135343.045696b8@unreasonable.com>
References: <37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
	<20050723153056.94040.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050723142242.05142008@unreasonable.com>
	<B63A17F1-4970-493E-93D9-7139D89507A8@bonfireproductions.com>
	<37554F28-2CA0-490A-A641-58616FF17BAB@mac.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050724135343.045696b8@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <E8DB8344-5D87-4F22-8559-26B9026EA150@mac.com>


On Jul 24, 2005, at 11:21 AM, David Lubkin wrote:

> Bret wrote:
>
>
>> I try to do it, to understand where people are coming from.  
>> Honestly it scares me sometimes, I see someone I respect or at  
>> least suspect of intelligence and they have an incompatible  
>> opinion. "Playing things out" - can help especially when wanting  
>> to explain your side to people who of the opposite opinion.
>>
>
> I'm surprised that anyone here would question its value, as  
> Samantha did. It is an extraordinarily useful skill, beyond its  
> value in detecting error in your own viewpoint.
>

I question try intellectualizing of living issues of real people that  
leads more to head tripping one another than to understanding or  
wisdom.  That is a bit different from questioning the value of seeing  
multiple viewpoints which I in fact esteem highly.

- samantha
>





From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 00:42:06 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back 
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20050725004206.34060.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Gary Miller for this reply.  The responses
> I recieved have not 
> shaken my ideas and I am glad to know I am not the
> only one of us who thinks 
> that there is something sinister going on "behind
> the scenes" in the 
> politics of the United States.
> 
> <Avantguardian>
> For example, why would you need to think that Bush
> was a member of some
> secret society in order to cause all the misery he
> has?
> <Gary Miller>
> It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil
> club creating a puppet 
> than a
> country that would select him of their free will!

Welcome back, Dave. Ok, I am willing to entertain the
possibility of Bush being involved in a conspiracy.
The Masons don't make a lot of sense for it though.
You can't have a conspiracy of thousands, it just
doesn't work. Skull and Bones at Yale University (a
fraternity whose house looks like a mausoleum) makes a
lot more sense in this regard. They are supposedly a
recruiting grounds for the upper escalons of the
military/industrial/intelligence complex. 
      It is rumored that they bear some resemblance to
a necromantic cult of death worshippers but I doubt
that their members take their own propaganda
seriously. The symbol of the skull and bones itself
(the jolly roger) is ancient Egyptian in origin being
the bones of Osiris, god of the dead, but obviously
the college fraternity has no connection to ancient
Egypt.
     The important things that I can gather from
research of this highly secretive (all college
fraternities are) organization is:

1. They have recently allowed women in their ranks
making them less like a fraternity and are now instead
a co-ed organization.
2. They enforce secrecy amongst members by requiring
them to divulge secrets or perform acts that are of a
nature capable of being used in blackmail.
3. John Kerry who also went to Yale could very well be
a member.

Now while I agree that this is a very select elite
club, I don't know if it is necessarily a conspiracy.
No more than all the wars and intrigues of the middle
ages in Europe was the result a "conspiracy" between
the royalty of the various countries of Europe. The
over-class has always cooperated with one another to
keep the under-classes subdued, this is not an
organized conspiracy, it is just an aspect of
maintaining power. Powerful people make alliances and
break them as the wind blows. No conspiracies, just
the political game. One of the oldest games in the
world.

      

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 Jul 25 00:43:44 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:43:44 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <20050724200156.26329.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050724200156.26329.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ed3a0b66c007c23151da8c9974a72b31@aol.com>

I've made it a policy to never read a link sent by you.

R

On Jul 24, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
>>>> literally conquer the world:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on
>> the roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:
>>
>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>
>> Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace is
>> recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish
>> mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't relevantly
>> like you.
>
> If you actually read that report, the islamic group is only for fetal
> cloning (twins), stem cell therapy, and transplanting non-critical
> organs from live persons, everything else, most fertility treatment,
> cloning for cryonicists, etc are all Haram. They are not on "our side".
>
> 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 dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jul 25 00:49:32 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:49:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back
In-Reply-To: <20050725004206.34060.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050725004206.34060.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E4371C.4020005@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Thanks to Gary Miller for this reply.  The responses
>>I recieved have not 
>>shaken my ideas and I am glad to know I am not the
>>only one of us who thinks 
>>that there is something sinister going on "behind
>>the scenes" in the 
>>politics of the United States.
>>
>><Avantguardian>
>>For example, why would you need to think that Bush
>>was a member of some
>>secret society in order to cause all the misery he
>>has?
>><Gary Miller>
>>It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil
>>club creating a puppet 
>>than a
>>country that would select him of their free will!
>>    
>>
>
>Welcome back, Dave. Ok, I am willing to entertain the
>possibility of Bush being involved in a conspiracy.
>The Masons don't make a lot of sense for it though.
>You can't have a conspiracy of thousands, it just
>doesn't work. Skull and Bones at Yale University (a
>  
>
Of course it does, on several counts.
The first being an agreement to look after 'their own' preferentially 
thereby screwing anyone who stands for a meritocracy.
The second being the fostering of an atmosphere of secrecy.
The third being the use of both of the above to facilitate corruption.

-- 
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: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jul 25 00:59:08 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:59:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] bayesian chess program
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200507250101.j6P11CR10097@tick.javien.com>


The computer chess world is buzzing about this
Unix guru who claims he taught a Bayesian spam
filter to play chess, sort of.

http://dbacl.sourceforge.net/spam_chess-1.html

Bayesian gurus, I think it is a joke, but see 
what you make of it.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jul 25 01:05:22 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:05:22 -0700
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20050724062932.28747.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507250107.j6P17OR10694@tick.javien.com>

>... Thus they engage in penis fencing...

> The Avantguardian


Penis fencing?  What is that Avant?  You mean they
have sword fights with them?  owwww.  Or they 
attempt to sell stolen penises?  Double plus owwww.

{8^D

spike




From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Jul 25 01:09:40 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:09:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com>

david stiger wrote:
> 
> <Avantguardian>
> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of some
> secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?
> <Gary Miller>
> It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil club creating a 
> puppet than a country that would select him of their free will!

Let the record show that the reply attributed to Miller is stupid, wilfully 
irrational, and that deliberately embracing it is intellectual cowardice.

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 01:17:13 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <200507250107.j6P17OR10694@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050725011713.89602.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> >... Thus they engage in penis fencing...
> 
> > The Avantguardian
> 
> 
> Penis fencing?  What is that Avant?  You mean they
> have sword fights with them?  owwww.  Or they 
> attempt to sell stolen penises?  Double plus owwww.

Yeah I know it's hilarious but I didn't coin the term,
anthropologists did. The male bonobos rub their
penises together. I guess it's the bonobo equivalent
of "drop the soap". :)  

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  Mon Jul 25 01:16:14 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:16:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] earth humor
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200507250118.j6P1IMR11941@tick.javien.com>

The earth laughs in flowers. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I just got back from a motorcycle/backpacking vacation
at Mount Rainier.  They had just the right weather
conditions to have the most outrageous flower display
I have ever seen, in at least 30 times I have been
up there.  I am not really that much into wildflowers,
but this was something to see.  If you hustle on up
there in the next couple weeks you can still catch
it.  Gina Miller I think lives in that area, and
Robert Bradbury.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/233629_wildflowers22.html

spike






From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Mon Jul 25 01:21:50 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:21:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <ed3a0b66c007c23151da8c9974a72b31@aol.com>
References: <20050724200156.26329.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ed3a0b66c007c23151da8c9974a72b31@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42E43EAE.3070006@humanenhancement.com>

Actually, it was me who originally sent the link on the hard-core 
Islamist report, not Mike.

Personally, I've made it a policy to never read a post sent by Mike.

Joseph

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> I've made it a policy to never read a link sent by you.
>
> R
>
> On Jul 24, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
>>>>> literally conquer the world:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on
>>> the roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:
>>>
>>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>>
>>> Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace is
>>> recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish
>>> mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't relevantly
>>> like you.
>>
>>
>> If you actually read that report, the islamic group is only for fetal
>> cloning (twins), stem cell therapy, and transplanting non-critical
>> organs from live persons, everything else, most fertility treatment,
>> cloning for cryonicists, etc are all Haram. They are not on "our side".
>>
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon Jul 25 01:32:08 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:32:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] bayesian chess program
In-Reply-To: <200507250101.j6P11CR10097@tick.javien.com>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<200507250101.j6P11CR10097@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0507241832446f8587@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> The computer chess world is buzzing about this
> Unix guru who claims he taught a Bayesian spam
> filter to play chess, sort of.
> 
> http://dbacl.sourceforge.net/spam_chess-1.html
> 
> Bayesian gurus, I think it is a joke, but see
> what you make of it.

Nope, it's true. Note that it doesn't play at all well - marginally
better than random - the feat is that it can do it at all.

- Russell


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 02:07:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <ed3a0b66c007c23151da8c9974a72b31@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050725020728.37946.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thats mighty liberal of you Robbie-boy. Keep that mind open...

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

> I've made it a policy to never read a link sent by you.
> 
> R
> 
> On Jul 24, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
> >>>> literally conquer the world:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on
> >> the roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:
> >>
> >> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
> >>
> >> Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace
> is
> >> recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish
> >> mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't
> relevantly
> >> like you.
> >
> > If you actually read that report, the islamic group is only for
> fetal
> > cloning (twins), stem cell therapy, and transplanting non-critical
> > organs from live persons, everything else, most fertility
> treatment,
> > cloning for cryonicists, etc are all Haram. They are not on "our
> side".
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 aiguy at comcast.net  Mon Jul 25 04:29:38 2005
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:29:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back 
In-Reply-To: <20050725004206.34060.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507250429.j6P4TiR31918@tick.javien.com>

 
Avantguardian said:

"Now while I agree that this is a very select elite club, I don't know if it
is necessarily a conspiracy. No more than all the wars and intrigues of the
middle ages in Europe was the result a "conspiracy" between the royalty of
the various countries of Europe. The over-class has always cooperated with
one another to keep the under-classes subdued, this is not an organized
conspiracy, it is just an aspect of maintaining power. Powerful people make
alliances and break them as the wind blows. No conspiracies, just the
political game. One of the oldest games in the world."

Wordnet defines conspiracy as a secret agreement between two or more people
to perform an unlawful act.

I'm not sure what other actual laws are being broken if a secret
organization succeeds in initiating a war for it's own monetary enrichment,
but...  

Wordnet defines treason as a crime that undermines the offender's
government.

If the Skull and Bones had plans to initiate wars for profit and succeeded
then the entire membership who had knowledge of that plan would be guilty of
treason against the United States government.

This site and links about Kris Milligan the son of a Skull and Bones/CIA
operative leads one to believe that they first tried to initiate a war in
Cuba.  When that failed they had their hands in Vietnam and now Iraq.

It also indicates that Bush has 10 other Bonesmen in his administration.

If Kerry would have won they would still have been in power.  Kerry may have
ran for and thrown the election.  Could anyone really be that uncharismatic
and boring?  If he had won it would have be harder for him to carry out the
war agenda based on the platform he ran on.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305275.shtml

Complete List of Members:  http://ctrl.org/boodleboys/boodlemembersalpha.htm

60 Minutes Expose which occurred before Kerry was nominated:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/111803skullandbones.html

What better way to take over a government than from the inside with no shots
fired?

The fact that Kennedy was the only president to stop one of their wars and
was assassinated seems to open another possibility that I had never ever
considered.  I'll resist making that connection for now and leave it to the
readers own devices!




-----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, July 24, 2005 8:42 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back 



--- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Gary Miller for this reply.  The responses I recieved have 
> not shaken my ideas and I am glad to know I am not the only one of us 
> who thinks that there is something sinister going on "behind the 
> scenes" in the politics of the United States.
> 
> <Avantguardian>
> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of 
> some secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?
> <Gary Miller>
> It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil club creating a 
> puppet than a country that would select him of their free will!

Welcome back, Dave. Ok, I am willing to entertain the possibility of Bush
being involved in a conspiracy.
The Masons don't make a lot of sense for it though.
You can't have a conspiracy of thousands, it just doesn't work. Skull and
Bones at Yale University (a fraternity whose house looks like a mausoleum)
makes a lot more sense in this regard. They are supposedly a recruiting
grounds for the upper escalons of the military/industrial/intelligence
complex. 
      It is rumored that they bear some resemblance to a necromantic cult of
death worshippers but I doubt that their members take their own propaganda
seriously. The symbol of the skull and bones itself (the jolly roger) is
ancient Egyptian in origin being the bones of Osiris, god of the dead, but
obviously the college fraternity has no connection to ancient Egypt.
     The important things that I can gather from research of this highly
secretive (all college fraternities are) organization is:

1. They have recently allowed women in their ranks making them less like a
fraternity and are now instead a co-ed organization.
2. They enforce secrecy amongst members by requiring them to divulge secrets
or perform acts that are of a nature capable of being used in blackmail.
3. John Kerry who also went to Yale could very well be a member.

Now while I agree that this is a very select elite club, I don't know if it
is necessarily a conspiracy.
No more than all the wars and intrigues of the middle ages in Europe was the
result a "conspiracy" between the royalty of the various countries of
Europe. The over-class has always cooperated with one another to keep the
under-classes subdued, this is not an organized conspiracy, it is just an
aspect of maintaining power. Powerful people make alliances and break them
as the wind blows. No conspiracies, just the political game. One of the
oldest games in the world.

      

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 robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 25 07:09:55 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:09:55 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <20050725020728.37946.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050725020728.37946.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee1b8a28b275c1d00f17d53aea0c3273@aol.com>

Sorry, you took the bait.  Instead of calling for the resignation of 
your opposing party, you defended them.  You're not even an opposing 
party...

You could have not taken the bait, but you did.  I wasn't surprised, 
but up until then I was at least hopeful.  I thought, maybe, just maybe 
there's a kind-hearted man behind all the lies and hate.  But no, 
there's just a sleazy political apologist doing the dirty work of the 
national machinery.

Just be a republican.  Stop trying to pretend to rebel from your mommy 
and grow up.  Admit you hate poor people and enjoy the ensuing 
satisfaction of watching the organized repression we call government.

Robbie

PS - I'm certainly NOT a liberal!  I can refer you to an excellent book 
by Istvan Meszaros called "The Power of Ideology" - he's a neo-Marxist 
so you're likely not to enjoy it - but remember the maxim "know they 
enemy".  I don't agree with much of what he says, but I agree with the 
generalized outlook of thinking of government as a human phenomena to 
be studied scientifically and ideology as an outgrowth of that 
phenomena.  Where I split from the Marxists is that I don't believe 
that labour is able to effectively organize against capitalistic 
domination and so some variety of Armageddon will eventually result as 
the intrinsic contradictions found within capitalism destroy it from 
the inside - in particular as the attempted legitimization of 
repression continues it will find itself increasingly opposed by the 
enemies it creates and increasingly unable to stave off the throngs of 
disenfranchised people willing and able to turn to violence.  As the 
enemies it creates become, more and more, non-state-like entities they 
will be more difficult to fight because more difficult to identify 
until either an Hitlerian "final solution" will have to be offered by 
the imperialistic side or the terrorism resulting from the enemies 
created in the worldwide labor classes will bring global capitalism to 
a halt (assuming peak oil or some other natural phenomenon doesn't get 
there first).  A little doom and gloom for your sunday evening.


On Jul 24, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Thats mighty liberal of you Robbie-boy. Keep that mind open...
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I've made it a policy to never read a link sent by you.
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  From the folks who want to re-establish the Caliphate and quite
>>>>>> literally conquer the world:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/pdfs/cloning.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oy vey, and here they are on "our side" - and look at the names on
>>>> the roster, a veritable who's who of the Republican Party:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>>>
>>>> Remember, our "them" is their "us".  The first step toward peace
>> is
>>>> recognizing your enemy is relevantly like you.  The most foolish
>>>> mistakes made in war are when you think your enemy isn't
>> relevantly
>>>> like you.
>>>
>>> If you actually read that report, the islamic group is only for
>> fetal
>>> cloning (twins), stem cell therapy, and transplanting non-critical
>>> organs from live persons, everything else, most fertility
>> treatment,
>>> cloning for cryonicists, etc are all Haram. They are not on "our
>> side".
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jul 25 09:35:20 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:35:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back
In-Reply-To: <20050724235156.67125.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050724235156.67125.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C49F0CD0-11AD-4CE5-B660-D29A4FB73726@mac.com>


On Jul 24, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- david stiger <stiger420 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> <Avantguardian>
>> For example, why would you need to think that Bush was a member of
>> some secret society in order to cause all the misery he has?
>> <Gary Miller>
>> It is more comforting for me to believe in an evil club creating a
>> puppet than a country that would select him of their free will!
>>
>>
>
> The thing to consider is all the intelligent people operating off of
> different facts feel the same way about Kerry, and that despite all  
> the
> election fraud we saw by democrats on election day (that I witnessed
> personally), the media blackout of libertarian candidates by the
> liberal controlled media (that I witnessed personally), and the dirty

I agree that the libertarians were ignored by the media.  However the  
media are these days primarily toadies to government power first and  
corporate power second.  These are not the liberals or Democrats.

> tricks by Democrats to keep Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist
> candidates (plus Ralph Nader) off the ballot in as many places as
> possible (that I witnessed personally), that despite the  
> shenanigans by
> union thugs in assaulting teenage girls campaigning for GOP candidates

You don't think the GOP was just as in to limiting third parties?  Do  
you really believe there is any real difference worth caring about  
between the major parties any more?

- samantha




From amara at amara.com  Mon Jul 25 11:55:37 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:55:37 +0200
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
Message-ID: <p06210201bf0a8363cf60@[23.237.66.13]>

spike
>Penis fencing?  What is that Avant?

 From my Stranger than Fiction Page

http://www.amara.com/stranger/str_fiction.html

---------------------------

What Would Darwin Say ..?

Austrailia's Great Barrier Reef:

The flatworm Pseudoceros bifurcus is no romantic. When it wants sex,
it simply rears up and stabs its mate with its penis. Because it a
hermaphroditic species, its mate has a penis too, so it may get a jab
in return. This leads to an unusual foreplay ritual that its
discoverers in Germany have dubbed penis fencing.

Nicolaas Michiels and Leslie Newman of the Max Planck Institute for
Behavioural Physiology in Seewiesen stumbled upon the 6-centimeter
worm in the sea off Heron Island at the southern end of Austrailia's
Great Barrier Reef. For 20 hours they observed 16 pairs of worms,
which they had housed in ice-cream tubs.

At first, the animals were unable to find each other and did nothing.
But when the worms happened to meet, they started sexual fencing bouts
that lasted up to an hour. The two animals would sit up and try to
inject sperm into each other. Only about one out of six strikes leads
to successful insemination, says Michiels, who calls the behavior
"brutally inefficient." The animals are left severely wounded, with
prominent punctures.


---------------------------


-- 

********************************************************************
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 amara at amara.com  Mon Jul 25 17:09:03 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:09:03 +0200
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
Message-ID: <p06210200bf0acce4ada0@[150.146.134.133]>

spike
>Penis fencing?  What is that Avant?

And
Here is a movie of it...

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2458366?htv=12

(I wrote)
>The flatworm Pseudoceros bifurcus is no romantic. When it wants sex,
>it simply rears up and stabs its mate with its penis. Because it a
>hermaphroditic species, its mate has a penis too, so it may get a jab
>in return. This leads to an unusual foreplay ritual that its
>discoverers in Germany have dubbed penis fencing.

-- 

********************************************************************
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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 17:16:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ultra-hard-line Islam report on bioethics
In-Reply-To: <ee1b8a28b275c1d00f17d53aea0c3273@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050725171602.3001.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ah, finally smoked you out. You are, then, a bakuninist, not a
Libertarian of the pure anarcho-capitalist variety, though I do have
quotes by you describing yourself as a "liberal-libertarian". What you
apparently are is one of those left-anarchists, like the luddites at
TAO, the IWW, and the Ruckus Society.

Folks, I hold here for your edification one example of an entryist:

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

> Sorry, you took the bait.  Instead of calling for the resignation of 
> your opposing party, you defended them.  You're not even an opposing 
> party...
> 
> You could have not taken the bait, but you did.  I wasn't surprised, 
> but up until then I was at least hopeful.  I thought, maybe, just
> maybe 
> there's a kind-hearted man behind all the lies and hate.  But no, 
> there's just a sleazy political apologist doing the dirty work of the
> national machinery.
> 
> Just be a republican.  Stop trying to pretend to rebel from your
> mommy and grow up.  Admit you hate poor people and enjoy the ensuing 
> satisfaction of watching the organized repression we call government.
> 
> Robbie
> 
> PS - I'm certainly NOT a liberal!  I can refer you to an excellent
> book by Istvan Meszaros called "The Power of Ideology" - he's a
> neo-Marxist so you're likely not to enjoy it - but remember the
> maxim "know they enemy".  I don't agree with much of what he says,
> but I agree with the generalized outlook of thinking of government
> as a human phenomena to be studied scientifically and ideology as
> an outgrowth of that phenomena. Where I split from the Marxists is
> that I don't believe that labour is able to effectively organize
> against capitalistic domination and so some variety of Armageddon
> will eventually result as the intrinsic contradictions found within
> capitalism destroy it from the inside - in particular as the
> attempted legitimization of repression continues it will find
> itself increasingly opposed by the enemies it creates and
> increasingly unable to stave off the throngs of disenfranchised
> people willing and able to turn to violence. As the enemies it
> creates become, more and more, non-state-like entities they 
> will be more difficult to fight because more difficult to identify 
> until either an Hitlerian "final solution" will have to be offered by
> the imperialistic side or the terrorism resulting from the enemies 
> created in the worldwide labor classes will bring global capitalism
> to a halt (assuming peak oil or some other natural phenomenon doesn't
> get there first).  A little doom and gloom for your sunday evening.
> 

Robbie, a Libertarian shouldn't be in a position of "splitting" from
Marxists, a Libertarian should be wholly opposed to Marxism. Thus you
are in no position to be demanding my resignation from anything. You
are merely one more of those exclusionary entryist radical left punks.
For a while I thought you were merely one of Smith's Kool-aid sippers,
but the truth is apparently worse than I expected.

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  Mon Jul 25 17:28:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Glad to be back
In-Reply-To: <C49F0CD0-11AD-4CE5-B660-D29A4FB73726@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050725172828.93292.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 24, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > different facts feel the same way about Kerry, and that despite all
> > the election fraud we saw by democrats on election day (that I
> witnessed
> > personally), the media blackout of libertarian candidates by the
> > liberal controlled media (that I witnessed personally), and the
> dirty
> 
> I agree that the libertarians were ignored by the media.  However the
> media are these days primarily toadies to government power first and 
> corporate power second.  These are not the liberals or Democrats.

I beg to differ. Examination of the party registration of reporters and
editors in the media is clearly lopsided, about 3 to 1, in favor of the
Democrats.

> 
> > tricks by Democrats to keep Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist
> > candidates (plus Ralph Nader) off the ballot in as many places as
> > possible (that I witnessed personally), that despite the  
> > shenanigans by
> > union thugs in assaulting teenage girls campaigning for GOP
> candidates
> 
> You don't think the GOP was just as in to limiting third parties?  Do
> you really believe there is any real difference worth caring about  
> between the major parties any more?

Last time I checked, the GOP had no union thugs to do their dirty work,
and from my discussions with Naders lawyers, they told me clearly that
the Democrats across the country were doing all sorts of dirty tricks
to keep Ralph off the ballot, with no problems from the GOP, in fact,
the GOP was in many cases helping Naderites with their ballot
petitioning. We saw similar actions against us by the Dems, and no
state LP affiliate reported any problems with the GOP.

>From my experience, the GOP has a real aversion to such election
tricks, because their experience from the past is that the media will
gladly print any story of them doing such tricks, but will torpedo
stories of Democrats doing the same. For example, the son of the NH
state Dem vice-chair was caught by police several elections ago with a
car full of GOP and Libertarian candidate election signs he'd stolen.
That story never made it in the papers.

I am sure that the GOP has a record in the past of doing such things,
but has generally been turned away from it by the focus of the media.
The media refuses to give the Dems similar treatment and thus their
shenanigans are going unchecked and rampant.

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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 18:19:14 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Dobson, Smarmaster General
Message-ID: <20050725181914.85142.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

Dobson's Focus On The Family:
1,300 Employees
55,000 outgoing letter replies per week
6,000 facilities carry Dobson's weekly broadcasts
2.3 million subscribe to at least one of Focus On The Family magazines
1,500 Focus On The Family therapists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moral Majority has long been gone, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are very old men, and James Dobson is the King of Smarm in America. Ironically, his mentor at the Los Angeles based American Institute Of Family Relations four decades ago, Paul Popenoe, was a secular humanist and eugenics advocate. Popenoe co-authored 'Applied Eugenics' in 1918, advocating "good breeding" and the sterilization of retarded and mentally ill patients at California hospitals. After Nazi medical atrocities became known at the end of WWII, public interest in eugenics declined and Popenoe moved on to what are now called 'family values' . Neo-Victorian child-rearing became more attractive to Popenoe as society gradually became less traditional-family- oriented in postwar America, though Popenoe was never himself religious. Thus Popenoe became surrounded by very religious men such as James Dobson. Dobson moved FOTF to Colorado from California in the early '80s, but refused to take sides in the election of
 '92, saying he wouldn't marry a politician for fear of becoming a political "widow" for four years. In this decade Dobson helped get president George W. Bush elected and re-elected, but at a price to Republicans, Dobson demands Republicans fight stem cell research,  abortion,  gay marriage, obscenity, and last but not at all least, secularism. Most of all, Dobson desires the appointment of  Supreme Court Justices who will toe the Religious Right's line. Dobson, holding a PhD in psychology, is no minister or politician-- yet he helps orchestrate a religiously-oriented political movement of unsurpassed power, a movement that in more liberal times might have been called reactionary but is today merely considered 'conservative'. 
You will be hearing more about Dobson in the years to come.
 
 
 
 
 
 







		
---------------------------------
 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/20050725/df1b9520/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 25 19:16:08 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:16:08 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050725171602.3001.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050725171602.3001.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E53A78.5090506@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Ah, finally smoked you out. You are, then, a bakuninist, not a
>Libertarian of the pure anarcho-capitalist variety, though I do have
>quotes by you describing yourself as a "liberal-libertarian".
>

I'm a bottom-up libertarian.  I believe you should free the people first 
by deregulating the violently protected large business interests.

I'm "liberal" in that I fundamentally believe that politics OUGHT to 
echo ethics and my ethics says "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let 
whoever is without sin cast the first stone".  I'm a genuinely 
free-market capitalist - e.g. no government regulation of exchange 
including protection of property rights and forms of money.  If someone 
wants to run a bank and print their own money, good for them!

Some people strangely enough interpret this as "liberalism" even though 
it's not correct.  Strictly speaking, I'm a free-market anarchist with a 
heart who recognizes that in the current state of political repression 
of the poor by the ultra-powerful and ultra-wealthy that pragmatism is 
in order.  For this reason it would be useful if the libertarian party 
were to truly embrace it's personal and financial freedom message and be 
the opposition party it should be.

> What you
>apparently are is one of those left-anarchists, like the luddites at
>TAO, the IWW, and the Ruckus Society.
>  
>

Up until last year I was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party 
of California.  I am, obviously, no longer.  I realized that the whole 
druidism, gerbil, randianism and marijuana thing wasn't ever going to 
change because people-like-you are running the party apparently in order 
to keep it from becoming a genuine opposition party.


>Robbie, a Libertarian shouldn't be in a position of "splitting" from
>Marxists,
>

A libertarian who scientifically evaluates political situations should 
look at all of the available theories and Marxist analysis remains a 
viable meta-political theory.  There is still not, I assume, a 
requirement that all libertarians be randian Objectivists, right?   Or 
have you finally got your way.  In fact, recognizing that Political 
power derives from material (economic) conditions is probably a first 
step toward understanding anything.

> a Libertarian should be wholly opposed to Marxism.
>

One ought to distinguish between Marxist political and economic analysis 
and fomenting violent revolution by stirring up the masses to kill their 
capitalist oppressors.  Obviously, qua non-violent political part, 
Libertarians can not be the latter type of Marxists, however this 
wouldn't prevent them from simply noting that parts of the theoretical 
system of marxism is simply true.

> Thus you
>are in no position to be demanding my resignation from anything. 
>

I am, you are one of the reasons that the libertarian party is failing 
miserably at doing anything useful for the people of our country.  
You're making a joke of it and as such you should step down simply as a 
matter of pride.  You should cease to involve yourself in national or 
local poltical affairs because your involvement remains an embarrassment 
not only to your party but also your unfortunate family.

>You
>are merely one more of those exclusionary entryist radical left punks,
>  
>
You're not a very good name-caller.  If you want to really hurt someone, 
you have to say something true.  You're an imperialist protectionist 
republican in disguise providing nothing more than an psychological 
outlet for spoiled rich children of the Alex P. Keaton sort who want to 
rebel from their parents but wouldn't be caught dead helping poor 
people.  You don't understand enough about political or moral theory to 
adequately identify some other person's of view much less understand 
it.  You are unable to convince anyone who disagrees with you of your 
political ideas because you're obviously a sell-out who doesn't care 
about the people who would be your constituency and can't adequately 
articulate your position or why anyone else would be interested in 
accepting it.

For all of these reasons, you should resign from public life altogether 
- if you -really- must find something to do restrict your activity to 
working for some imperialist appologetics think-tank somewhere.   This 
would be what Sartre would call "good faith" (well, for you anyway, at 
least you'd be "being yourself"). Maybe you should join the Masons or 
perhaps enlist in the military and do some of the killing and/or dying 
you're encouraging others to do.

Robbie Lindauer





From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 19:55:47 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E53A78.5090506@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050725195547.60252.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

Always keep in mind so many of the poor are 'violently protective' of them and theirs, and don't blame this on their being "brutalized" as Marxists automatically claim they are. I have associated with the poor since leaving home in '76, have seen exactly how the rich are different from the rest of us; Mencken pointed out the rich have more money, which is the only discernable difference-- the ethics of the rich being no lower than the poor. 
There is a widespread assumption that since the poor are much lower down economically they are nobler, when such is not at all the case. How many of you have hung out longterm with the poor, talked to them regularly, probed deeply into the way they think? It's not a matter of pride having been with the poor, it has been nothing but entirely depressing.
There is nothing noble about poverty or the poor, except in the minds of romanticizers. It's not good form to beg, but I beg you to understand these claims come from almost thirty years experience.


 >You're an imperialist protectionist 
>republican in disguise providing nothing more than an psychological 
>outlet for spoiled rich children of the Alex P. Keaton sort who want to 
.rebel from their parents but wouldn't be caught dead helping poor 
>people. 

		
---------------------------------
 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/20050725/38bceb40/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Mon Jul 25 21:14:48 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:14:48 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050725195547.60252.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050725195547.60252.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E55648.3080702@aol.com>

I don't morally romanticize poor people.  I just don't lay all of the 
blame for their poverty on them - our social system creates the 
circumstances in which some people become very wealthy and others very 
poor and a "middle class" that thinks it's rich (mostly because of the 
government-sponsored public 'education' system) but really has nothing 
at all (mostly because of the government-sponsored economic system). 

Poor people are not somehonw more deserving of help than other (rich) 
people because they're morally superior but rather because they (we, I 
should say, I'm not what you'd call rich over here but I'm not asking 
for handouts) have a need and it is our responsibility as humans to help 
our brothers and sisters in need.  On the other hand, the 
extraordinarily powerful and incidentally wealthy war mongers that run 
our country do morally reprehensible things when they perpetuate the 
poverty of the poor in order to feed their war machine and solidify 
their own power.  It's -theoretically- possible to do good and be 
wealthy.  If you use your wealth to lift other people out of poverty or 
cure sick people or stop wars, etc., those are all good things.  I 
believe that the CEO of World Vision is wealthy, but he apparently uses 
his power and wealth to feed a lot of people, it's commendable.  One 
can't expect anyone to be perfect - to do always and only the absolute 
best thing they could do.  So if he wants to have a Martini and Duck a 
L'orange for dinner, it's possible that that's just the price we have to 
pay for having someone like that around.  OTOH, someone who creates 
their wealth by exploiting workers in southeast asia who then turns 
around and donates toke amounts to local community events doesn't get 
much sympathy for me.  Is there an absolute line?  No.  Should there 
be?  No.

In our present situation, however, some evil people have taken over the 
government and it is consequently important to do something about it.

As for "marxists automatically claim" - remember that "marxists" are 
people, like you.  People are different, even marxists and other people 
you may not like.  There is no predicting on the basis of someone's 
Marxism exactly what they'll say on any particular occasion.  There are 
as many different Marxist interpretations as there are intepretors.  I 
know a self-identifying marxist (which I am not, btw - I believe some of 
the social analysis to be relevant and useful) who supports the Bush 
Administration (and rightly so, the Bush administration is the closest 
to an absolutist socialist we've had as President of the US - just 
without the claimed good intentions), for instance.

Robbie


Al Brooks wrote:

> Always keep in mind so many of the poor are 'violently protective' of 
> them and theirs, and don't blame this on their being "brutalized" as 
> Marxists automatically claim they are. I have associated with the poor 
> since leaving home in '76, have seen exactly how the rich are 
> different from the rest of us; Mencken pointed out the rich have more 
> money, which is the only discernable difference-- the ethics of the 
> rich being no lower than the poor.
> There is a widespread assumption that since the poor are much lower 
> down economically they are nobler, when such is not at all the case. 
> How many of you have hung out longterm with the poor, talked to them 
> regularly, probed deeply into the way they think? It's not a matter of 
> pride having been with the poor, it has been nothing but entirely 
> depressing.
> There is nothing noble about poverty or the poor, except in the minds 
> of romanticizers. It's not good form to beg, but I beg you to 
> understand these claims come from almost thirty years experience.
>
>
>  >You're an imperialist protectionist
> >republican in disguise providing nothing more than an psychological
> >outlet for spoiled rich children of the Alex P. Keaton sort who want to
> .rebel from their parents but wouldn't be caught dead helping poor
> >people.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 21:53:45 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E55648.3080702@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050725215345.71271.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

 I don't know the wealthy but I'm becoming convinced the situation at the bottom is too complicated & intractable. The more you peer directly into it the more it appears as a result of near-chaotic thinking at the bottom, and a self-perpetuating morass in general. No exaggeration. 
How many generations would it take to change it? 3, 4, 5?


I don't morally romanticize poor people. I just don't lay all of the 
blame for their poverty on them - our social system creates the 
circumstances in which some people become very wealthy and others very 
poor and a "middle class" that thinks it's rich (mostly because of the 
government-sponsored public 'education' system) but really has nothing 
at all (mostly because of the government-sponsored economic system). 

Poor people are not somehonw more deserving of help than other (rich) 
people because they're morally superior but rather because they (we, I 
should say, I'm not what you'd call rich over here but I'm not asking 
for handouts) have a need and it is our responsibility as humans to help 
our brothers and sisters in need. On the other hand, the 
extraordinarily powerful and incidentally wealthy war mongers that run 
our country do morally reprehensible things when they perpetuate the 
poverty of the poor in order to feed their war machine and solidify 
their own power. It's -theoretically- possible to do good and be 
wealthy. If you use your wealth to lift other people out of poverty or 
cure sick people or stop wars, etc., those are all good things. I 
believe that the CEO of World Vision is wealthy, but he apparently uses 
his power and wealth to feed a lot of people, it's commendable. One 
can't expect anyone to be perfect - to do always and only the absolute 
best thing they could do. So if he wants to have a Martini and Duck a 
L'orange for dinner, it's possible that that's just the price we have to 
pay for having someone like that around. OTOH, someone who creates 
their wealth by exploiting workers in southeast asia who then turns 
around and donates toke amounts to local community events doesn't get 
much sympathy for me. Is there an absolute line? No. Should there 
be? No.

In our present situation, however, some evil people have taken over the 
government and it is consequently important to do something about it.

As for "marxists automatically claim" - remember that "marxists" are 
people, like you. People are different, even marxists and other people 
you may not like. There is no predicting on the basis of someone's 
Marxism exactly what they'll say on any particular occasion. There are 
as many different Marxist interpretations as there are intepretors. I 
know a self-identifying marxist (which I am not, btw - I believe some of 
the social analysis to be relevant and useful) who supports the Bush 
Administration (and rightly so, the Bush administration is the closest 
to an absolutist socialist we've had as President of the US - just 
without the claimed good intentions), for instance.

Robbie


Al Brooks wrote:

> Always keep in mind so many of the poor are 'violently protective' of 
> them and theirs, and don't blame this on their being "brutalized" as 
> Marxists automatically claim they are. I have associated with the poor 
> since leaving home in '76, have seen exactly how the rich are 
> different from the rest of us; Mencken pointed out the rich have more 
> money, which is the only discernable difference-- the ethics of the 
> rich being no lower than the poor.
> There is a widespread assumption that since the poor are much lower 
> down economically they are nobler, when such is not at all the case. 
> How many of you have hung out longterm with the poor, talked to them 
> regularly, probed deeply into the way they think? It's not a matter of 
> pride having been with the poor, it has been nothing but entirely 
> depressing.
> There is nothing noble about poverty or the poor, except in the minds 
> of romanticizers. It's not good form to beg, but I beg you to 
> understand these claims come from almost thirty years experience.
>
>
> >You're an imperialist protectionist
> >republican in disguise providing nothing more than an psychological
> >outlet for spoiled rich children of the Alex P. Keaton sort who want to
> .rebel from their parents but wouldn't be caught dead helping poor
> >people.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

__________________________________________________
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/20050725/11564cb7/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 00:18:23 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain,
	a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.
In-Reply-To: <p06210200bf0acce4ada0@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20050726001824.45197.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> spike
> >Penis fencing?  What is that Avant?
> 
> And
> Here is a movie of it...
> 
> http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2458366?htv=12
> 
> (I wrote)
> >The flatworm Pseudoceros bifurcus is no romantic.
> When it wants sex,
> >it simply rears up and stabs its mate with its
> penis. Because it a
> >hermaphroditic species, its mate has a penis too,
> so it may get a jab
> >in return. This leads to an unusual foreplay ritual
> that its
> >discoverers in Germany have dubbed penis fencing.

Wow. Thats some film. I don't think I ever seen
flatworms move that fast and boy are those penises
sinister looking. It makes perfect evolutionary sense
to me though, two hermaphroditic flatworms duking it
out to see who impregnates whom. Maybe making love and
making war are not so different as one may think.


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 Jul 26 00:55:23 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050725215345.71271.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

>  I don't know the wealthy but I'm becoming convinced
> the situation at the bottom is too complicated &
> intractable. The more you peer directly into it the
> more it appears as a result of near-chaotic thinking
> at the bottom, and a self-perpetuating morass in
> general. No exaggeration. 
> How many generations would it take to change it? 3,
> 4, 5?

Once about 15 years ago after I got out of the
military but before I started college, I was working
as an assistant manager at a videotape rental store in
downtown san francisco. There was a homeless guy who
pan-handled on the corner a few buildings over. Every
day when I was walking home from work, he would ask me
for change.
     One day it turned out that I had to let one of
the clerks at the store go and it left me short
handed. The manager put me in charge of hiring a
replacement for the vacant position. On the way home
that night, Darryl the homeless guy did the usual
routine of asking me for change. I asked him if he
wanted a job instead. He said yes, thats why he was
homeless because he could not find work. I told him I
would give him a job, he just had to show up by noon
the following day at the video store less than a block
away. It did not pay great but, it was significantly
more than minimum wage and would get him off of the
street. He said he would be there and seemed to be
enthusiastic when I left him that night. 
     The next day, noon rolled around and Daryl never
showed up. I ended up hiring someone else for the job.
That night as I was walking home, I saw Darryl on his
usual street corner. He saw me but this time he didn't
ask me for change nor did he ever ask me for change
again. We didn't really talk much after that incident,
it was awkward for the both of us.
     I am not going to pass judgement on the poor nor
will I say that Darryl was "typical" of the homeless,
but the sheer depth of the problem is nicely
illustrated by my own experience. Say what ill you
will of the "system" as it stands, it still allows for
people to succeed if they are willing to work at it. I
am doing science at a big university now, but I was
not always part of the middle class. Sure, there was
adversity I had to overcome to get to where I am, but
it is hardly impossible and I don't think I am all
that special or exceptional because I made it. 
     Anyone can make it here in America, if they WANT
to. The guy Darryl was supposed to replace was an
immigrant from Nicaragua named Mitch. He quit his job
at the video store to start his own carpet cleaning
business with a friend. Last of I heard of him, this
guy had about half a dozen vans and a dozen employees
cleaning carpets in San Francisco for him. In this
world there are Mitches and Darryls, and the Mitches
should not be blamed for or have to spoon feed the
Darryls, especially when the Darryls are perfectly
capable of contributing to society but instead choose
not 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


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


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 01:04:16 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] this is the outline
In-Reply-To: <20050726001824.45197.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726010416.65939.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

a mythology built up inside the underclass goes like
this:

The Illuminati telekinetically directs
neoconservative/neoliberal socialist-communist
monopoly financiers to utilize the United Nations to
piece together, nation-by-nation, a One World
government (The New World Order). But all is not lost:
on Judgement Day there will be a rectification. 
And Islamics say on Judgement Day all the swine will
be killed.
Because they have cloven hooves and are very Unclean.



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


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 01:21:23 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:21:23 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050725215345.71271.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050725215345.71271.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E59013.5050608@aol.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

>  I don't know the wealthy but I'm becoming convinced the situation at 
> the bottom is too complicated & intractable.


If there were an undefeatable ogre who took as his tax three virgins per 
year would the fact that he was undefeatable make you not try to save 
the virgins?  If there were 100 strong men in the country shouldn't they 
grab their pitchforks?  What about when they come for your daughter?

> The more you peer directly into it the more it appears as a result of 
> near-chaotic thinking at the bottom, and a self-perpetuating morass in 
> general

Perhaps you're missing the forest for the trees.  If you look at the big 
picture it becomes relatively clear why the poor are poor and rich, rich 
- ruthless cunning and sheeplike stupidity aligning with a little good 
and bad luck.

> . No exaggeration.
> How many generations would it take to change it? 3, 4, 5?


"The poor will always be with us."

Robbie


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 26 01:28:52 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:28:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1C50FF9A-4B18-4B00-8944-6CA2769673F3@mac.com>


On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>      Anyone can make it here in America, if they WANT
> to.

That's a nice little unfalsifiable assertion.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050725/55a80d09/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 26 01:39:03 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:39:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E59013.5050608@aol.com>
References: <20050725215345.71271.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42E59013.5050608@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42E59437.6040601@neopax.com>

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Al Brooks wrote:
>
>>  I don't know the wealthy but I'm becoming convinced the situation at 
>> the bottom is too complicated & intractable.
>
>
>
> If there were an undefeatable ogre who took as his tax three virgins 
> per year would the fact that he was undefeatable make you not try to 
> save the virgins?  If there were 100 strong men in the country 
> shouldn't they grab their pitchforks?  What about when they come for 
> your daughter?
>
>> The more you peer directly into it the more it appears as a result of 
>> near-chaotic thinking at the bottom, and a self-perpetuating morass 
>> in general
>
>
> Perhaps you're missing the forest for the trees.  If you look at the 
> big picture it becomes relatively clear why the poor are poor and 
> rich, rich - ruthless cunning and sheeplike stupidity aligning with a 
> little good and bad luck.
>
>> . No exaggeration.
>> How many generations would it take to change it? 3, 4, 5?
>
>
>
> "The poor will always be with us."
>
It's less a question of rich v poor than of the distribution of wealth 
through a society.
Japan is not a worse place to live than the US, and its wealth is spread 
far more evenly across the people.
The notion that the rich make the rules and that the rules should exist 
to screw the last penny out of the poor to line their own pockets is not 
a system worthy of praise. What Bill Gates does is NOT worth 100,000x  
that of  some guy who cleans the public toilets or carries out the trash.

-- 
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: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 01:40:56 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E59013.5050608@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050726014056.74905.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

Oh, sure. The poor have to do what they must to
survive and try to get ahead. Poverty remains self
perpetuating 'only' for the near future. Successive
generations can develop affluence, and those who have
what it takes can become posthuman. 
What I have doubts about, just for starters, is union
activity. Unions in the 20th century helped raise the
standard of living for laborers; the negative result
was infiltration by mobsters-- and the other
consequences.


> 
> If there were an undefeatable ogre who took as his
> tax three virgins per 
> year would the fact that he was undefeatable make
> you not try to save 
> the virgins?  If there were 100 strong men in the
> country shouldn't they 
> grab their pitchforks?  What about when they come
> for your daughter?


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 01:54:17 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E59013.5050608@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050726015417.25472.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Perhaps I'm more or less pessimistic because of my
age. In 1967 I was eleven and the world appeared to be
a place of unlimited possibilities. It could be many
or most healthy eleven year olds in 2005 perceive the
world in a positive way. When is the last time any of
us asked children and teens if they see the future as
being positive? if they see the future as offering
unlimited possibilities?
Many youths undoubtedly do. If I were 17 knowing what
I know, a positive attitude would be the norm. At the
age of 97 perhaps a negative attitude would predominate.

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 02:52:05 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E59437.6040601@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050726025205.19123.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:


> It's less a question of rich v poor than of the
> distribution of wealth 
> through a society.
> Japan is not a worse place to live than the US, and
> its wealth is spread 
> far more evenly across the people.

Yes, the distribution of wealth in the U.S. has gotten
out of hand. I think that it started during the 1980's
when "mergers and aquisitions" came into vogue as way
for corporations to avoid paying their taxes. I don't
know how to change it though. You could change the
laws and come up with a new system, but then the
greedy and ruthless would just come up with a way to
rape the new system as well. Just like what happened
in the U.S.S.R.

> The notion that the rich make the rules and that the
> rules should exist 
> to screw the last penny out of the poor to line
> their own pockets is not 
> a system worthy of praise.

Where is there where the rich don't make the rules? I
don't believe any laws are explicitly for the purpose
of screwing the poor. Take away every politician,
judge, lawyer, and policeman and I think that the
unregulated free market would STILL try to take the
poor's last penny. It's not just the "rules", it's
every part and parcel of society from big companies
all the way down to your annoying neighbor trying to
sell you life insurance. Let's face it, with the
exception of lovers, close friends, and family, the
only "value" that the average person holds for his
fellow man is as a employer, customer, client, mark,
or victim all of whom need to be relieved of their
hard won cash.     

> What Bill Gates does is
> NOT worth 100,000x  
> that of  some guy who cleans the public toilets or
> carries out the trash.

No, in fact I would much rather do without a computer
than have to live amidst my own trash, so on that
account the garbage man is MORE important than Bill
Gates to the health and welfare of the average
citizen. That aside however, I no longer hate Bill
Gates or even envy him all that much. To me Bill Gates
is not so bad as entrepeneurs come. He is surely a
breed above the likes of the Dick Cheneys of the world
in that Gates never killed anyone to make his fortune,
whereas the only way Cheney et. al.  make their money
is from the violent deaths of or, in the case of
Enron, the wholesale robbery of others. Hell George
Bush has probably killed more Texans than Santa Ana.
     The problem is that I don't know how you can
discourage the Gateses and the Cheneys of the world
without absolutely devastating the little guys that
dream big and the small business owners. 

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 robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 02:52:41 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:52:41 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726014056.74905.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726014056.74905.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E5A579.5080004@aol.com>

Al Brooks wrote:

>Oh, sure. The poor have to do what they must to
>survive and try to get ahead. Poverty remains self
>perpetuating 'only' for the near future. Successive
>generations can develop affluence, and those who have
>what it takes can become posthuman. 
>  
>

It's an interesting way of putting the problem.

If our world remains energy-poor, it's unlikely that any but a small 
minority will be able to achieve long-term life.  I daresay they'll have 
to do so at the expense of other worthwhile projects, again, like 
helping the helpless.

You know, I've found people are only helpless until someone helps them.

>What I have doubts about, just for starters, is union
>activity. 
>

Oy vey.  I have doubts about guns.  Look, if you're going to create a 
dung-hole, you're going to get some bacteria swimming around in there.  
This is, perhaps, the essential insight of dialectical materialism - the 
social conditions of humanity shape the humans that are produced in that 
era. 

>Unions in the 20th century helped raise the
>standard of living for laborers; the negative result
>was infiltration by mobsters-- and the other
>consequences.
>  
>

You mean like Las Vegas?  Why is this more of a problem than the 
existence -at all- of the military industrial complex?  As I see it, 
there are gangsters in charge of the country.

Robbie Lindauer

>
>  
>
>>If there were an undefeatable ogre who took as his
>>tax three virgins per 
>>year would the fact that he was undefeatable make
>>you not try to save 
>>the virgins?  If there were 100 strong men in the
>>country shouldn't they 
>>grab their pitchforks?  What about when they come
>>for your daughter?
>>    
>>


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jul 26 03:08:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:08:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726025205.19123.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507260310.j6Q3AmR27798@tick.javien.com>



> Where is there where the rich don't make the rules? 
> 
> The Avantguardian


Prison.  Where the most muscular make the rules.  

I prefer having the rich do it, thanks.  {8-]

spike







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 03:16:23 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726025205.19123.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726031623.47473.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > It's less a question of rich v poor than of the
> > distribution of wealth 
> > through a society.
> > Japan is not a worse place to live than the US, and
> > its wealth is spread 
> > far more evenly across the people.
> 
> Yes, the distribution of wealth in the U.S. has gotten
> out of hand. I think that it started during the 1980's
> when "mergers and aquisitions" came into vogue as way
> for corporations to avoid paying their taxes. I don't
> know how to change it though. You could change the
> laws and come up with a new system, but then the
> greedy and ruthless would just come up with a way to
> rape the new system as well. Just like what happened
> in the U.S.S.R.

It is interesting that you say this, because I wonder how it is that
the stockholders would elect a board of directors who would pay a
chairman or CEO more than they were worth, rather than putting that
money into dividends, R&D, etc.

> 
> > The notion that the rich make the rules and that the
> > rules should exist to screw the last penny out of the poor to line
> > their own pockets is not a system worthy of praise.
> 
> Where is there where the rich don't make the rules? I
> don't believe any laws are explicitly for the purpose
> of screwing the poor. 

Government is clearly a system for screwing the poor. The Kelo
decisions expansion of eminent domain, for instance, is clearly biased
in favor of reducing the costs to rich developers at the expense of
poor and middle class homeowners. Taking a persons home (which is
typically the only if not the largest single investment most people
have in their lives) for its assessed value rather than its market
value is a scam, pure and simple, to tax the poor and middle class. The
difference between assessed and market values is a scam produced so
that governments can take your property for less than it is worth, and
now that Kelo has been decided, those governments can give it to anyone
who promises more taxes or jobs to the government that takes it and
gives it to the promiser. Eminent domain was bad enough before Kelo,
now it's one step away for reinstituting feudalism.

> Take away every politician,
> judge, lawyer, and policeman and I think that the
> unregulated free market would STILL try to take the
> poor's last penny. 

Nope. Government protects the rich and powerful against the market. The
rich are free in a free market to TRY to take the poor's last penny,
but without government, they have no way to enforce such a goal, any
more than the masses can take what the rich already have.

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  Tue Jul 26 03:17:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E5A579.5080004@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Oy vey.  I have doubts about guns.

Now I know you aren't a libertarian of any sort, not just not a party member.

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 Jul 26 03:18:48 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:18:48 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726025205.19123.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726025205.19123.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E5AB98.3050007@aol.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

(sermon clipped)

>He is surely a
>breed above the likes of the Dick Cheneys of the world
>in that Gates never killed anyone to make his fortune,
>whereas the only way Cheney et. al.  make their money
>is from the violent deaths of or, in the case of
>Enron, the wholesale robbery of others. Hell George
>Bush has probably killed more Texans than Santa Ana.
>  
>

Amen!

>     The problem is that I don't know how you can
>discourage the Gateses and the Cheneys of the world
>without absolutely devastating the little guys that
>dream big and the small business owners. 
>  
>
I can think of a start.

1)  Put an end to government-run or government subsidized business 
practices (you know, credit card companies, banks, the stock exchange, 
etc.) including the taxation that supports them.  Without cookies in the 
cookie jar, less people are going to be interested in getting into the 
cookie jar.

2)  Strong independant Labor Unions for whatever remains of the federal 
government with a decidedly antagonistic relationship between federal 
employees and the elected officials who's bidding they are required to 
do.  (Less action!)

3)  A fast-track impeachment process for those government employees and 
elected representatives (including the president, senators, judges, 
EVERYONE) even suspected of doing something wrong.  (Those in power 
-should- be constantly defending their honor, keep 'em guessing!) and 
SEVERE penalties for those caught - e.g. banishment or something.  This 
would require establishing a permanent and independent counsel alongisde 
the judiciary, legislation and executive branches.  The founding fathers 
just made a crucial mistake when writing our constitution - who will 
prosecute and appoint attorneys if the executive, judicial and/or 
legislative branches are the ones under investigation?  It certainly 
shouldn't be left to the president.

And finally a maybe (I haven't thought this through)...

4)  An annual federal referendum (along the lines of the state referendums).

Without the leverage of the state and federal governments, the 
super-rich would not be able to maintain their wealth nor would new 
super-rich people be created. 

(Once again), I recommend a nice read of Meszaros' book "The Power of 
Ideology" especially the chapter "Ideology and Autonomy" which gives a 
pretty convincing critique and model for understanding the power 
relationships between capital and government.  (PS - I don't sell books 
nor am I likely to make any money from you unless you just feel like 
sending me a check or something.)

Best wishes,

Robbie


From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 03:25:19 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:25:19 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E5AD1F.2030906@aol.com>

For the record, I firmly believe every living person has a God given 
right to own a nuclear weapon.  I think you may have misunderstood the 
context, I wasn't clear. "I have doubts about putting large 
weapons-systems in the hands of very powerful vicious people with no 
obvious way to control what they do."  Is the intended meaning of the 
sentence.

In particular, giving Politticans control over large-scale military 
might is like giving a mass murderer a chainsaw.  They're bound to use 
it, you may not like what they do with it, you may not be able to stop 
them, and somebody's definitely goingo die.

Robbie Lindauer
Former Libertarian


Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Oy vey.  I have doubts about guns.
>>    
>>
>
>Now I know you aren't a libertarian of any sort, not just not a party member.
>
>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 
> 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Tue Jul 26 04:26:21 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:26:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E5AD1F.2030906@aol.com>
References: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42E5AD1F.2030906@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42E5BB6D.6090902@humanenhancement.com>

Anyone who thinks the right to own a nuclear weapon to folks like Osama 
bin Laden, Mike Lorrey, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and the local crazy 
guy on the corner ranting about the freemasons secretly controlling the 
world... is given by God... is someone I will happily and joyously 
DISagree with.

You, sir, are a crank, if you really believe that. Defend that 
statement, and be welcome to my twit filter.

Joseph

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> For the record, I firmly believe every living person has a God given 
> right to own a nuclear weapon. 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jul 26 05:23:32 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:23:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E5BB6D.6090902@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42E5AD1F.2030906@aol.com> <42E5BB6D.6090902@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <C6A0EF32-64C4-4AE2-A4C8-4A299DC4FED9@mac.com>

Hmm.  I think you are being a tad too literal-minded.  I am sure  
Robert will correct me if I am wrong.

- s

On Jul 25, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Anyone who thinks the right to own a nuclear weapon to folks like  
> Osama bin Laden, Mike Lorrey, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and the  
> local crazy guy on the corner ranting about the freemasons secretly  
> controlling the world... is given by God... is someone I will  
> happily and joyously DISagree with.
>
> You, sir, are a crank, if you really believe that. Defend that  
> statement, and be welcome to my twit filter.
>
> Joseph
>
> Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>
>> For the record, I firmly believe every living person has a God  
>> given right to own a nuclear weapon.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Jul 26 05:47:51 2005
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:47:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
Message-ID: <20050726054751.GA6875@ofb.net>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1535428%2C00.html

GM crop cross-contaminates with weed to negative results.

Wow, who would ever have predicted something like that?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 05:52:59 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726031623.47473.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yes, the distribution of wealth in the U.S. has
> gotten
> > out of hand. I think that it started during the
> 1980's
> > when "mergers and aquisitions" came into vogue as
> way
> > for corporations to avoid paying their taxes. I
> don't
> > know how to change it though.
 
> It is interesting that you say this, because I
> wonder how it is that
> the stockholders would elect a board of directors
> who would pay a
> chairman or CEO more than they were worth, rather
> than putting that
> money into dividends, R&D, etc.

Because suckers can own stock to and worth is a matter
of imperfect perception. What is something's worth if
not what, on average, someone would be willing to pay
for something. Is a name brand really worth twice as
much as a generic? Why should a CEO of a company make
100,000 times what the mid-level manager with an MBA
makes? Just because he had the audacity to ask such an
outrageous salary of the board of directors? The BOD
gave the CEO that salary because thats what the CEO at
the competing company makes. The CEO argubly
contributes the least to the productivity of a
company, he is just the face that the BOD sees. Not so
much for the owner-CEOs like Gates and Branson but the
"professional" CEOs that hop around from company to
company looking for the next zero on their bank
account, those guys are clue-less. They know how to
schmooze, make excuses, do some creative accounting,
and fire people and that's about it. 
 
> > Where is there where the rich don't make the
> rules? I
> > don't believe any laws are explicitly for the
> purpose
> > of screwing the poor. 
> 
> Government is clearly a system for screwing the
> poor.

Yes, but it is not supposed to be. Where in "establish
justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty"
is there any mention of screwing the poor? If it has
become a system for screwing the poor, it is only
because we either lack the clarity of our forefathers
or delibrately thwart their vision, all the while
paying lip service to their memories. 

> The Kelo
> decisions expansion of eminent domain, for instance,
> is clearly biased
> in favor of reducing the costs to rich developers at
> the expense of
> poor and middle class homeowners. Taking a persons
> home (which is
> typically the only if not the largest single
> investment most people
> have in their lives) for its assessed value rather
> than its market
> value is a scam, pure and simple, to tax the poor
> and middle class. The
> difference between assessed and market values is a
> scam produced so
> that governments can take your property for less
> than it is worth, and
> now that Kelo has been decided, those governments
> can give it to anyone
> who promises more taxes or jobs to the government
> that takes it and
> gives it to the promiser. Eminent domain was bad
> enough before Kelo,
> now it's one step away for reinstituting feudalism.

I had never heard of Kelo before but that sounds as
horrible as the "whistle-blower" clauses in the USA
PATRIOT Act. How did the legislature get so out of
hand?
 
> > Take away every politician,
> > judge, lawyer, and policeman and I think that the
> > unregulated free market would STILL try to take
> the
> > poor's last penny. 
> 
> Nope. Government protects the rich and powerful
> against the market. The
> rich are free in a free market to TRY to take the
> poor's last penny,
> but without government, they have no way to enforce
> such a goal, any
> more than the masses can take what the rich already
> have.

But Mike, without government, the rich ARE the
government. Before the King came, the Feudal Lords
still screwed their peasants. After the King came, at
least the Feudal Lords got screwed too albeit the
peasants got screwed by both. Hell I am glad Paris
Hilton has to worry about paying her taxes, because if
not for that, she wouldn't have to worry about paying
for anything, especially DVDs of herself. ;)

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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue Jul 26 06:41:59 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:41:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BF0B2947.3FC%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

On 7/25/05 10:52 PM, "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The CEO argubly
> contributes the least to the productivity of a
> company, he is just the face that the BOD sees. Not so
> much for the owner-CEOs like Gates and Branson but the
> "professional" CEOs that hop around from company to
> company looking for the next zero on their bank
> account, those guys are clue-less. They know how to
> schmooze, make excuses, do some creative accounting,
> and fire people and that's about it.


This is just rehashing popular misconceptions of the role and character of
the typical CEO, a Hollywood caricature far removed from reality.

The vast majority of CEOs at companies big and small are worth every penny
of what they are typically paid, which is much less than the few outliers
that people think is "normal" -- $250k is in the ballpark of average CEO pay
in the US.  Part of the problem is that few people understand what the job
of the CEO is as a practical matter.  In a modern company, the COO is the
person responsible for the direct management of the company; if the CEO is
directly involved in the management of the operation, they aren't doing
their job.  The CEO does all that other stuff, including "schmoozing", but
if one understands the ROI a good CEO delivers as a function of his job, it
is easy to see why the investors and BoD is willing to pay them what they
are paid.  A CEO is responsible for capital management, in the most abstract
sense.


Professional company-hopping CEOs that do not deliver are all but
non-existent.  Unlike regular employees, they are subject to civil and
criminal liability, and frequently face as much with relatively minor
provocation.  After the dotcom crash, several dozen Silicon Valley
executives went to prison for malfeasance of various types, and ten times
that number were sued into bankruptcy.  Mostly people have only heard of a
few, like the Enron folks. There is a perception that there is no
consequences for bad behavior among "C-level" executives, but that is
patently untrue.  As someone who is close to the business, it is routine to
hear about so-and-so executive being sent to prison or some other Silicon
Valley under-performer being sent to the poorhouse.  Just because no one
ever hears about it does not mean that justice does not happen.

Over the long run, in business only the straight players survive.  You can
be as ruthless as you want to be, but you have to play straight and be very
smart or it will bite you sooner than later.  Stupidity and buzzword
compliance gets selected out of the gene pool very quickly in such a
hypercompetitive environment. The very idea that business is led by grossly
incompetent executives in the typical case is contradictory with the readily
available evidence prima facie, but it is ever so popular to paint people in
capitalist enterprise with the few spectacular outliers in their midst.

The whole notion reeks of anti-capitalism propaganda and betrays a basic
unfamiliarity with the reality of the business.


J. Andrew Rogers






From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 07:00:27 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:00:27 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E5BB6D.6090902@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050726031753.20848.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<42E5AD1F.2030906@aol.com> <42E5BB6D.6090902@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <155e2408446b1eb65383a432144c7e21@aol.com>

Some people can't take a joke... relax!

Robbie

On the other hand... people would probably be a lot more polite if they 
knew everyone else had a nuke in their pocket.

If you need a LITERAL point - I have "doubts" about guns as should 
anyone who realizes what they're for and that Farrakhan and Lorrey 
might have some.  Run for the hills!  But... certainly every person 
ought to be able to defend themselves against threats they might 
encounter, that's just wise.  Deterrence, I've found, is much better 
than actually fighting, and since weapons tend to be the only deterrent 
that some people understand, having some on hand is a good idea.  I'm 
not sure a nuke is the appropriate choice, and for me and my little 
family  a coupla shotguns are sufficient.


On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Anyone who thinks the right to own a nuclear weapon to folks like 
> Osama bin Laden, Mike Lorrey, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and the 
> local crazy guy on the corner ranting about the freemasons secretly 
> controlling the world... is given by God... is someone I will happily 
> and joyously DISagree with.
>
> You, sir, are a crank, if you really believe that. Defend that 
> statement, and be welcome to my twit filter.
>
> Joseph
>
> Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>> For the record, I firmly believe every living person has a God given 
>> right to own a nuclear weapon.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 08:04:44 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:04:44 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40fe8ae610b0da3b0e63b49547687bea@aol.com>


On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:52 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Where in "establish
> justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty"
> is there any mention of screwing the poor?

It's implied.  Google:/SLAVERY.  The blessings of liberty were supposed 
to be secured for "our posterity" - not that of the poor dominated 
underclass that contributed the labor and suffering to make America the 
great country it is today.

>  If it has
> become a system for screwing the poor, it is only
> because we either lack the clarity of our forefathers
> or delibrately thwart their vision, all the while
> paying lip service to their memories.

Certainly -some- people deliberately thwart the vision of the founding 
"fathers".  I'm not actually clear on whether or not any of them 
thought slavery was wrong, though.  There is, however, a continuous 
class of land-owning wealthy people in the United States who despite 
not having slaves have managed to surround themselves with the same 
level of comfort and security of their power structure as when they 
did.  They have, instead of literal slaves, effectively slaves.  
They're called the middle class.  The ones that live in tract houses 
that they "own" by paying rent to "the banks", that drive to work in 
cars that they're paying "the banks" for, that work for companies owned 
mostly by "the banks", that were educated in the "learn to work 
program" of the new deal.  "You are a slave neo, kept in a prison you 
can't see or touch or feel, a prison for your mind.  Free your mind!"

Since I've been meaning to write this obvious thing down -

Sometime ago, around the time of the Romans, the wealthy people of Rome 
realized that it was important to be able to control the masses without 
jeopardizing one's own power structure.  For this purpose were created 
the circuses and free bread was given to the mobs of angry people that 
roamed the streets of Rome because they had nowhere to go and blamed, 
rightly, the Government for it.  The Government of the time responded 
by taking the patriarchal role and giving them bread to eat and tickets 
to the circus so that they'd have someplace other than the Senate to 
go.  It was crude, but effective.  It gave smart people ideas about how 
it could be improved.

As time went on, a more scientific approach was taken by the wealthy 
people of the enlightenment who realized that a certain amount of 
intelligence was required to deal with this new world in a certain 
class of the underprivileged and so they implemented social sciences 
and social welfare programs in order to raise some of their herds from 
serfdom to merchant, military, engineer and artisan classes.  A certain 
further segment was required to provide education for them.  They 
invented, therefore, social sciences dedicated to the study of mankind 
in the name of "objective science" - but the pragmatic value of it 
remains inestimable.  The results are us - the people who are products 
of those experimental educational methods by which people were taught 
to perform their tasks well at the behest of their masters, and only a 
few were taught to be masters, and even fewer were taught how the 
system works to their advantage.  This is why, for instance, there is a 
considerable amount of the population that is capable of engineering a 
steel truss system capable of supporting a tank over an arbitrarily 
sized river and/or program computers while those same people often 
can't explain how their own government and economic systems -work-, 
much less give a cogent explanation for why the Americans decided a 
revolutionary war was a better idea than living under British rule.  We 
are very good at sitting behind desks and being told what to do ("F*ck 
you, I won't do what you tell me!") because from age 5 this is what we 
were taught to do.  Few of us have any idea what it would take to 
foment a revolution.

This systemic respect for established but arbitrary orders is 
invaluable for our modern society - it is, in a sense, its very fabric. 
  Without it our military-backed capitalist oligarchy would grind to a 
halt because people would probably decide to go to the 
beach/river/lake/mountain, get stoned and have some sex ... if they 
thought about it for 20 minutes objectively.  I know that for myself, 
in those few moments of sweet clarity that I get, I tend to just wander 
down to the coast...  REALLY - would you rather sit at your desk for 20 
more minutes and put out those TPS reports or would you rather go 
swimming?

Such thinking is not conspiracy theory - nobody needs to consciously 
say "hey, let's really screw the poor and form a secret society to do 
it"  (although I am somewhat convinced that this literally has 
happened).  Instead, the needs of the society that is created by the 
capitalist alienation of means of survival from the producers of those 
means (which is, strictly speaking, theft) are simply there and the 
capitalist acting rationally in (usually) his best interests pays 
people to be the way he needs them to be to make the game work for him. 
  He doesn't reward people for figuring out how to be freer, happier, 
healthier and wiser.  He pays them to make sure that everybody shows up 
to work on time and produces 10,000 cogs/hour, that the salespeople 
sell them, that the marketing people advertise them, etc.  The menial 
tasks we force ourselves to "enjoy" in order to simply not die of 
boredom.  The capitalist, in addition to hiring salespeople, also hires 
economists so he can predict which things would be best to alienate 
from people next (like fresh water in Los Angeles...), teachers to 
teach his laborers how to work, city planners to make sure they can get 
there on time, etc.  Does anyone REALLY believe that we'd have 8-lane 
freeways in Los Angeles if this weren't capitalism?  Would anyone drive 
from San Bernardino to Venice at 6:30 in the morning and come back at 
6:30 in the evening if they didn't HAVE TO?

Meanwhile, the good capitalist has a little martini lunch and secretary 
mid-afternoon snack before going home to his 2.5 million dollar house 
in Bel Air or his apartment on the Park for a little swim and evening 
cocktails.  E.g. get high, go swimming, if you're lucky, have sex.    
He thinks lovingly of his workers and checks in every couple of hours 
to make sure they're still slaving away.  "Everything's okay here, 
boss."


>
> I had never heard of Kelo before but that sounds as
> horrible as the "whistle-blower" clauses in the USA
> PATRIOT Act. How did the legislature get so out of
> hand?

It was the courts, truly sad.

>> Nope. Government protects the rich and powerful
>> against the market. The
>> rich are free in a free market to TRY to take the
>> poor's last penny,
>> but without government, they have no way to enforce
>> such a goal, any
>> more than the masses can take what the rich already
>> have.
>
> But Mike, without government, the rich ARE the
> government. Before the King came, the Feudal Lords
> still screwed their peasants. After the King came, at
> least the Feudal Lords got screwed too albeit the
> peasants got screwed by both. Hell I am glad Paris
> Hilton has to worry about paying her taxes, because if
> not for that, she wouldn't have to worry about paying
> for anything, especially DVDs of herself. ;)


Here, I think, is where the hopelessness sets in.  But it's not so.  
You have to remember that the wealth of the wealthy is derived from the 
political-economic system designed to support it.  When the system goes 
away, so does the ability to maintain wealth.  Let's put it very 
plainly - if there were no official currency of the united states 
backed by american military might and the federal reserve system and 
someone offered to buy a piece of land from you for $5,000,000,000 in 
federal reserve notes would you sell it to them?  So what good is the 
power of the wealthy without the ability to sustain it militarily.


The point is well-taken that BEFORE there was an educated middle class, 
the very idea of becoming independent of one's kind/duke/lord was 
unthinkable.  They'd simply hunt you down and kill you if you tried to 
leave and they didn't want you to.  But in our modern society, hunting 
people down for their political views is considered illegal (not that 
it doesn't happen, google://David Kelly).  So the concession made by 
the wealthy in order to retain their wealth and have slightly more 
intelligent people is that they get to think of themselves as free.  
("If you think you're free, try walking into the local deli and pissing 
on the corned beef").  Or, indeed, sleeping all night in a publicly 
owned park, picking publicly owned flowers, showering in your White 
House.

But with people sufficiently educated to realize that they're paying 
rent to someone because their ancestor stole the land first (you don't 
think the United States PAID the Native Americans, do you?  You don't 
think the Gauls paid the Romans, do you?, you don't think that Exxon, 
Citigroup, Bank of America and GM got their money by playing nice, do 
you?) and then effectively enslaved them and their families for 
generations it -should- become somewhat easier to  at least awaken the 
notion that it is possible to convince enough people of the unfairness 
of the situation.  This was the beginning of the labor movement which 
is, as you can see, a consequence of there being a capitalist movement. 
  If you need intelligent serfs, some of them are going to get uppity.  
The labor movement is, in fact, the antithesis of industrial 
capitalism, caused by it and perpetuated by it.  As long as there is 
capitalism, there will be the labor movement.  It is, of course, in the 
best interests of capitalism to get rid of the labor movement as much 
as possible and so it is important for capitalist apologists to 
denounce the labor movement at every step.  You could almost hear the 
giggles in the NY Times coverage of the Union break-up today.    But 
it's not just the Times, it goes all the way back to high school, when 
the good christians conquered North America for the sake of truth, 
justice and Superman.

Back to the topic - Libertarianism holds a kind of promise - the 
idealistic hope of freedom.   It's a great idea - a free society where 
people can do what they like as long as they don't hurt other people.   
  But one should note that in the Libertarian utopias, capitalism, 
private property and military remain core values - effectively removing 
any genuine strength from the party qua opposition movement.  In the 
end, libertarianism is a joke - for people duped into following their 
idealistic side, they pay their $25 dues and think they're doing 
something about improving the state of our government while watching 
the shock-and-awe on Fox News.    Libertarianism is like Amway - a 
convincing salesperson can sell it to you, but in the end the promise 
far exceeds the reality.

Robbie Lindauer
(shameless plug) thetip.org



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 08:50:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <BF0B2947.3FC%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20050726085009.78253.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
wrote:

> This is just rehashing popular misconceptions of the
> role and character of
> the typical CEO, a Hollywood caricature far removed
> from reality.

Well since I have never been a CEO or even know a CEO,
you have the advantage of me.
 
> The vast majority of CEOs at companies big and small
> are worth every penny
> of what they are typically paid, which is much less
> than the few outliers
> that people think is "normal" -- $250k is in the
> ballpark of average CEO pay
> in the US.

I think $250k is perfectly reasonable. It's the
companies that lay off half their employees so that
they can pay their CEO $5M a year that I object to.

>  The CEO does all that other stuff,
> including "schmoozing", but
> if one understands the ROI a good CEO delivers as a
> function of his job, it
> is easy to see why the investors and BoD is willing
> to pay them what they are paid.

Why is the investment of liquid capital by the
shareholders of a company more important than the
labor capital that employees invest in a company? Why
is there no concern for the ROI of the guy who worked
20 years for the company and is getting "downsized"
before he secures his pension to boost the bottom
line?  

> A CEO is responsible for capital
> management, in the most abstract
> sense.

Is it wise to abstract people? To make every employee
a statistic? Is this a responsible use of power?

>  Mostly
> people have only heard of a
> few, like the Enron folks. There is a perception
> that there is no
> consequences for bad behavior among "C-level"
> executives, but that is
> patently untrue.  As someone who is close to the
> business, it is routine to
> hear about so-and-so executive being sent to prison
> or some other Silicon
> Valley under-performer being sent to the poorhouse. 
> Just because no one
> ever hears about it does not mean that justice does
> not happen.

You are right in that I have not heard of all these
things, but it seems a fair trade. Power should have
its price. The pharoahs of ancient Egypt would be put
to death if the Nile flooded its banks and killed the
crops. Not that the pharoahs could have reasonably
prevented this, but if one claims to be decended from
the gods, people have high expectations of one. As far
as Silicon Valley/ Dot-Com CEOs, I think that even in
business circles, they are a relatively new phenomena,
and can't be fairly compared to CEOs of well-heeled
blue chip companies.
 
> The very idea that
> business is led by grossly
> incompetent executives in the typical case is
> contradictory with the readily
> available evidence prima facie, but it is ever so
> popular to paint people in
> capitalist enterprise with the few spectacular
> outliers in their midst.

Well my contention was not that CEOs are incompetent,
just that they don't do all that much except make a
bunch of investors, who do even less, happy. The
smaller and more speicalized ones skill-set, the more
competent one would be expected to be at it. As far as
the outliers, you are probably right about that, but
they are the only ones the public ever really hears
about, so don't blame the public for its
misconceptions.
 
> The whole notion reeks of anti-capitalism propaganda
> and betrays a basic
> unfamiliarity with the reality of the business.

Even if the "Hollywood caricature" is pretty far-off
from reality, I would hardly call it anti-capitalism
propaganda as it glorifies the profession even as it
misportrays it. Unless you call any morality play
calling for reservation or restraint in the mad
scramble for wealth anti-capitalist 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


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


From hamlin_e at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 26 10:26:50 2005
From: hamlin_e at hotmail.com (Evan Hamlin)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:26:50 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] post on gay marriage (and an apology)
Message-ID: <BAY107-F1328FC424D0CA2D9E4D41AFACD0@phx.gbl>

I premise this post by saying those who are about to dismiss it as being 
more homophobic propaganda, you may find that I have changed my tune a 
bit...

While I have agreed to stop posting my views on this subject, I feel the 
need to respond to Amara's post.

Amara, I don't understand where you could possibly live, or with what group 
of people shield yourself so as not to be exposed to this view on 
homosexuality. It is, by no means whatsoever, something of the past, not 
even the recent past. By this I don't mean that there is still a group of 
rednecks in Mississippi who believe that homosexuality is a biological 
anomaly, I mean that it also exists in the scientific community. While I 
completely understand your position, I don't understand how you could find 
mine so foreign so as to think that they have been non-existent for over a 
century.

Here for example, is just the quickest thing I could dig up. It is written 
by Gregory Cochran (Physicist and Evolutionary Biologist) this year.

"The existence of a significant fraction of males that show sexual interest 
in other males and no interest in females is just as much an evolutionary 
anomaly as, say, a few percent of that species dying from spontaneous liver 
failure in early life, or jumping off a cliff.

If one in ten thousand men were homosexual, homosexuality would not be an 
evolutionary anomaly. A few genetic diseases are that common. But when, say, 
3 in 100 men are homosexual, it's a huge anomaly.

I should also make clear that failing to mate is not the real anomaly. --[I 
would like to add here that neither is mounting males to show dominance or 
for pleasure, as shown in the Avantguardian's Post, OR EVEN to fall in love 
with someone of the same gender (Harvey Newstrom).]-- The anomaly is failing 
to try. In many species, huge fractions of the young never live to grow up. 
Most seeds never become trees. Most males never get to mate, in some 
species. But they try. They pursue behavioral strategies that work on 
average.

Some birds, in poor conditions or attacked by predators, don't make it south 
for the winter. But damn few fly north! If a few percent of geese flew north 
for the winter, it'd be an evolutionary anomaly, in exactly the same way 
that human homosexuality is."

--Now, I hasten to say that I don't necessarily agree with or believe his 
views (especially the ones on homosexuality being a disease or caused by an 
infection, I can see where some people would find that offensive). As a 
matter of fact, going along with his train of thought, why do some people 
choose chastity?  Perhaps that too has a genetic predisposition; and perhaps 
the desire to be childless does too, at least in some folks. Or perhaps it 
is the beginning of mankind going against the grain of biology, to be 
followed by great, though unnatural, steps in future. The following quote 
from "The Metaphysical Club" by Lewis Menand is very applicable:

"The real lesson of On the Origin of Species for [William] James--the lesson 
on which he based his own major work, The Principles of Psychology 
(1890)--was that natural selection has produced, in human beings, organisms 
gifted with the capacity to make choices incompatible with "the survival of 
the fittest."  There is intelligence in the universe: it is ours.  It was 
our good luck that, somewhere along the way, we acquired minds.  They 
released us from the prison of biology."

It seems to me that there are plenty of people, and couples, heterosexual 
and otherwise, which simply don't have much of a desire to procreate. In 
addition, there are many homosexuals with strong primal urges to procreate.

Personally, I think his underlying assumptions (about sexual preference and 
the Darwinian urge to procreate in gays, lesbians, and heteros) are 
seriously flawed, and that the reality is much more complex and nuanced.

Along the lines of what Avant was saying, there was a study from many years 
ago on populations of Wood Ducks that noted a distinct increase in the 
display of homosexual behavior among wood duck drakes as population density 
increased beyond a certain threshhold.  IIRC the researchers posited that 
this increase was related to stress levels among the population and could 
have an evolutionary benefit in reducing birth rates in overpopulated 
environments.  I also seem to remember that this was also observed in many 
other species. I believe this was out of Scientific American.

What I'd like to make clear to everyone, like Amara and Samantha, is that I 
don't think homosexuals are evil, or even think that homosexuality is wrong. 
I just think it's strange that everyone has accepted something so quickly 
without really pushing for an explanation. I, for one, would like to know 
the reasons behind it.

I would also like the apologize for the below statement, agree that it 
possesses a bigoted tone and represents a closed-minded attitude towards 
homosexuality which is beginning to change thanks to the [understandably] 
strong, but most importantly, logical and reasoned, responses to my original 
post.

Sorry if I have offended anyone; or should I say, sorry to those people who 
I have offended.

-Evan
"To err is human, to forgive divine."


---------------Original Message--------------------------
Evan,

I am not gay and found your messages extremely offensive.

These phrases

>I guess inside I feel that homosexuality should be treated not as a new
>race of people, all of us running with open arms to give them equal
>rights, but as the biological anomaly that it is.

were something from western cultures >100 years ago, thankfully longer
ago than my lifetime. I never would have thought I would encounter
these (bigoted and narrow-minded to a razor's edge) words from a
new person on this list.

Amara

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 14:23:37 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E5A579.5080004@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050726142337.18624.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>

Yes. This something so many brood about now. But those who don't agonize about it can maybe make it if they exercise a great deal, avoid overindulgence, and don't think too much. They just manage to survive,  like the peasants you hear about who live to be 105 and swear by a half a pint of whiskey and a cigar every day, who putter about their cabin and their proper-tee all day getting fresh air. Funny, some who don't think about surviving will survive, and some who want to make it bad will be unlucky-- maybe they want it too much.
BTW, I don't mean to pick on mobsters, they got into the union business to fill a vacuum that was there all along just waiting to be filled. They were default labor reps who were willing to extort and use force. Now they are not as powerful. 
The military-industrial complex is too large for me to even think about, to wrap the mind around.  

>If our world remains energy-poor, it's unlikely that any but a small 
>minority will be able to achieve long-term life. I daresay they'll have 
>to do so at the expense of other worthwhile projects, again, like 
>helping the helpless.



		
---------------------------------
 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/20050726/a5942ba5/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 14:25:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

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

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is interesting that you say this, because I wonder how it is
that
> > the stockholders would elect a board of directors who would pay a
> > chairman or CEO more than they were worth, rather than putting that
> > money into dividends, R&D, etc.
> 
> Because suckers can own stock to and worth is a matter
> of imperfect perception. What is something's worth if
> not what, on average, someone would be willing to pay
> for something. Is a name brand really worth twice as
> much as a generic? 

Of course it is.

> Why should a CEO of a company make
> 100,000 times what the mid-level manager with an MBA
> makes? Just because he had the audacity to ask such an
> outrageous salary of the board of directors? The BOD
> gave the CEO that salary because thats what the CEO at
> the competing company makes. 

And how did that competing company CEO get his pay? You are stuck in
another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a result of your
ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market always finds proper
value. Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't worth what they
are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are based on
puritanical protestant prejudices against ostentatiousness and
inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth any other.

Any economist can tell you that no two workers are worth the same pay
for the same job, and there is no market rule limiting CEO pay as a
proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels get paid what they
are worth, with few exceptions (typically when government and unions
enforce non-market pay scales).

> The CEO argubly
> contributes the least to the productivity of a
> company, he is just the face that the BOD sees. Not so
> much for the owner-CEOs like Gates and Branson but the
> "professional" CEOs that hop around from company to
> company looking for the next zero on their bank
> account, those guys are clue-less. They know how to
> schmooze, make excuses, do some creative accounting,
> and fire people and that's about it. 

Then why aren't you one of them, if you know all that needs to be done?
The fact you aren't one of them proves your statement to be bullshit.

> > 
> > Government is clearly a system for screwing the
> > poor.
> 
> Yes, but it is not supposed to be. 

Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a long
time ago, and only cite it today when it serves their own benefit.

> Where in "establish
> justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty"
> is there any mention of screwing the poor? If it has
> become a system for screwing the poor, it is only
> because we either lack the clarity of our forefathers
> or delibrately thwart their vision, all the while
> paying lip service to their memories. 

Because all those who claim to be defenders of liberty either are out
to defend their own liberty at the expense of others, or are too
chickenshit to recognise that the time for revolution has been here for
a while.

> 
> > The Kelo
> > decisions expansion of eminent domain, for instance,
> > is clearly biased
> > in favor of reducing the costs to rich developers at
> > the expense of
> > poor and middle class homeowners. Taking a persons
> > home (which is
> > typically the only if not the largest single
> > investment most people
> > have in their lives) for its assessed value rather
> > than its market
> > value is a scam, pure and simple, to tax the poor
> > and middle class. The
> > difference between assessed and market values is a
> > scam produced so
> > that governments can take your property for less
> > than it is worth, and
> > now that Kelo has been decided, those governments
> > can give it to anyone
> > who promises more taxes or jobs to the government
> > that takes it and
> > gives it to the promiser. Eminent domain was bad
> > enough before Kelo,
> > now it's one step away for reinstituting feudalism.
> 
> I had never heard of Kelo before but that sounds as
> horrible as the "whistle-blower" clauses in the USA
> PATRIOT Act. How did the legislature get so out of
> hand?

Google Kelo v. City of New London, which was issued by the SCOTUS a
little over a month ago or so. New London, CT, is seizing a whole
middle class neighborhood and giving it to developers who promise to
build higher value commerical and residential properties there that
will generate more jobs and tax revinues for the city. Justices Souter,
Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, liberals all, voted in New
London's favor.

Fortunately for us, Souter and Breyer both own property in a state
where people are willing to take action. You've likely heard of the
move to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on the 8 acre site of Souters
farm house in Weare, NH. We also have found that Breyer owns 167 acres
in Plainfield, NH and are going to seek to build Constitution Park
there, putting the US and NH Constitutions in stone. Even more fun: it
appears both justices paid the same assessment firm to grossly
under-assess their properties (Souters home and land are only assessed
at $108k, significantly below average for his town and below market
value, which should be over $200k.) As these five justices have given
us permission to take their homes, we intend to do so, just as if
they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free" sign on it.

> > 
> > Nope. Government protects the rich and powerful
> > against the market. The
> > rich are free in a free market to TRY to take the
> > poor's last penny,
> > but without government, they have no way to enforce
> > such a goal, any
> > more than the masses can take what the rich already
> > have.
> 
> But Mike, without government, the rich ARE the
> government. Before the King came, the Feudal Lords
> still screwed their peasants. 

The King came as a conqueror, killing most fighting men at the Battle
of Hastings, and establishing his holy grail to rule, recognised by the
Church, and enforced by his superior firepower. The peasants were
disarmed of what arms they had, and slaved for the King as they had
slaved a little less slavishly for the viking kings before, and the
Saxon kings before that, and the Anglish kings before that, and the
Celtic kings before that, on back into the misty mists of history. The
idea that they could protest was anathema.

Today, any kid with a rifle can take out an asshole in government if he
has the gumption to do so. Enough people know their rights, but are
deluded by the media (like the Church of old did) into thinking they
are still free. The people who get screwed do so because they let
themselves get screwed.

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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 14:35:35 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726143535.79922.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Do artificial markets exist? I was brought up to think junk food and cigarettes, for example, are artificial markets. But you could say they have value in some market niche, correct?
You get to a certain age to realize everything you think is based on your upbringing and what you want to retain over the years...

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
You are stuck in
another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a result of your
ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market always finds proper
value. Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't worth what they
are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are based on
puritanical protestant prejudices against ostentatiousness and
inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth any other.
__________________________________________________
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/20050726/619ad081/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 14:52:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
In-Reply-To: <20050726054751.GA6875@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20050726145203.39492.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1535428%2C00.html
> 
> GM crop cross-contaminates with weed to negative results.
> 
> Wow, who would ever have predicted something like that?

This is conjecture. Nobody has done a check of the DNA to see if the
weed actually picked up genes from the oilseed rape. Isn't it odd it
happened on one 'test' location in the UK after no such incidents have
happened in all the other places it is used commercially in other
countries? I would sooner believe that someone's been breeding round-up
resistant weeds as a hobby to seed such 'test' plots with.

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 dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jul 26 14:59:51 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:59:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
In-Reply-To: <20050726145203.39492.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726145203.39492.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E64FE7.20308@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1535428%2C00.html
>>
>>GM crop cross-contaminates with weed to negative results.
>>
>>Wow, who would ever have predicted something like that?
>>    
>>
>
>This is conjecture. Nobody has done a check of the DNA to see if the
>weed actually picked up genes from the oilseed rape. Isn't it odd it
>happened on one 'test' location in the UK after no such incidents have
>happened in all the other places it is used commercially in other
>countries? I would sooner believe that someone's been breeding round-up
>resistant weeds as a hobby to seed such 'test' plots with.
>
>  
>
I find it more plausible that big business would suppress such data, or 
more likely refuse to look for it in the first place.

-- 
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: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 15:09:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CEO pay and markets
In-Reply-To: <20050726143535.79922.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726150954.66106.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Do artificial markets exist? I was brought up to think junk food and
> cigarettes, for example, are artificial markets. But you could say
> they have value in some market niche, correct?
> You get to a certain age to realize everything you think is based on
> your upbringing and what you want to retain over the years...

Junk food? Last time I checked, there was little regulation or taxation
of junk food, so no, no artificial market there.

Cigarettes? Highly taxed, so, yes, the market size is artificially
larger than it could be because prices are artificially inflated by
taxes. The presence of addictive nicotine in the product ensures the
user pays more than is reasonable more frequently than is reasonable.

You could say that sugar and caffiene in junk food serve similar ends,
though sugar is a nutrient and thus has utility, as does caffiene for
being a stimulant and therefore an improver of productivity. Anything
with utility in being useful for producing greater value, itself has
real value. Whether the value matches the price paid is another
question entirely (which one might add to nicotine products as well).

Calling junk food and cigarettes 'artificial markets' is as much a
puritanical judgement as anything, without bringing facts to bear.

Back to the topic at hand: CEO compensation. Are BoD members deluded to
irrationality in executive compensation? Hard to tell if you don't
actually talk to such people. Recent events, such as the Carly Fiorina
debacle at HP, of execs getting large sums of money to leave, are hard
to explain if you discount the behavior as merely 'go away' money to
avoid a potentially even more costly contract lawsuit. Beyond mere
legal costs of defending against such suits, the negative publicity
impacts both sales bottom lines as well as stock prices.

If it is the job of top execs to create shareholder value, it is the
job of BOD members to protect existing value as well as hire people who
can create greater value. Sometimes protecting existing value is all a
board can shoot for in the short term, and that is worth buying off the
exhorbitant demands of someone they want to see gone.

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 pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jul 26 15:10:20 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:10:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726055300.10490.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05072608107f18d074@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/05, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> And how did that competing company CEO get his pay? You are stuck in
> another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a result of your
> ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market always finds proper
> value. Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't worth what they
> are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are based on
> puritanical protestant prejudices against ostentatiousness and
> inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth any other.
> 
> Any economist can tell you that no two workers are worth the same pay
> for the same job, and there is no market rule limiting CEO pay as a
> proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels get paid what they
> are worth, with few exceptions (typically when government and unions
> enforce non-market pay scales).
> 

Only an ideal market in an ideal world will find the proper value.
i.e. never in the real world. Monopolies and quasi-monopolies can
charge and pay what they like. Scams and fraudsters rip the real world
market to shreds.

Any economist can tell you that there is no such animal as the correct
pay for the job. The company pays as little as possible for *any* job.
Except where the people who decide on the minimum pay levels are
considering their own pay, when the rule is as much as possible. 
That's why middle managers put up with all the crap for twenty years,
because they hope to get promoted to where they can set their own
salary levels as high as they can get away with.


> Google Kelo v. City of New London, which was issued by the SCOTUS a
> little over a month ago or so. New London, CT, is seizing a whole
> middle class neighborhood and giving it to developers who promise to
> build higher value commerical and residential properties there that
> will generate more jobs and tax revinues for the city. Justices Souter,
> Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, liberals all, voted in New
> London's favor.
> 
> Fortunately for us, Souter and Breyer both own property in a state
> where people are willing to take action. You've likely heard of the
> move to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on the 8 acre site of Souters
> farm house in Weare, NH. We also have found that Breyer owns 167 acres
> in Plainfield, NH and are going to seek to build Constitution Park
> there, putting the US and NH Constitutions in stone. Even more fun: it
> appears both justices paid the same assessment firm to grossly
> under-assess their properties (Souters home and land are only assessed
> at $108k, significantly below average for his town and below market
> value, which should be over $200k.) As these five justices have given
> us permission to take their homes, we intend to do so, just as if
> they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free" sign on it.
> 

Good! If you can get away with it. I have always said that the street
violence in the UK will not get fixed until more MPs are mugged and
have their own homes burglarised.


BillK


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 15:24:28 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05072608107f18d074@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050726152429.51568.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

There are mini-monopolies directing every market?

BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:Only an ideal market in an ideal world will find the proper value.
i.e. never in the real world. Monopolies and quasi-monopolies can
charge and pay what they like. Scams and fraudsters rip the real world
market to shreds.


__________________________________________________
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/20050726/68c0e9be/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 15:41:54 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CEO pay and markets
In-Reply-To: <20050726150954.66106.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726154154.57603.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

After reading about many, and meeting a few, peasants who smoke a substantial amount (say a pack a day) of cigarettes, it appears cigarettes do have a value higher than one might think. The tobacco suppresses their appetites, stimulates them, allows them to concentrate on work & chores. Some of them don't inhale the smoke into their lungs, the nicotine is absorbed in their mouths. One man I know smokes between 3-5 packs a day, but he doesn't inhale into his lungs and x-rays show his lungs to be in excellent shape. Some days he will smoke as many as six packs.
The point is some of these smokers live to advanced ages, perhaps the appetite-suppressing effect of the tobacco restricting their caloric intake plus all the exercise they get lets them stay so trim. Also they don't think, much. 


>Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Cigarettes? Highly taxed, so, yes, the market size is artificially
>larger than it could be because prices are artificially inflated by
>taxes. The presence of addictive nicotine in the product ensures the
>user pays more than is reasonable more frequently than is reasonable.


__________________________________________________
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/20050726/e5f406ef/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 16:12:57 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] measure of health?
Message-ID: <20050726161257.49781.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>

"it is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Krishnamurti.
Well, maybe Krishnamurti was wrong.
 
If someone can live a long life yet be dysfunctional, then who cares if they have adjusted to a 'sick' society? Certainly they themselves don't. They don't care much what people think. I know one guy ["oh Brooks, not another one of your anecdotes"], a drifter, miser, with half a million dollars in the bank who is homeless and ceaselessly carries around his belonging in two heavy pound duffel bags. He works seven days a week, and pays acquaintances a few dollars a night to stay at their apartments. He shuffles around with a double hernia-- he doesn't trust doctors to treat it. He doesn't trust banks but he has no mattress of his own to hide the money in. Aside from the double hernia he is in good shape for a 56 year old. And he's happy. Putting to one side the question of whether the society he lives in is sick or not, he has adjusted to his own what other people might call 'sickness'.

__________________________________________________
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/20050726/ab5175b1/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 19:36:38 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:36:38 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E690C6.90805@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>> Is a name brand really worth twice as
>>much as a generic? 
>>    
>>
>
>Of course it is.
>  
>

"There is a sucker, born every minute."

>The market always finds proper
>value.
>

Myth of pretending-to-be-free-market-capitalism #1 - "the market finds 
proper value".

> Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't worth what they
>are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are based on
>puritanical protestant prejudices against ostentatiousness and
>inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth any other.
>  
>

Or perhapse actual thievery, fraud and anti-competetive practices.  
Especially in the cases of Jobs, Gates and Balmer, all of whom are 
convicted by extension by the acts of their companies.

>Any economist can tell you that no two workers are worth the same pay
>for the same job, and there is no market rule limiting CEO pay as a
>proportion of avg worker pay.
>

Not "any economist", just some economists spew this kind of crap.

> Workers at all levels get paid what they
>are worth, with few exceptions (typically when government and unions
>enforce non-market pay scales).
>  
>

If workers were paid what they were worth, there'd be no profit to be 
made in capitalism.

>>The CEO argubly
>>contributes the least to the productivity of a
>>company...
>>    
>>
>
>Then why aren't you one of them, if you know all that needs to be done?
>The fact you aren't one of them proves your statement to be bullshit.
>  
>
As someone who has been CEO of a company (my own), it's not true that in 
sole proprietorships that the CEO does nothing.  On the other hand your 
argument being purely ad hominem is of no value whatever.


>>>Government is clearly a system for screwing the
>>>poor.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, but it is not supposed to be. 
>>    
>>
>
>Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a long
>time ago, and only cite it today when it serves their own benefit
>  
>
See Lorrey, you're starting to get it.  Now you just have to recognize 
the essential relationship between economic systems and governments and 
you'll be able to make some useful and accurate judgements.

>>Where in "establish
>>justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
>>common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty"
>>is there any mention of screwing the poor? If it has
>>become a system for screwing the poor, it is only
>>because we either lack the clarity of our forefathers
>>or delibrately thwart their vision, all the while
>>paying lip service to their memories. 
>>    
>>
>
>Because all those who claim to be defenders of liberty either are out
>to defend their own liberty at the expense of others, or are too
>chickenshit to recognise that the time for revolution has been here for
>a while.
>  
>

Viva la revolution!  But you're going to have to come up with a better 
impetus for revolution than protecting the property of the wealthy and 
defending CEO's if you want to make any headway with your average Joe 
who actually wants a revolution.  CEO's don't want revolutions, in 
general, chaos makes for hard business decisions and risk.  The labor 
movement recognized the need for revolution a coupla hundred years ago, 
where have you been all this time?

>Today, any kid with a rifle can take out an asshole in government if he
>has the gumption to do so. Enough people know their rights, but are
>deluded by the media (like the Church of old did) into thinking they
>are still free. The people who get screwed do so because they let
>themselves get screwed.
>  
>
It's illegal in the US anyway to even suggest killing an elected member 
of the government, especially a president.

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment though, people get screwed 
because they let themselves get screwed- that is to say people are too 
nice.  When being screwed by their local capitalist, people should 
simply take them out back and off-em?  Oooh, but the police might come 
and get them.  Hmm, what should they do?  Go find a different job?  But 
there's corporate collusion, labor-price-fixing, rent to pay and mouths 
to feed.  Go start your own busines?  With what money? 

Oligarchical capitalism is systematically repressive, sufficient for 
keeping your average Joe and Mary in line.  Alive enough to work until 
they're no longer valuable.

Robbie Lindauer


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 20:07:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E690C6.90805@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050726200731.70786.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote: 
> >>>Government is clearly a system for screwing the
> >>>poor.
> >>>   
> >>Yes, but it is not supposed to be. 
> >>  
> >Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a long
> >time ago, and only cite it today when it serves their own benefit
> >  
> >
> See Lorrey, you're starting to get it.  Now you just have to
> recognize the essential relationship between economic systems
> and governments and you'll be able to make some useful and
> accurate judgements.

I have a long and established record of commenting that the US economy
is far more mercantilist/socialist than free market, primarily because
the constitutional limitations on government power have been overridden
by decades of legal redefinition of terms by the courts, legislators,
as well as legal dictionary writers.

Unlike some, I recognise the problem isn't the corporations, it is the
governments, and the lawyers in those governments. Castrating
governments will put the corporations back in pandoras box. Attacking
corporations does nothing toward this goal, and corporations that are
attacked are weakened only to the benefit of other corporations.
Corporate power is dependent upon government power, thus one must focus
on government power, to limit it, and thus limit corporations.

> 
> >Today, any kid with a rifle can take out an asshole in government if
> he
> >has the gumption to do so. Enough people know their rights, but are
> >deluded by the media (like the Church of old did) into thinking they
> >are still free. The people who get screwed do so because they let
> >themselves get screwed.
> >  
> >
> It's illegal in the US anyway to even suggest killing an elected
> member of the government, especially a president.

Actually, only the president is protected by that federal law, though
they are trying to expand it (one reason for Waxman's Sniper Weapons
Ban).


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  Tue Jul 26 20:08:24 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:08:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Asia-Pacific climate plan
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050726150741.01cf1c00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor
27jul05

AUSTRALIA has joined the US, China, India and South Korea in a secret 
regional pact on greenhouse emissions to replace the controversial Kyoto 
climate protocol.

The alliance, which is yet to be announced, will bring together nations 
that together account for more than 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse 
gas emissions.

To be known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and 
Climate, the grouping will aim to use the latest technologies to limit 
emissions and to make sure the technologies are available in the areas and 
industries that need them most.

The US and Australia have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol -- an 
international agreement setting greenhouse gas emission targets for 
developed countries by 2012. China and India are not limited by it because 
they are considered developing economies.

The US initiative has been discussed between the five nations for five 
months and is viewed as a practical attempt to rein in greenhouse emissions 
without harming development or economic growth in the region.

John Howard discussed the greenhouse strategy with US President George 
W.Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings 
at the White House during Mr Howard's trip to Washington last week.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held meetings with Mr Bush on the same 
topic on the same day.

The US has been driving the negotiations but Australia has been part of the 
deal, given its vital interests in coal and gas exports to China and South 
Korea, as well as negotiations with China on uranium sales for nuclear energy.

While Mr Howard and Mr Bush concede there is a threat from climate change, 
they have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and are instead looking at a 
"post-Kyoto" strategy.

The Howard Government, which believes Kyoto will harm Australia's economy 
and hurt coal exports, yesterday released a report on greenhouse gas 
emissions.

The report warned climate change was inevitable and Australia should expect 
higher temperatures, more droughts, severe cyclones and storm surges in the 
next 30-50 years.

In Australia, the CSIRO predicts temperatures could rise between 1C and 6C 
by 2070. Average global temperatures have already risen 0.6C in the past 
100 years as a result of accumulated greenhouse gases.

The report identifies Cairns, the Murray Darling Basin and south west West 
Australia as the three regions most vulnerable to the expected consequences 
of climate change.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell conceded Australia would have to 
do more to reduce greenhouse gases but said the Kyoto protocol was not the 
answer.

"You need a comprehensive agreement that involves all of the major 
emitters. At the moment we don't have that," he said. "By moving more and 
more towards renewable (energy), such as solar and wind, and a whole range 
of technologies that we can develop here in Australia and ultimately export 
to places like China and India -- building partnerships with these 
countries is going to be the solution."

In April, The Australian revealed Australia's role in brokering the 
new-generation greenhouse reduction plan. Discussions at that stage focused 
on moving away from binding greenhouse gas reduction targets to voluntary 
emission reductions for industry.

Mr Bush and Mr Howard are convinced modern technology, which can improve 
efficiency and reduce waste in industry and power generation, is the key to 
reducing greenhouse emissions.

? The Australian



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 23:25:16 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726200731.70786.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726232516.21296.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Would you survey & critique what's at this link? Rafal Smigrodzki looked at it and pronounced it  "communism". Maybe it is. The more I see how devious intellectuals are, the more it appears they would spray a turd with whipped cream and say 'here's dessert'.
http://www.prout.org


__________________________________________________
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/20050726/e521452b/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 26 23:37:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726232516.21296.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050726233708.15074.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Would you survey & critique what's at this link? Rafal Smigrodzki
> looked at it and pronounced it  "communism". Maybe it is. The more I
> see how devious intellectuals are, the more it appears they would
> spray a turd with whipped cream and say 'here's dessert'.
> http://www.prout.org

Progressive Utilization Theory:
"Economic Democracy
Political democracy and economic democracy are mutually inclusive.
PROUT advocates economic democracy based on local economic planning,
cooperatively managed businesses, local governmental control of natural
resources and key industries, and socially agreed upon limits on the
individual accumulation of wealth. By decentralizing the economy and
making sure decision-making is in the hands of local people, we can
ensure the adequate availability of food, shelter, clothing, health
care and education for all. 

A decentralized economy can better ensure that the ecological systems
of the earth are not exploited beyond their capacity to renew
themselves. Environmental stewardship is a requisite for people who are
dependent upon these systems for their own survival and well-being. 

Basic Necessities Guaranteed to All
The basic necessities of life must be a constitutional birth right of
all members of society. People cannot attain their highest human
potential if they lack food, shelter, clothing, health care and
education. Meaningful employment with a living wage must be planned to
ensure adequate purchasing capacity for all basic necessities. The
standard of guaranteed minimum necessities should advance with
increases in the economy's productive capacity. "

This isn't quite communist, but is distributionist/communitarian with
heavy Green/Soviet overtones (like, for example, what happens to people
who don't want this sort of society, or communities who don't want it?
Are they put up against a wall and shot?), as if individual property
ownership does not connote 'environmental stewardship'.

I would estimate that where Georgism resides in the left wing of
Libertarian territory, PROUTism is over the line in solid left-liberal territory.

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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 01:44:06 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726233708.15074.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>

What about intellectuals-- can they be trusted? Would
it be reasonable to say around 80% of professors are
in it mostly for the salary and benefits? I certainly
don't want to criticize the military-industrial
complex if most intellectuals (professors at the top)
are no more trustworthy. 
  I hesitate to discuss the illegal immigration issue.
 Mexican families are now so plugged into America
there is no chance of consensus to close the border to
illegals, unless we get another big attack in the U.S.
 Liberal friends wont discuss it at all, they clam up.
Some wont even admit terrorism exists. They don't
argue, they merely scoff, "terrorism? what
terrorism?"; the most they will say is America wont
admit what it did in the past to the Mideast. then
they change the subject & refuse to be drawn out.


> I would estimate that where Georgism resides in the
> left wing of
> Libertarian territory, PROUTism is over the line in
> solid left-liberal territory.
> 
> 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
> 


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


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jul 27 01:59:06 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:59:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
In-Reply-To: <42E64FE7.20308@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <200507270200.j6R20xR19450@tick.javien.com>

> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:

> >I would sooner believe that someone's been breeding round-up
> >resistant weeds as a hobby to seed such 'test' plots with...

We could make a ton of money off of this!  Breed round-up
resistant weeds, sell short a bunch of shares of Monsanto
and the company that is GMing the crops, sow your pet weeds 
downwind of the GM test plot, stocks plummet, cover your 
short sales, take your profit, quietly buy up a ton of the 
reduced cost stock, then show the world how the weeds got there.  

Rinse and repeat.

spike 







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 02:13:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727021344.95509.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

12% of college faculty are registered Republican, 18% independent, and
the rest Democrat. I would say that some intellectuals can be trusted
and others cannot,  as they are dyed in the wool leftists involved in
the decades-long effort by the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations to
dominate and radicalize American universities. You have to judge each
faculty member on their merits.

The only places you find republicans on faculties these days is in
engineering departments. FIRE's website covers this issue quite well
(and for a group founded by liberals, they are very fair and objective,
primarily as they stick to one issue, free speech, religiously... they
don't let their personal political opinions color how they judge
university treatment of political or other speech depending on who is
being gored.). 

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

> What about intellectuals-- can they be trusted? Would
> it be reasonable to say around 80% of professors are
> in it mostly for the salary and benefits? I certainly
> don't want to criticize the military-industrial
> complex if most intellectuals (professors at the top)
> are no more trustworthy. 
>   I hesitate to discuss the illegal immigration issue.
>  Mexican families are now so plugged into America
> there is no chance of consensus to close the border to
> illegals, unless we get another big attack in the U.S.
>  Liberal friends wont discuss it at all, they clam up.
> Some wont even admit terrorism exists. They don't
> argue, they merely scoff, "terrorism? what
> terrorism?"; the most they will say is America wont
> admit what it did in the past to the Mideast. then
> they change the subject & refuse to be drawn out.
> 
> 
> > I would estimate that where Georgism resides in the
> > left wing of
> > Libertarian territory, PROUTism is over the line in
> > solid left-liberal territory.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
"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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Jul 27 02:20:30 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:20:30 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727021344.95509.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050726221055.02f61190@unreasonable.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>The only places you find republicans on faculties these days is in
>engineering departments. FIRE's website covers this issue quite well
>(and for a group founded by liberals, they are very fair and objective,
>primarily as they stick to one issue, free speech, religiously... they
>don't let their personal political opinions color how they judge
>university treatment of political or other speech depending on who is
>being gored.).

FIRE (www.thefire.org) is emphatically and pointedly *not* an organization 
founded by liberals. Or, more correctly, not *just* by liberals. Their 
board of directors and marquee supporters are equal-parts Big Name 
liberals, Big Name conservatives, and Big Name libertarians. Consider David 
Brudnoy, Alan Dershowitz, Nat Hentoff, Roy Innis, Ed Meese, Virginia 
Postrel, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Nadine Strossen.

Their unified and pan-ideological support of a true marketplace of ideas on 
campus and their high effectiveness in practice make them one of my 
favorite organizations to support and acclaim.


-- David Lubkin.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 02:39:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727023945.67349.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> What about intellectuals-- can they be trusted?

Well it depends on what you are trusting them to do or
not to do. Most intellectuals can be trusted not to
rob you at gun point. Whereas intellectuals are humans
with all the trappings of self-interest, their
machinations for personal gain would be much more
likely to be of a subtle almost invisible nature.
Moreover intellectuals tend to want to give back to
society more than typical thugs and politicians as
they are more aware of interdependence of people at
all levels of society. Moreover, higher awareness of
suffering in the world breeds higher levels of
personal responsibility, if of course the intellectual
is not in a self-imposed state of denial of reality.
Would that necessarily make intellectuals better
leaders than thugs with guns? I don't know but you
would think that millions of years of getting pounded
on by the overgrown alpha-monkeys of the world would
make people willing to try something different for a
change.   

> Would
> it be reasonable to say around 80% of professors are
> in it mostly for the salary and benefits?

I doubt it. It is way too demanding a process to
become a tenured faculty professor to be worth it for
salary alone. Aside from the fact that it takes many
years of schooling, underpaid training positions, and
utterly ridiculous demands on ones time, less than 1
in 5 in biological research make it to such a level.
Even after one becomes a tenured professor, that only
guarantees a base salary of about $100k but can be
doubled if one is of sufficient merit to win sizable
grants. You really have to love the actual science to
even consider putting yourself through THAT grueling
gauntlet. If you want to be rich, go to law school or
start your own business. If you want to gamble on
being able to live in relative comfort, while you
manufacture "truth", than become a professor.


> I
> certainly
> don't want to criticize the military-industrial
> complex if most intellectuals (professors at the
> top)
> are no more trustworthy.

Well aside from the fact that there are some
professors that are funded by the military-industrial
complex, I would say that as a rule, the science
professor's whole stock in trade is trustworthiness
and truth. After all, if some schmoe on the other side
of the world can't follow your instructions and
duplicate your results, then you will be weeded out of
the system. Because of this, I think that at least in
a professional sense, intellectuals in the sciences
hold truth in higher regard than the average business
executive. I think that even a "bad" professor is more
trustworthy than a "good" politician.  
 
>   I hesitate to discuss the illegal immigration
> issue.
>  Mexican families are now so plugged into America
> there is no chance of consensus to close the border
> to
> illegals, unless we get another big attack in the
> U.S.
>  Liberal friends wont discuss it at all, they clam
> up.

Where do you live? In southern-california I have
noticed that liberals and conservatives strongly agree
that illegal immigration is a problem. Illegals use
public facilities paid for by tax-payers while they
themselves do not pay taxes. Here it has gotten to the
point that even communists feel the need to do
something about it. The difference lies in who they
blame. The liberals blame the government and the
conservatives blame the illegal-immigrants.

> Some wont even admit terrorism exists. They don't
> argue, they merely scoff, "terrorism? what
> terrorism?"; the most they will say is America wont
> admit what it did in the past to the Mideast. then
> they change the subject & refuse to be drawn out.

Well you liberal friends should ride the buses in
Jerusalem for a few months and then try to deny the
existense of "terrorism". But hell "terrorism" is just
a label any ways. Violent thugs are violent thugs no
matter what you label them. You kill one person and
you are a muderer. You kill 100 people and you are a
terrorist. You kill 10,000 men and you are king,
dictator, or 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

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


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 02:53:55 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727023945.67349.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727025355.29271.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>

I just wonder if a liberal arts degree is worth the
cost anymore. For the price parents are paying today
for higher ed they can set their children up in
business, buy them real estate, or whatever. And why
would anyone want to send their children to
alternative schools? When alternative schools first
began they actually were an alternative, now they are
commercial alternative schools-- an oxymoron. 


 
> Well it depends on what you are trusting them to do
> or
> not to do. Most intellectuals can be trusted not to
> rob you at gun point. Whereas intellectuals are
> humans
> with all the trappings of self-interest, their
> machinations for personal gain would be much more
> likely to be of a subtle almost invisible nature.
> Moreover intellectuals tend to want to give back to
> society more than typical thugs and politicians as
> they are more aware of interdependence of people at
> all levels of society. Moreover, higher awareness of
> suffering in the world breeds higher levels of
> personal responsibility, if of course the
> intellectual
> is not in a self-imposed state of denial of reality.
> Would that necessarily make intellectuals better
> leaders than thugs with guns? I don't know but you
> would think that millions of years of getting
> pounded
> on by the overgrown alpha-monkeys of the world would
> make people willing to try something different for a
> change.   
> 
> > Would
> > it be reasonable to say around 80% of professors
> are
> > in it mostly for the salary and benefits?
> 
> I doubt it. It is way too demanding a process to
> become a tenured faculty professor to be worth it
> for
> salary alone. Aside from the fact that it takes many
> years of schooling, underpaid training positions,
> and
> utterly ridiculous demands on ones time, less than 1
> in 5 in biological research make it to such a level.
> Even after one becomes a tenured professor, that
> only
> guarantees a base salary of about $100k but can be
> doubled if one is of sufficient merit to win sizable
> grants. You really have to love the actual science
> to
> even consider putting yourself through THAT grueling
> gauntlet. If you want to be rich, go to law school
> or
> start your own business. If you want to gamble on
> being able to live in relative comfort, while you
> manufacture "truth", than become a professor.
> 
> 
> > I
> > certainly
> > don't want to criticize the military-industrial
> > complex if most intellectuals (professors at the
> > top)
> > are no more trustworthy.
> 
> Well aside from the fact that there are some
> professors that are funded by the
> military-industrial
> complex, I would say that as a rule, the science
> professor's whole stock in trade is trustworthiness
> and truth. After all, if some schmoe on the other
> side
> of the world can't follow your instructions and
> duplicate your results, then you will be weeded out
> of
> the system. Because of this, I think that at least
> in
> a professional sense, intellectuals in the sciences
> hold truth in higher regard than the average
> business
> executive. I think that even a "bad" professor is
> more
> trustworthy than a "good" politician.  
>  
> >   I hesitate to discuss the illegal immigration
> > issue.
> >  Mexican families are now so plugged into America
> > there is no chance of consensus to close the
> border
> > to
> > illegals, unless we get another big attack in the
> > U.S.
> >  Liberal friends wont discuss it at all, they clam
> > up.
> 
> Where do you live? In southern-california I have
> noticed that liberals and conservatives strongly
> agree
> that illegal immigration is a problem. Illegals use
> public facilities paid for by tax-payers while they
> themselves do not pay taxes. Here it has gotten to
> the
> point that even communists feel the need to do
> something about it. The difference lies in who they
> blame. The liberals blame the government and the
> conservatives blame the illegal-immigrants.
> 
> > Some wont even admit terrorism exists. They don't
> > argue, they merely scoff, "terrorism? what
> > terrorism?"; the most they will say is America
> wont
> > admit what it did in the past to the Mideast. then
> > they change the subject & refuse to be drawn out.
> 
> Well you liberal friends should ride the buses in
> Jerusalem for a few months and then try to deny the
> existense of "terrorism". But hell "terrorism" is
> just
> a label any ways. Violent thugs are violent thugs no
> matter what you label them. You kill one person and
> you are a muderer. You kill 100 people and you are a
> terrorist. You kill 10,000 men and you are king,
> dictator, or 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
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
> 


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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 03:28:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <40fe8ae610b0da3b0e63b49547687bea@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050727032800.52536.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> It's implied.  Google:/SLAVERY.  The blessings of
> liberty were supposed 
> to be secured for "our posterity" - not that of the
> poor dominated 
> underclass that contributed the labor and suffering
> to make America the 
> great country it is today.

No. The constitution does not start out "We the rich
white-folks. . ." It was to secure the liberty of the
posterity of the people. Don't blame the framers of
the constitution for the fact that the definition of
who we classified as people changed as we became more
inclusive as we became more intelligent. Sometimes
even questionable people can create something bigger,
better, and more profound then they themselves are. I
think the Constitution is clearly one of those things.
 

> Certainly -some- people deliberately thwart the
> vision of the founding 
> "fathers".  I'm not actually clear on whether or not
> any of them 
> thought slavery was wrong, though.

Some clearly did. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would
have willed his slaves freed upon his death if he
thought it was right? He more than most in his time
understood the distinction between convention and
correctness.

>  There is,
> however, a continuous 
> class of land-owning wealthy people in the United
> States who despite 
> not having slaves have managed to surround
> themselves with the same 
> level of comfort and security of their power
> structure as when they 
> did.  They have, instead of literal slaves,
> effectively slaves.

Actually the industrial capitalists got away with a
lot more oppression than the slave owners did. Slave
owners had a vested interest in the health and welfare
of their slaves because slaves were expensive
investments. Why pay for a slave and his room, board,
and health when you can just tell a man that he is
free citizen and put him to work in your factory for
minimum wage without worrying if he lives, dies, or
has a place to sleep at night?  
  
> They're called the middle class.  The ones that live
> in tract houses 
> that they "own" by paying rent to "the banks", that
> drive to work in 
> cars that they're paying "the banks" for, that work
> for companies owned 
> mostly by "the banks", that were educated in the
> "learn to work 
> program" of the new deal.  "You are a slave neo,
> kept in a prison you 
> can't see or touch or feel, a prison for your mind. 
> Free your mind!"

Wow. If you think that the middle-class suburban life
is slavery, you need to spend more time in the
inner-city or the third-world. But don't worry, your
slavery won't last long as the middle class is quickly
disappearing to be replaced by the super-rich and the
seething masses of the truly poor that would envy
slaves if they only understood that freedom doesn't
pay the bills.   
 


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 27 04:05:49 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
In-Reply-To: <200507270200.j6R20xR19450@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050727040549.9098.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> We could make a ton of money off of this!  Breed round-up
> resistant weeds, sell short a bunch of shares of Monsanto
> and the company that is GMing the crops, sow your pet weeds 
> downwind of the GM test plot, stocks plummet, cover your 
> short sales, take your profit, quietly buy up a ton of the 
> reduced cost stock, then show the world how the weeds got there.  
> 
> Rinse and repeat.

We talk about this - but people actually do try this kind of thing for
a living.  No joke.


From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 27 05:26:03 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:26:03 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727014406.44253.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3287846f00ae9d84c13edef8c65eb78f@aol.com>


On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

> What about intellectuals-- can they be trusted? Would
> it be reasonable to say around 80% of professors are
> in it mostly for the salary and benefits? I certainly
> don't want to criticize the military-industrial
> complex if most intellectuals (professors at the top)
> are no more trustworthy.

Why?  If there are TWO ogres living together in a cave who demand three 
virgins a month -or else- don't you have to go kill both ogres?

I particularly like this analysis, again from Meszaros, in the chapter 
entitled "The Objective Constraints on Scientific Research"...

"It is symbolic of our age that the highest intellectual achievements 
are rewarded with a large sum of money attached to a prize - the Nobel 
Peace Prize - which represents the lucrative investment of the 
fortunate amassed by the inventor of the greatest forces of destruction 
known to man prior to the atom bomb...."

He goes on...

"One of the stubborn illusions with regard to the natural sciences 
concerns their alleged 'objectivity' ... ascribed to them on account of 
their experimental and instrumental character...  in reality the 
opposite happens to be the case."

"What is at issue here is that since natural scientists must operate 
within the framework of tangible (as well as costly) instrumental 
complexes and supporting structures, they have to secure incomparably 
more substantial material resources as the elementary condition of 
their activity..."

"Since, however, 70 per cent of all scientific research in the United 
States is controlled by the military/industrial complex ... one wonders 
whose freedom and autonomy they are talking about in praising the 
established..."

And relevant to this forum he quotes from T. Durhams "Fifth Generation 
Forever"...

"Both the pace and complexity  of modern war have left the human 
nervous system behind.   The US Department of Defense is one of the 
mains sources of funds for AI research.   It is an uncomfortable fact 
that AI research was kept health in the US through the 1970's by a 
military establishment which, unlink business, can afford a few 
failures...  For example, the cruise missile's Tercom guidance system, 
which matches hills and valleys with an internalmap, is reportedly 
unreliable.  But companies believed to have worked on the system are 
now profiting from their expertise by marketing industrial vision 
systems."


Because, in the end,

"In the capitalistically advanced countries all branches of science and 
technology are brought into play in furtherance of the aims of the 
powerful economic and political/organizational structures..."

"Trustworthy" is a word to be reserved for maybe your dog.  Maybe your 
family, maybe your friends, certainly not the political propaganda 
machine known as education.

>   I hesitate to discuss the illegal immigration issue.
>  Mexican families are now so plugged into America
> there is no chance of consensus to close the border to
> illegals, unless we get another big attack in the U.S.
>  Liberal friends wont discuss it at all, they clam up.

What do non-liberals want to do, pack them in containers and send them 
home or just kill them outright and save the shipping expense?

> Some wont even admit terrorism exists. They don't
> argue, they merely scoff, "terrorism? what
> terrorism?"; the most they will say is America wont
> admit what it did in the past to the Mideast. then
> they change the subject & refuse to be drawn out.

Well, technically, it's not terrorism any more.  It's war that's come 
to our shores.  It's just that our enemy is substantially smaller and 
consequently has chosen very, very different means of achieving their 
goals.  If we want to stop this war, we've got to find a way of making 
peace.  "It's harder to make peace than war."  This will require 
something other than bravado and shock-and-awe.   Remember that war is 
not new to Iraqis or Afghanis.  Most of  this generation were raised in 
countries at war and with the US nefariously at the helm of both.  They 
regard our interference in their countries both economic and military 
as covert acts of aggression and until we simultaneously fess up and 
stop, we can expect the aggression to continue (that is what Bin Laden 
said, anyway, in his statement available at pbs.org).  And objectively 
speaking, it sounds right.  If you take war-raised kids as familiar 
with guns and grenades as ours are with instant messaging and brittany 
spears, have them grow up, explain to them that the US is predominantly 
responsible for the death of their parents/uncles/sisters/brothers and 
continues to be responsible for their poverty (and the case isn't hard 
to make), hand them a grenade launcher and gun and welcome to why we 
have war at our doorstep.  Necessity breeds invention, inevitably one 
day one of the militarily oppressed would devise a way to have their 
cause recognized and taking that directly to American civilians is the 
natural conclusion for which no Ph.D. in military tactics is necessary.

>
>> I would estimate that where Georgism resides in the
>> left wing of
>> Libertarian territory, PROUTism is over the line in
>> solid left-liberal territory.

Well, Chomsky did put his stamp of approval on it.  Prout appears to be 
a pragmatic pro-humanist attempt.  No doubt I'm a 
proutist/leftist/communist/libertarian/liberal/anarchist/pragmatist.

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Wed Jul 27 05:41:24 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:41:24 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727032800.52536.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727032800.52536.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <91163f4e0ef9ff6b1155dd52618d0182@aol.com>


On Jul 26, 2005, at 5:28 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It's implied.  Google:/SLAVERY.  The blessings of
>> liberty were supposed
>> to be secured for "our posterity" - not that of the
>> poor dominated
>> underclass that contributed the labor and suffering
>> to make America the
>> great country it is today.
>
> No. The constitution does not start out "We the rich
> white-folks. . ."

It's implied.  Read it again.

> It was to secure the liberty of the
> posterity of the people.

Which people?  "Our posterity".    And buddy unless you're daughters of 
the american revolution, they weren't talking about you.

Remember that "redskins", "negroes", "chinamen" and women were all 
non-persons in the old America.  This is how we got abundant food, good 
roads, railroad tracks laid, abundant coal and steel - somebody worked 
the mines and didn't get paid much if anything for it.   This had been 
going on for more than a hundred years  at the time of the drafting of 
the constitution and its signing exclusively by slave owners, none of 
whom showed remorse at the having of them.

>  Don't blame the framers of
> the constitution for the fact that the definition of
> who we classified as people changed as we became more
> inclusive as we became more intelligent.

Slavery was known to be wrong by the Jews around 3000BC, each of the 
framers of the constitution were intimately familiar with Exodus.  They 
SHOULD have known better.

>  Sometimes
> even questionable people can create something bigger,
> better, and more profound then they themselves are.

Sometimes.  And sometimes what they create is just more of the same in 
a new package.

> I
> think the Constitution is clearly one of those things.

I like the ideas of the constitution.  It's clearly an advance over 
what came before.  It's not clearly an end to the ongoing class-war nor 
was it intended as such.  Instead it was intended to ensure the power 
of those who took it by force and guile.

>> Certainly -some- people deliberately thwart the
>> vision of the founding
>> "fathers".  I'm not actually clear on whether or not
>> any of them
>> thought slavery was wrong, though.
>
> Some clearly did. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would
> have willed his slaves freed upon his death if he
> thought it was right? He more than most in his time
> understood the distinction between convention and
> correctness.

Irrelevant.  Thinking that cigarette smoking is bad for you and 
quitting are two different things.  Only one of them is important, 
guess which.

>
>>  There is,
>> however, a continuous
>> class of land-owning wealthy people in the United
>> States who despite
>> not having slaves have managed to surround
>> themselves with the same
>> level of comfort and security of their power
>> structure as when they
>> did.  They have, instead of literal slaves,
>> effectively slaves.
>
> Actually the industrial capitalists got away with a
> lot more oppression than the slave owners did.

Yes.  I think that's what I was trying to get across here.

>  Slave
> owners had a vested interest in the health and welfare
> of their slaves because slaves were expensive
> investments.

they still have vested interests in (some of) our health and education, 
etc.   They need expensive slaves to keep the cheap slaves in line and 
design artificial intelligences for their cruise missiles.

>> They're called the middle class.  The ones that live
>> in tract houses
>> that they "own" by paying rent to "the banks", that
>> drive to work in
>> cars that they're paying "the banks" for, that work
>> for companies owned
>> mostly by "the banks", that were educated in the
>> "learn to work
>> program" of the new deal.  "You are a slave neo,
>> kept in a prison you
>> can't see or touch or feel, a prison for your mind.
>> Free your mind!"
>
> Wow. If you think that the middle-class suburban life
> is slavery, you need to spend more time in the
> inner-city or the third-world.

I grew up in the inner-city.  I spent -enough- time in Mexico.  I know 
whereof I speak.

Slave owners always had house-niggers to ensure that the business of 
the house was taken care of.  They were better treated than the other 
slaves, sometimes they got to be bosses.  Sometimes they got to whip 
the other slaves when it was needed.  Middle-class americans are, to 
follow through the analogy, the house-niggers of the world.  We whip 
the slaves when necessary, we take pride in our ability to read and we 
say yessa massa when the boss says to work on saturday or he wants to 
sleep with our women.

> But don't worry, your
> slavery won't last long as the middle class is quickly
> disappearing to be replaced by the super-rich and the
> seething masses of the truly poor that would envy
> slaves if they only understood that freedom doesn't
> pay the bills.

Don't worry, I dropped out.

Robbie Lindauer
thetip.org



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 06:06:59 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ahhhhh! That felt good.
Message-ID: <20050727060700.24701.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com>

Russian spammer found beaten to death

One billion email users under suspicion as police
launch enquiry

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140340/russian-spammer-murdered


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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 07:55:13 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <91163f4e0ef9ff6b1155dd52618d0182@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050727075513.12540.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> It's implied.  Read it again.

I don't need to read it again. I can recite the
preamble from memory and it is nowhere implied. Please
paste relevant text wherein you say that it is
implied.

> Which people?  "Our posterity".    And buddy unless
> you're daughters of 
> the american revolution, they weren't talking about
> you.

They were talking to the future so they didn't know
WHO they were talking too.
 
> Remember that "redskins", "negroes", "chinamen" and
> women were all 
> non-persons in the old America.

That's my point, the moment they were accepted as
people, the Constitution applied to them. It's kind of
magical like that huh? Don't forget that Old America
was a tiny sliver of runty states and commonwealths
stretched along the atlantic sea-board. Our America
stretches from sea to shining sea. Admittedly the
native-americans and the blacks got shafted, but
nobody twisted the arms of the Chinese to come here
and build our railroads for us. They did it of their
own free will and they accomplished a great deed for
which this country is grateful.


> This is how we got abundant food, good 
> roads, railroad tracks laid, abundant coal and steel
> - somebody worked 
> the mines and didn't get paid much if anything for
> it.

Yeah and others financed it and got rich for it and
still others claimed a few acres in the Oklahoma land
rush, grew some crops, and pretty much minded their
own business. So what's your point? That because some
Americans are rich and lazy while others are
hard-working and poor that the Constitution somehow
sucks? That does not logically follow.  

> This had been 
> going on for more than a hundred years  at the time
> of the drafting of 
> the constitution and its signing exclusively by
> slave owners, none of 
> whom showed remorse at the having of them.

You know what your problem is Robbie? It's that you
can't break your mind free of the cultural shackles.
Of course you are not alone in that since that is the
very thing you are accusing the founders of. You grew
up believing that slavery is wrong and because of this
you can't imagine how anyone at anytime could possibly
have condoned it. Slavery had been going on in the
world since the dawn of recorded history. You think
that a bunch of guys who grew up with it, saw it
everywhere, and were practically raised by
house-slaves themselves would somehow all wake up one
morning and slap themselves on the forehead and say,
"My God what was I thinking? Slavery is WRONG." If YOU
can't see how THEY thought it was perfectly acceptable
to keep slaves, then you are guilty of the very thing
that you are accusing them of and that is being unable
to lift your mind above the cultural context in which
you live and see the big picture.   
 
> Slavery was known to be wrong by the Jews around
> 3000BC, each of the 
> framers of the constitution were intimately familiar
> with Exodus.  They 
> SHOULD have known better.

You are right, the framers of the constitution were
intimately familiar with Exodus. Here are some
relevant excerpts:

Exodus 12:44 - but every slave that is bought for
money may eat of it after you have circumcised him.   

Exodus 21:2 - When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall
serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out
free, for nothing.

Exodus 21:7 - When a man sells his daughter as a
slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

Exodus 21:20 - When a man strikes his slave, male or
female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand,
he shall be punished.   

Exodus 21:21 - But if the slave survives a day or two,
he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

Exodus is chocked full of laws from God regarding how
to treat slaves, how to punish them, what to feed
them, and nowhere does it say it is wrong to have
them. So don't try to pull that Jewish "holier than
thou" crap on me. The only thing the Hebrews had
against slavery was they prefered to own them rather
than to BE them. Just look at the history of Solomon,
second king of Israel son of the great David whose
star is the symbol for the whole of the Jewish people
and reputed to be the wisest man in the world.      

1 Kings 9:20-9:23 "All the people who were left of the
Amorites, the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites,
and the Jeb'usites, who were not of the people of
Israel-- 21 their descendants who were left after them
in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to
destroy utterly--these Solomon made a forced levy of
slaves, and so they are to this day. 22 But of the
people of Israel Solomon made no slaves; they were the
soldiers, they were his officials, his commanders, his
captains, his chariot commanders and his horsemen."

I couldn't make this stuff up.  

> I like the ideas of the constitution.  It's clearly
> an advance over 
> what came before.  It's not clearly an end to the
> ongoing class-war nor 
> was it intended as such.  Instead it was intended to
> ensure the power 
> of those who took it by force and guile.

No. It was intended to allow for "Government of the
people, for the people, by the PEOPLE." I am sorry
that all the founders could leave for you was a scrap
of paper that had some really nice inspirational
platitudes written on it. I wish they could have left
you more of what they had. . . like vision, courage,
and the will to take what is rightfully yours.
 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Thinking that cigarette smoking is bad
> for you and 
> quitting are two different things.  Only one of them
> is important, 
> guess which.

Why would anyone quit if they didn't think it was bad
for them? 

> I grew up in the inner-city.  I spent -enough- time
> in Mexico.  I know 
> whereof I speak.

Yeah? Mexico is the Ritz-Carlton compared to
Bangladesh where 1 in 3 children are born retarded
because of thyroid defects caused by their mothers
getting insufficient iodine in their diet during
pregnancy. Why you ask? Because iodized salt costs a
couple of pennies more a pound. When you are digging
maggots out of your own shit for protein, then you
will understand true poverty. Until then, you are just
an apostate prince in a self-imposed exile of the mind
because you don't like your daddy's royal decrees. 
 
> Middle-class
> americans are, to 
> follow through the analogy, the house-niggers of the
> world.  We whip 
> the slaves when necessary, we take pride in our
> ability to read and we 
> say yessa massa when the boss says to work on
> saturday or he wants to 
> sleep with our women.

Do you always use nigger, china-man, and other
monikers of hate? You do have freedom of speech but
still it's not very progressive now is it? For the
record, I am nobody's slave. I am free, educated, and
powerful. I could seize power over others through
force and guile but I choose not to. I am a man of
reason and not some brute animal ruled by my instincts
for domination. That those who claim to be my leaders
seem to be, shames me greatly. But neither you nor
they would be wise to mistake my generous nature for
servility. 

> Don't worry, I dropped out.
Too bad . . . I am just getting started. :)



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  Wed Jul 27 08:38:24 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:38:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>

Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read the top entry. We are so happy!
http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/



Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
New Animation blog
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
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/20050727/3f5c9e15/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Jul 27 09:33:34 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:33:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com> <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05072702336f47bb05@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/05, Gina Miller <nanogirl at halcyon.com> wrote:
>  
> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read the top
> entry. We are so happy! 
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ 

Congratulations! That's wonderful news.

- Russell


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 10:54:35 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050726142510.31370.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727105435.24410.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Is a name brand really worth twice
> as
> > much as a generic? 
> 
> Of course it is.

What?!? How does a company investing money into
advertising its fungible commodity give any added
value or utility to the consumer? After a million
years of drinking just plain old water, homo sapiens
discovers Evian . . . Get real.  

> And how did that competing company CEO get his pay?
> You are stuck in
> another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a
> result of your
> ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market
> always finds proper
> value.

Then explain stock-bubbles, crashes, and other market
anomolies. The market guestimates the proper values of
things, gullible people rush to buy those things at
percieved value, and when those guestimates turn out
to be wrong, people suffer. That's like saying that
just because you know how to use the eraser on the end
of your pencil, you are always right.

> Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't
> worth what they
> are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are
> based on
> puritanical protestant prejudices against
> ostentatiousness and
> inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth
> any other.

But the meme that "all men [and women of course] are
created equal" is the foundation of democracy. If the
meme is inaccurate then is democracy legitimate?
Should it be changed to one vote for every dollar or
one vote per acre of land rather than one vote for
every person? 

> Any economist can tell you that no two workers are
> worth the same pay
> for the same job, and there is no market rule
> limiting CEO pay as a
> proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels
> get paid what they
> are worth, with few exceptions (typically when
> government and unions
> enforce non-market pay scales).

So you are saying the worth of a man is the size of
his paycheck? By your logic, the American who makes
shoes for $20.00/hour is worth more than the Chinese
child that makes shoes for 20 cents/hour. So if the
American worker is worth more than the Chinese worker,
then why are these companies exchanging high value
workers for less valuable ones? But if it is not true
and companies are just trying to find the cheapest
labor possible, actual worth of that labor be damned,
then why aren't they hiring Chinese CEO's for $10,000
per year instead of Americans for $1 million/yr? The
dicipline of economics as it is currently conceived
serves mainly to put a veneer of scientific validity
upon naked greed.     

> Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped
> listening to that a long
> time ago, and only cite it today when it serves
> their own benefit.

That's a ill-conceived stance for them to take because
that scrap of paper is the only thing that gives them
even the barest hint of legitimacy my eyes.  

> Because all those who claim to be defenders of
> liberty either are out
> to defend their own liberty at the expense of
> others, or are too
> chickenshit to recognise that the time for
> revolution has been here for
> a while.

No, not yet. They have been too canny so far. Right
now they are treating the American people like the
proverbial frog in a classic biology experiment. If
you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog
immediately hops out. But if you put the frog into
water at room temperature and then raise the water
temperature slowly, one degree per minute for example,
before long the frog is dead in boiling water and
never realized what was happening. But I may be giving
them too much credit. Sooner or later, I think they
will become too cocky and make a mistake. 
     Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
Without something to rally the people around, you will
just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
worse, a terrorist.  
     
> As these five
> justices have given
> us permission to take their homes, we intend to do
> so, just as if
> they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free"
> sign on it.
>

As long as they are willing subject themselves to
their own ruling, I don't see a tremendous problem
with that. I would be curious to see their reaction to
this ploy.
 


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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Jul 27 11:00:50 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:00:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com> <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507270700210.-238533@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


Ah! May your joy be long! :)

Regards,
MB


On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Gina Miller wrote:

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 11:07:58 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050727110758.45891.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most
> recent update. Read the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/

Awesome, Gina, I am very happy for you both. How is
his T cell count? 

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  Wed Jul 27 11:20:50 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:20:50 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727075513.12540.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727075513.12540.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8aac59d77ec9079de8a6900435689009@aol.com>


On Jul 26, 2005, at 9:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It's implied.  Read it again.
>
> I don't need to read it again. I can recite the
> preamble from memory and it is nowhere implied.

"We the people" does not include blacks, native americans or chinese.  
That their posterity did would have been a complete surprise to the 
formers.

Think of it this way, if they'd wished to ensure the blessings of 
liberty to themselves and their posterity and the "themselves" and 
"posterity" included the slaves, then they'd have made abolition a part 
of the constitution originally.  Posterity is vague between "future 
generations" and one's own descendants.

> Please
> paste relevant text wherein you say that it is
> implied.
>
>> Which people?  "Our posterity".    And buddy unless
>> you're daughters of
>> the american revolution, they weren't talking about
>> you.
>
> They were talking to the future so they didn't know
> WHO they were talking too.

They were talking to their "posterity".  The ones to whom they were 
ensuring the blessings of liberty, e.g. not the slaves.

>
>> Remember that "redskins", "negroes", "chinamen" and
>> women were all
>> non-persons in the old America.
>
> That's my point, the moment they were accepted as
> people, the Constitution applied to them.

Not really, there remains unfair treatment under the law where 
expeditious decisions of one generation are regarded as unthinkable at 
later dates.  Like making fellow "citizens" sit at the back of the bus 
and pay a poll tax.

> It's kind of
> magical like that huh?

Not magical enough to actually make up for the wrongs done to the 
people who suffered as a result of slavery and the conquest of north 
america.

> Don't forget that Old America
> was a tiny sliver of runty states and commonwealths
> stretched along the atlantic sea-board. Our America
> stretches from sea to shining sea.

It's amazing what you can do with some guns and the willingness to use 
them.

>  Admittedly the
> native-americans and the blacks got shafted, but
> nobody twisted the arms of the Chinese to come here
> and build our railroads for us. They did it of their
> own free will and they accomplished a great deed for
> which this country is grateful.

That's a doubtful interpretation.  More accurately things sucked worse 
where they were from or they were hornswaggled.  But how does saying 
that the chinese came of their own free will make it better that they 
were terrifyingly treated when they got here?
>
>> This is how we got abundant food, good
>> roads, railroad tracks laid, abundant coal and steel
>> - somebody worked
>> the mines and didn't get paid much if anything for
>> it.
>
> Yeah and others financed it and got rich for it and
> still others claimed a few acres in the Oklahoma land
> rush, grew some crops, and pretty much minded their
> own business. So what's your point? That because some
> Americans are rich and lazy while others are
> hard-working and poor that the Constitution somehow
> sucks? That does not logically follow.

No, my point is that for all its supposed value, the constitution 
failed to do the one relevant thing for this discussion - to empower 
the lowly, prevent oppression and make even the generational poverty 
that continues to plague us to this very day.  From that point of view 
it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


>> This had been
>> going on for more than a hundred years  at the time
>> of the drafting of
>> the constitution and its signing exclusively by
>> slave owners, none of
>> whom showed remorse at the having of them.
>
> You know what your problem is Robbie? It's that you
> can't break your mind free of the cultural shackles.

You don't know me very well and this doesn't excuse the formers of the 
constitution for being slave owners.  Rhetorically this is called 
"changing the subject" and it's what people do when they've run out of 
interesting things to say.

> Of course you are not alone in that since that is the
> very thing you are accusing the founders of. You grew
> up believing that slavery is wrong and because of this
> you can't imagine how anyone at anytime could possibly
> have condoned it.

You don't know how I grew up.  This is called an ad hominem argument 
and it's the kind of thing people do when they've run out of 
interesting things to say.  It typically only works when they actually 
know something about the person their arguing against.  I also can't 
imagine how anyone at any time could possibly condone war, lying, 
stealing, cheating, murder or adultery, but this isn't relevant for our 
current subject.

>  Slavery had been going on in the
> world since the dawn of recorded history.

Yes, the powerful of the world have been oppressing the poor since they 
realized they could.  Does this somehow excuse it?

> You think
> that a bunch of guys who grew up with it, saw it
> everywhere, and were practically raised by
> house-slaves themselves would somehow all wake up one
> morning and slap themselves on the forehead and say,
> "My God what was I thinking? Slavery is WRONG."

If they'd read Exodus, they would have.  Oh yeah, they did read Exodus. 
  Yes, I think anyone who's read Exodus should know perfectly well that 
slavery is wrong.  It's the conclusion that Jews came to after being 
enslaved and they encoded their conclusion into their laws.  And yes, I 
think that anyone who sees someone they "own" living in squalor and 
unable to improve their condition should be able to put themselves in 
their shoes and realize that if the tables were turned they wouldn't 
like the deal.

You're claim here amounts to asserting that the formers of the 
constitution were heartless fiends and/or complete and utter 
nincompoops.

>  If YOU
> can't see how THEY thought it was perfectly acceptable
> to keep slaves, then you are guilty of the very thing
> that you are accusing them of and that is being unable
> to lift your mind above the cultural context in which
> you live and see the big picture.

Oy vey.  So because I think slavery is wrong, I'm as bad as a slave 
owner.  I think you're either very confused or really grasping for 
straws here.

>
>> Slavery was known to be wrong by the Jews around
>> 3000BC, each of the
>> framers of the constitution were intimately familiar
>> with Exodus.  They
>> SHOULD have known better.
>
> You are right, the framers of the constitution were
> intimately familiar with Exodus. Here are some
> relevant excerpts:
>
> Exodus 12:44 - but every slave that is bought for
> money may eat of it after you have circumcised him.
>
> Exodus 21:2 - When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall
> serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out
> free, for nothing.
>
> Exodus 21:7 - When a man sells his daughter as a
> slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
>
> Exodus 21:20 - When a man strikes his slave, male or
> female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand,
> he shall be punished.
>
> Exodus 21:21 - But if the slave survives a day or two,
> he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
>
> Exodus is chocked full of laws from God regarding how
> to treat slaves, how to punish them, what to feed
> them, and nowhere does it say it is wrong to have
> them.

You're quite wrong, it does very specifically give rules about which 
people can be enslaved (only Hebrews, not foreigners) and the terms of 
their slavery (6 years) and that they ought not be treated cruelly.



>  So don't try to pull that Jewish "holier than
> thou" crap on me. The only thing the Hebrews had
> against slavery was they prefered to own them rather
> than to BE them.

You forgot to read where it says:

""Love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  
- Deuteronomy
10:19

God promised to punish them if they treated strangers like they were 
treated.

> Just look at the history of Solomon,
> second king of Israel son of the great David whose
> star is the symbol for the whole of the Jewish people
> and reputed to be the wisest man in the world.
>
> 1 Kings 9:20-9:23 "All the people who were left of the
> Amorites, the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites,
> and the Jeb'usites, who were not of the people of
> Israel-- 21 their descendants who were left after them
> in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to
> destroy utterly--these Solomon made a forced levy of
> slaves, and so they are to this day. 22 But of the
> people of Israel Solomon made no slaves; they were the
> soldiers, they were his officials, his commanders, his
> captains, his chariot commanders and his horsemen."
>

Solomon also erected an Asherah pole and made sacrifices to other Gods. 
   Does the bible therefore also condone those actions, according to 
you?

>
>> I like the ideas of the constitution.  It's clearly
>> an advance over
>> what came before.  It's not clearly an end to the
>> ongoing class-war nor
>> was it intended as such.  Instead it was intended to
>> ensure the power
>> of those who took it by force and guile.
>
> No. It was intended to allow for "Government of the
> people, for the people, by the PEOPLE."

Some of the people, the rich and powerful ones.

>  I am sorry
> that all the founders could leave for you was a scrap
> of paper that had some really nice inspirational
> platitudes written on it. I wish they could have left
> you more of what they had. . . like vision, courage,
> and the will to take what is rightfully yours.

Now I'm a coward with no vision.  Have you been reading my diary?

>> Irrelevant.  Thinking that cigarette smoking is bad
>> for you and
>> quitting are two different things.  Only one of them
>> is important,
>> guess which.
>
> Why would anyone quit if they didn't think it was bad
> for them?

Slavery, stick to the subject.  Saying slavery is bad but not letting 
your own slaves free is called hypocrisy.

>
>> I grew up in the inner-city.  I spent -enough- time
>> in Mexico.  I know
>> whereof I speak.
>
> Yeah? Mexico is the Ritz-Carlton compared to
> Bangladesh where 1 in 3 children are born retarded
> because of thyroid defects caused by their mothers
> getting insufficient iodine in their diet during
> pregnancy. Why you ask? Because iodized salt costs a
> couple of pennies more a pound. When you are digging
> maggots out of your own shit for protein, then you
> will understand true poverty. Until then, you are just
> an apostate prince in a self-imposed exile of the mind
> because you don't like your daddy's royal decrees.

You're right, I never did any maggot digging, thank God!  But they do 
eat maggots in mexico, I've seen it.  I didn't claim I'm among the 
poorest, just that I'm not rich and I've seen poor.  Perhaps you should 
go to mexico, it's close by.  Take a look at the makeshift toilets in 
the cardboard cities.  Or go see how people live on the hills outside 
Caracas.  I think your point was that I'm a spoiled child of some kind. 
  To some people, no doubt I am, a house-nigger who was allowed to go to 
college because the powers that be thought I'd make a good laborer in 
that class.  But as with every plan, there are two sides.  If you 
educate the slave enough to do your books, they may also steal from 
you.

Are you from Bangladesh?  Have you been there?

>> Middle-class
>> americans are, to
>> follow through the analogy, the house-niggers of the
>> world.  We whip
>> the slaves when necessary, we take pride in our
>> ability to read and we
>> say yessa massa when the boss says to work on
>> saturday or he wants to
>> sleep with our women.
>
> Do you always use nigger, china-man, and other
> monikers of hate?

Yes.  It occasionally has the desired effect.  I would never want to 
forget that my ancestors were the object of ridicule because of their 
race in order to further the economic goals of the dominant class of 
their time.  It's an important aspect of who we are.  It also explains 
why I see it go around still.

Did you understand the analogy?

>  You do have freedom of speech but
> still it's not very progressive now is it?

I'm not a progressive.  Sometimes you need to scratch the wound to 
remind everyone that it still hurts.

>  For the
> record, I am nobody's slave. I am free, educated, and
> powerful. I could seize power over others through
> force and guile but I choose not to. I am a man of
> reason and not some brute animal ruled by my instincts
> for domination. That those who claim to be my leaders
> seem to be, shames me greatly. But neither you nor
> they would be wise to mistake my generous nature for
> servility.

Don't be fooled, your claimed leaders would not allow you to seize 
their power by force or guile.  They didn't acquire their power being 
stupid or weak.  They acquired their power by being stronger and 
smarter than everyone who came before.  Unless you think you're Genghis 
Khan and can rally an army to rival the US army without them noticing 
first, your best option might be to be a terrorist.  Terrorists are 
like gnats to the US - they kill off a thousand people now and again, 
but can't really touch -the system-.   Well, that's the thinking of the 
current major threat to the US, anyway.   To the people with -real 
power- you are chattel.  You will further their goals or drivel away in 
obscurity.  You may be more or less valuable chattel, but that's what 
you are.  If you become a nuisance, they'll simply kill you.  If you 
just try to muddle along and stay out of their way, play their game, 
etc., you're capitulating and likely being duped in the process.  You 
may try to escape, you may succeed.  I wish you all the luck in the 
world.

>> Don't worry, I dropped out.
> Too bad . . . I am just getting started. :)

Advice - don't run a rat race.

Robbie Lindauer



From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Jul 27 11:23:44 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:23:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superweed forms
In-Reply-To: <20050726054751.GA6875@ofb.net>
References: <20050726054751.GA6875@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <42E76EC0.2060100@sasktel.net>

I am not so surprised to see the roundup resistance trait migrate.
Roundup is a widely used herbicide the wipes out most every crop 
competitors.
Roundup though is a very non-toxic herbicide so its benefits are numerous.

However, what I would suggest to watch for is the terminator or 
sterility gene.
In theory this gene could migrate and make extinct an entire plant type.
So the GM debate is off course.
Instead of painting all GM with one brush it is important to pick on 
areas where
there are larger than average downsides.


Damien Sullivan wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1535428%2C00.html
>
>GM crop cross-contaminates with weed to negative results.
>
>Wow, who would ever have predicted something like that?
>
>-xx- Damien X-) 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Wed Jul 27 21:23:20 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:23:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] My Posting Replies
In-Reply-To: <42E2FE7B.1080506@neopax.com>
References: <BAY104-F39358E39061070FC543582E7D70@phx.gbl>
	<42E2FE7B.1080506@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42E7FB48.2030800@optusnet.com.au>

Dirk Bruere wrote: 

> Some people on these lists can only tolerate memes compatible to the 
> ones that already infect them.
> They are highly resistant to novel worldviews.
>
That is a fairly strong survival trait for a meme....


From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Jul 27 11:58:25 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:58:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507270700210.-238533@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com> <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0507270700210.-238533@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <42E776E1.2020800@sasktel.net>

I sent your link to a friend of mine who had a near fatal run in with 
pancreatic cancer and for whom
recovery from surgery has been almost as traumatic as the near fatal 
early months after diagnosis.

MFJ

MB wrote:

>Ah! May your joy be long! :)
>
>Regards,
>MB
>
>
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Gina Miller wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read the top entry. We are so happy!
>>http://ginamiller.blogspot.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/20050727/dbdef66e/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 27 13:25:09 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:25:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MUSIC: Ambient Sounds from a City
Message-ID: <380-22005732713259199@M2W033.mail2web.com>

I have not had a chance to listen to this yet.

Natasha
<HTML><!--
*********************************************************************




RHIZOME.ORG -> NET ART NEWS                       July 27, 2005

Ambient Politics

What does the global AIDS crisis sound like? How about the displacement of
people from the dwindling stock of affordable housing in cities like Los
Angeles? Since 1994, a collective of artists, activists and musicians known
as Ultra-red have created sound works and performances that combine ambient
music and confrontational politics. Based in LA, Ultra-red's practice of
working with field recordings to make sonic montages has produced a complex
collection of albums and public performances. Since early works like
"Soundtracks," based on the group's on-site work with needle-exchange
advocates, they have worked with housing activists ("Structural
Adjustments") and international labor organizations ("Social Factory"),
producing albums and events that challenge both the political and aesthetic
dimensions of social spaces. Past Ultra-red works, as well as those of their
collaborators, can be found in their "Public Record Archive," an online
collection of downloadable sounds, images, movies and texts. What one will
find is a mix of experimental documentary, electronica and community
organizing that, like the space surrounding us, demands attention from
multiple senses. - Ryan Griffis

http://ultrared.org


**NOTE: An HTML version of this email appears below. If you are reading
this, your email application does not support HTML-encoded email.**

Rhizome members can subscribe and unsubscribe by visiting
http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz. If you simply want to unsubscribe
from Net Art News, visit http://rhizome.org/netartnews/.

************************************************************************
-->


<body link="blue" alink="black" vlink="black" bgcolor="white"
marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">



<!-- start: stuff above the actual moz navbar -->
<table width="750" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
 <tr> 
          <td width="151" height="87" align="left" valign="center"><a
href="http://rhizome.org/"><img SRC="http://rhizome.org/baseims/logo.gif"
width="151" height="87" border="0" alt="Rhizome"></a></td>
          <td width="599" height="87" align="left" valign="bottom">
<a href="http://rhizome.org/"><img
SRC="http://rhizome.org/baseims/navbar_subtitle.gif" width="349"
height="24" border="0" alt="The New Media Art Resource"></a></td>
 </tr>

</table>
<!-- end: stuff above the actual moz navbar -->

<!--START: NAN NAV BAR------------------------------------------>


<TABLE width="100%" border="0" bgcolor="#cccc66"><TR><TD>

<TABLE width="380px" border="0" bgcolor="#cccc66">
	<TR>
		<TD bgcolor="#cccc66" width="34%"><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size=-1><b><a
href="http://rhizome.org/">Launch?Rhizome</a></b></font>
		</TD>
		<TD bgcolor="#cccc66" width="22%"><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size=-1><b><a
href="http://rhizome.org/info/contact.php">Contact?Us</a></b></font>
		</TD>
		<TD bgcolor="#cccc66" width="34%"><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size=-1><b><a
href="http://rhizome.org/support">Support?Rhizome</a></b></font>
		</TD>
		<TD bgcolor="#cccc66" width="10%"><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size=-1><b><a href="http://rhizome.org/info">Info</a></b></font>
		</TD>
	</TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR></TABLE>

<!--END: NAN NAV BAR------------------------------------------>
<br>
<TABLE  border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
 	<TR> 
          <TD align="left" valign="top">
         
<!--START: NET ART NEWS CONTENT CELL  ---------------------------------->

			 <IMG SRC="http://rhizome.org/baseims/netartnews.gif" alt="Net Art News">

			<TABLE border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0"><tr>
					<TD valign="top"
background="http://rhizome.org/baseims/bg_netartnews.gif">
						<A href="http://ultrared.org"><IMG
SRC="http://rhizome.org//imagebase/netartnews/20050727.gif" BORDER="0"
WIDTH="135" HEIGHT="170" alt="Click to launch site">
						<IMG SRC="http://rhizome.org/baseims/click_to_launch_new.gif"
BORDER="0" alt="Click to launch site"></a>
					</TD>
					
					<TD background="http://rhizome.org/baseims/bg_netartnews.gif">
						<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-1><b>July 27,
2005</b></font>
						<br><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=+1><b><a
href="http://ultrared.org">
						Ambient Politics
						</a></b></p></font>
						
						<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-1>	
						What does the global AIDS crisis sound like? How about the
displacement of people from the dwindling stock of affordable housing in
cities like Los Angeles? Since 1994, a collective of artists, activists and
musicians known as Ultra-red have created sound works and performances that
combine ambient music and confrontational politics. Based in LA,
Ultra-red's practice of working with field recordings to make sonic
montages has produced a complex collection of albums and public
performances. Since early works like "Soundtracks," based on the group's
on-site work with needle-exchange advocates, they have worked with housing
activists ("Structural Adjustments") and international labor organizations
("Social Factory"), producing albums and events that challenge both the
political and aesthetic dimensions of social spaces. Past Ultra-red works,
as well as those of their collaborators, can be found in their "Public
Record Archive," an online collection of downloadable sounds,!
  images, movies and texts. What one will find is a mix of experimental
documentary, electronica and community organizing that, like the space
surrounding us, demands attention from multiple senses. - Ryan Griffis

						</font></p>
						
						<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-1>
						<a href="http://ultrared.org"
class="nan_link">http://ultrared.org</a></font>

<!--END: NAN CONTENT -------------------------------------------------->

					</TD>
				</TR>
			</TABLE>

			<TABLE border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
				<TR>
						<TD align="left" valign="center" bgcolor="#cccc66">	
							<form action="http://rhizome.org/cgi/command.rb" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="command" value="SendNetArtNewsStory">
<input type="hidden" name="dateStamp" value="20050727">
<input type="hidden" name="emailedToFriend" value="y">
							<b><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"
size=-1>Send Net Art News to a friend</font><b>??<img
src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/arrow_white_thin.gif">??<input type="text"
name="email" value="friend's email address" size="30"
style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border-style:1px; font-size:10;
color:#000000; font-family:Arial">??<input type="submit" value="SEND"
name="submit" size="1" style="background-color:#ffffff; border-style:1px;
font-size:10; color:#000000; font-family: Arial"></form>
						</TD>
				</TR>
				<TR>
						<TD align="left" valign="center" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
							<p><b><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"
size=-1>Add Net Art News to your web site</font></b>
							 <a href="http://rhizome.org/info/31.php3"><img
src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/button_nan_showmehow.gif" border="0"></a>
						</TD>
				</TR>
			</TABLE>
					
			<TABLE border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
				<TR>
					<TD valign="top"
background="http://rhizome.org/baseims/bg_netartnews.gif">				   
<!--------- START: NAN FOOTER STUFF -------------->								
<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2>
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the
New Museum of Contemporary Art.
If you value this free publication, please consider making a contribution
within your means. 
</p>

<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2 >							
We accept online credit card contributions at 
<a href="http://rhizome.org/support">http://rhizome.org/support</a>. Checks
may be sent to Rhizome.org, New Museum of Contemporary Art, 583 Broadway,
New York, NY 10012, USA. Or call us at +1.212.219.1288.
</p></font>

<p>													<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif"
alt="+">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+" hspace="7">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
</p></font>

<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2>
On Fridays Rhizome.org is open to members and non-members alike, so please
visit us then and consider becoming a member. 
</font></p>

<p>	
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+" hspace="7">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
</p>

<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2>
Rhizome members can subscribe and unsubscribe by visiting
<a
href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz">http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz</
a>. If you simply want to unsubscribe
from Net Art News, visit http://rhizome.org/netartnews/.
</p></font>

<p>	
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+" hspace="7">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
</p>

<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2>	
Net Art News is edited by Kevin McGarry. Ideas for Net Art News are
welcome, must relate to new media art, and can be emailed to
<a href="mailto:kevin at rhizome.org">kevin at rhizome.org</a> with 'Net Art
News' in the subject line.
</p></font>

<p>	
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+" hspace="7">
<img src="http://rhizome.org/baseims/plus_black.gif" alt="+">
</p>

<p><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size=-2>				
Net Art News is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard 
Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for 
the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council 
on the Arts, a state agency.
</p></font>

<!--------- END: NAN FOOTER STUFF -------------->								
					</TD>
				</TR>
			</TABLE>				
          </TD>
 	</TR>
</TABLE>
</body>
</html>

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




From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Jul 27 13:50:36 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:50:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com>
	<000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <42E7912C.3050300@jefallbright.net>

What a relief for you and James, family and friends.

Onward!
- Jef

Gina Miller wrote:

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read 
> the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/
>  
>  




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 13:51:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727025355.29271.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727135150.3696.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I just wonder if a liberal arts degree is worth the
> cost anymore. For the price parents are paying today
> for higher ed they can set their children up in
> business, buy them real estate, or whatever. And why
> would anyone want to send their children to
> alternative schools? When alternative schools first
> began they actually were an alternative, now they are
> commercial alternative schools-- an oxymoron. 

A liberal arts degree is considered important by many if you are going
on to graduate school (unless you plan on being a scientist or
engineer, in many cases), but one liberal arts school is not equivalent
to any other, in terms of the political climate. That being said, going
to a liberal arts college is considered essential if you intend your
kid to be among the power elite, as it is at college where they meet
and become friends with other kids who will be the power elite (and
many who come from power elite families). As Esther Dyson once told her
dad when he noticed, upon visiting her at school for a day, that she
didn't go to any classes, "Daddy, you don't go here to take the right
classes, you go here to meet the right people."

If your only goal is your kids financial security, tell them to join
DEKA in high school, have them take business classes at night at a
local community college, and buy them a Subway franchise as a high
school graduation present. By the time they are 30, if they are any
good at business, they'll have a half a dozen franchises and be
president of the local Rotary.

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 Jul 27 13:56:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <20050727135632.99429.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Congratulations!

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

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read
> the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/

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  Wed Jul 27 14:27:08 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:27:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727105435.24410.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507271429.j6RET8R02098@tick.javien.com>

>      Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
> Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
> away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
> Without something to rally the people around, you will
> just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
> worse, a terrorist.



Friends, this whole Why I Am No Longer A Libertarian
thread is making me squirm.  Let us take it over to
ExiFreedom, shall we?  Mike, that was your intro cue:
please comment on what ExiFreedom is, what it does, and 
why most of this discussion is more relevant there than
on the Exi main list.  Thanks!

spike







From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 14:37:23 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727105435.24410.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727143723.87372.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

BTW: I've cc'd this to my extro-freedom yahoogroup, as the moderators
would like to see continued political discussion moved off the chat
list.

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > >Is a name brand really worth twice
> > >as much as a generic? 
> > 
> > Of course it is.
> 
> What?!? How does a company investing money into
> advertising its fungible commodity give any added
> value or utility to the consumer? After a million
> years of drinking just plain old water, homo sapiens
> discovers Evian . . . Get real. 

If they can get more money for it on the market, then it has value. A
bottle marked generically "WATER" is just that, WATER. A bottle labeled
as a french spring water, or Oregon spring water, etc and advertised
with those themes evokes an imagry and feeling in the consumer of a
quality product, made for quality people by quality people, higher
quality than one so crudely labelled "WATER". Generic denotes a lack of
pride in one's product, if you aren't willing to claim you made it, and
extoll the wonderful things about it. Such a lack of pride creates an
image of lack of quality. Who knows what creepy crawlies or insidious
contaminants are in that bottle marked "WATER". 
 
> 
> > And how did that competing company CEO get his pay?
> > You are stuck in
> > another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a
> > result of your
> > ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market
> > always finds proper
> > value.
> 
> Then explain stock-bubbles, crashes, and other market
> anomolies. The market guestimates the proper values of
> things, gullible people rush to buy those things at
> percieved value, and when those guestimates turn out
> to be wrong, people suffer. That's like saying that
> just because you know how to use the eraser on the end
> of your pencil, you are always right.

Sometimes bubbles happen when the market is lied to successfully and
crashes happen when the market discovers it has been lied to. Other
times, bubbles happen because technological improvements actually
create exponential growth, and crashes happen when major players who
see such growth as a threat take action to castrate it.

One day your widget plant is worth a billion dollars. Then the EPA says
your widgets are a public health hazard and bans them, and your plant
is worth zero, or less than zero due to salvage and cleanup costs. Both
values were entirely accurate at the time they were estimated by the
market. Or, lets say you are a wheat farmer with 1,000 acres of wheat
ready to harvest, but you dare not do so because the market value is
$.10 a bushel because everyone is expecting a bumper crop, and your
costs are $.20 a bushel. You are screwed and the bank is looking at
seizing your farm. The next day a freak blizzard rolls through the next
state and wipes out that states wheat crops. Suddenly the price of
wheat rises to $.40 a bushel and you are now a rich man. That is the
market. Few things are intrinsically valuable. Everything gets is value
based on what the market knows at that moment about the product, and
supply and demand.

> 
> > Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't
> > worth what they
> > are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are
> > based on
> > puritanical protestant prejudices against
> > ostentatiousness and
> > inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth
> > any other.
> 
> But the meme that "all men [and women of course] are
> created equal" is the foundation of democracy. If the
> meme is inaccurate then is democracy legitimate?
> Should it be changed to one vote for every dollar or
> one vote per acre of land rather than one vote for
> every person? 

No. Your conflation here is a sign of the problem. All men are created
equal in our individual rights. That does not mean we are all worth the
same. Some are more productive than others, some are smarter than
others, some are more precise or detail oriented, some have more
endurance, some are stronger, some are smaller. In commerce, smarts are
worth the most, the ability to sell, to manage and lead, to innovante
and engineer, to research and develop. Most of all the ability to
manage and lead all the other smarties, and through them a whole lot of
non-smarties in maximizing the ability of non-smarties to work
productively, is worth the most of all. In some cases it is worth an
incredible amount more.

Commercial inequality is an entirely separate characteristic of men
from political equality.

> 
> > Any economist can tell you that no two workers are
> > worth the same pay
> > for the same job, and there is no market rule
> > limiting CEO pay as a
> > proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels
> > get paid what they
> > are worth, with few exceptions (typically when
> > government and unions
> > enforce non-market pay scales).
> 
> So you are saying the worth of a man is the size of
> his paycheck? By your logic, the American who makes
> shoes for $20.00/hour is worth more than the Chinese
> child that makes shoes for 20 cents/hour. So if the
> American worker is worth more than the Chinese worker,
> then why are these companies exchanging high value
> workers for less valuable ones? 

That isn't what I'm saying. The American who makes $20.00/hr is
valuable to himself and his dependents. To a business manager whose job
is maximizing shareholder value, a $20/hr cobbler is a $19.80/hr
diseconomy compared to the chinese child, if the product they both
produce is of substantial equivalence in terms of quality and value.

The work of an American cobbler is worth more than a chinese child to
many other Americans. The market decides how many of those believe it
is worth $19.80/hr more. If the business manager decides that only 10%
of their desired market share feel that way, then the cobbler goes and
the chinese kid is hired, unless the manager is smart, where he'll
produce niche products for that 10% with the cobbler, and mass produce
for everybody else with the chinese kid.

You are mixing up who is worth what to who.
   
> 
> > Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a
long
> > time ago, and only cite it today when it serves
> > their own benefit.
> 
> That's a ill-conceived stance for them to take because
> that scrap of paper is the only thing that gives them
> even the barest hint of legitimacy my eyes.  

To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions do you have?" (and more
importantly, are willing to use?) Rulers have nothing to fear from a
disarmed populace. The Constitution only has legitimacy if the people
are capable of enforcing it (and willing to do so) upon their rulers.

> 
> > Because all those who claim to be defenders of liberty either are
> > out to defend their own liberty at the expense of others, or are
too
> > chickenshit to recognise that the time for revolution has been here
> > for a while.
> 
> No, not yet. They have been too canny so far. Right
> now they are treating the American people like the
> proverbial frog in a classic biology experiment. If
> you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog
> immediately hops out. But if you put the frog into
> water at room temperature and then raise the water
> temperature slowly, one degree per minute for example,
> before long the frog is dead in boiling water and
> never realized what was happening. But I may be giving
> them too much credit. Sooner or later, I think they
> will become too cocky and make a mistake. 

Re-upping the Patriot Act right after the Kelo decision is a bit much.

>      Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
> Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
> away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
> Without something to rally the people around, you will
> just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
> worse, a terrorist.  

Ah, but such events in history never happen by accident. They are
always prepared and staged.

>      
> > As these five justices have given
> > us permission to take their homes, we intend to do
> > so, just as if they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free"
> > sign on it.
> >
> 
> As long as they are willing subject themselves to
> their own ruling, I don't see a tremendous problem
> with that. I would be curious to see their reaction to
> this ploy.

We'll have to see. I was just on NH Public Radio this morning to
announce we are now going after Justice Steven Breyers 167 acres in
Plainfield, NH. That is two SCOTUS justices with property in NH, both
of whom ruled for the majority opinion in Kelo v New London.

Those of you in California should look at a property or properties
owned in Sacramento by Justice Kennedy, while John Paul Stevens has
property in the Chicagoland area, and Ginsberg owns something in New
York.

Justices live in a world of judicial immunity, in which they have no
accountability to the people. This is the first time in American
history where the people themselves will be able to hold the justices
accountable for their actions.

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


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 27 15:04:56 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:04:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
Message-ID: <380-22005732715456781@M2W114.mail2web.com>

Thank you Mike.

Fyi:  Mike's list is not an ExI list, but his own organization's list for
discussing political ideas.

Thanks,
Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
Extropy Institute, President



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, extro-freedom at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...


BTW: I've cc'd this to my extro-freedom yahoogroup, as the moderators
would like to see continued political discussion moved off the chat
list.

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > >Is a name brand really worth twice
> > >as much as a generic? 
> > 
> > Of course it is.
> 
> What?!? How does a company investing money into
> advertising its fungible commodity give any added
> value or utility to the consumer? After a million
> years of drinking just plain old water, homo sapiens
> discovers Evian . . . Get real. 

If they can get more money for it on the market, then it has value. A
bottle marked generically "WATER" is just that, WATER. A bottle labeled
as a french spring water, or Oregon spring water, etc and advertised
with those themes evokes an imagry and feeling in the consumer of a
quality product, made for quality people by quality people, higher
quality than one so crudely labelled "WATER". Generic denotes a lack of
pride in one's product, if you aren't willing to claim you made it, and
extoll the wonderful things about it. Such a lack of pride creates an
image of lack of quality. Who knows what creepy crawlies or insidious
contaminants are in that bottle marked "WATER". 
 
> 
> > And how did that competing company CEO get his pay?
> > You are stuck in
> > another chicken-egg paradox here Stuart that is a
> > result of your
> > ingrained prejudices and not the facts. The market
> > always finds proper
> > value.
> 
> Then explain stock-bubbles, crashes, and other market
> anomolies. The market guestimates the proper values of
> things, gullible people rush to buy those things at
> percieved value, and when those guestimates turn out
> to be wrong, people suffer. That's like saying that
> just because you know how to use the eraser on the end
> of your pencil, you are always right.

Sometimes bubbles happen when the market is lied to successfully and
crashes happen when the market discovers it has been lied to. Other
times, bubbles happen because technological improvements actually
create exponential growth, and crashes happen when major players who
see such growth as a threat take action to castrate it.

One day your widget plant is worth a billion dollars. Then the EPA says
your widgets are a public health hazard and bans them, and your plant
is worth zero, or less than zero due to salvage and cleanup costs. Both
values were entirely accurate at the time they were estimated by the
market. Or, lets say you are a wheat farmer with 1,000 acres of wheat
ready to harvest, but you dare not do so because the market value is
$.10 a bushel because everyone is expecting a bumper crop, and your
costs are $.20 a bushel. You are screwed and the bank is looking at
seizing your farm. The next day a freak blizzard rolls through the next
state and wipes out that states wheat crops. Suddenly the price of
wheat rises to $.40 a bushel and you are now a rich man. That is the
market. Few things are intrinsically valuable. Everything gets is value
based on what the market knows at that moment about the product, and
supply and demand.

> 
> > Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't
> > worth what they
> > are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are
> > based on
> > puritanical protestant prejudices against
> > ostentatiousness and
> > inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth
> > any other.
> 
> But the meme that "all men [and women of course] are
> created equal" is the foundation of democracy. If the
> meme is inaccurate then is democracy legitimate?
> Should it be changed to one vote for every dollar or
> one vote per acre of land rather than one vote for
> every person? 

No. Your conflation here is a sign of the problem. All men are created
equal in our individual rights. That does not mean we are all worth the
same. Some are more productive than others, some are smarter than
others, some are more precise or detail oriented, some have more
endurance, some are stronger, some are smaller. In commerce, smarts are
worth the most, the ability to sell, to manage and lead, to innovante
and engineer, to research and develop. Most of all the ability to
manage and lead all the other smarties, and through them a whole lot of
non-smarties in maximizing the ability of non-smarties to work
productively, is worth the most of all. In some cases it is worth an
incredible amount more.

Commercial inequality is an entirely separate characteristic of men
from political equality.

> 
> > Any economist can tell you that no two workers are
> > worth the same pay
> > for the same job, and there is no market rule
> > limiting CEO pay as a
> > proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels
> > get paid what they
> > are worth, with few exceptions (typically when
> > government and unions
> > enforce non-market pay scales).
> 
> So you are saying the worth of a man is the size of
> his paycheck? By your logic, the American who makes
> shoes for $20.00/hour is worth more than the Chinese
> child that makes shoes for 20 cents/hour. So if the
> American worker is worth more than the Chinese worker,
> then why are these companies exchanging high value
> workers for less valuable ones? 

That isn't what I'm saying. The American who makes $20.00/hr is
valuable to himself and his dependents. To a business manager whose job
is maximizing shareholder value, a $20/hr cobbler is a $19.80/hr
diseconomy compared to the chinese child, if the product they both
produce is of substantial equivalence in terms of quality and value.

The work of an American cobbler is worth more than a chinese child to
many other Americans. The market decides how many of those believe it
is worth $19.80/hr more. If the business manager decides that only 10%
of their desired market share feel that way, then the cobbler goes and
the chinese kid is hired, unless the manager is smart, where he'll
produce niche products for that 10% with the cobbler, and mass produce
for everybody else with the chinese kid.

You are mixing up who is worth what to who.
   
> 
> > Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a
long
> > time ago, and only cite it today when it serves
> > their own benefit.
> 
> That's a ill-conceived stance for them to take because
> that scrap of paper is the only thing that gives them
> even the barest hint of legitimacy my eyes.  

To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions do you have?" (and more
importantly, are willing to use?) Rulers have nothing to fear from a
disarmed populace. The Constitution only has legitimacy if the people
are capable of enforcing it (and willing to do so) upon their rulers.

> 
> > Because all those who claim to be defenders of liberty either are
> > out to defend their own liberty at the expense of others, or are
too
> > chickenshit to recognise that the time for revolution has been here
> > for a while.
> 
> No, not yet. They have been too canny so far. Right
> now they are treating the American people like the
> proverbial frog in a classic biology experiment. If
> you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog
> immediately hops out. But if you put the frog into
> water at room temperature and then raise the water
> temperature slowly, one degree per minute for example,
> before long the frog is dead in boiling water and
> never realized what was happening. But I may be giving
> them too much credit. Sooner or later, I think they
> will become too cocky and make a mistake. 

Re-upping the Patriot Act right after the Kelo decision is a bit much.

>      Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
> Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
> away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
> Without something to rally the people around, you will
> just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
> worse, a terrorist.  

Ah, but such events in history never happen by accident. They are
always prepared and staged.

>      
> > As these five justices have given
> > us permission to take their homes, we intend to do
> > so, just as if they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free"
> > sign on it.
> >
> 
> As long as they are willing subject themselves to
> their own ruling, I don't see a tremendous problem
> with that. I would be curious to see their reaction to
> this ploy.

We'll have to see. I was just on NH Public Radio this morning to
announce we are now going after Justice Steven Breyers 167 acres in
Plainfield, NH. That is two SCOTUS justices with property in NH, both
of whom ruled for the majority opinion in Kelo v New London.

Those of you in California should look at a property or properties
owned in Sacramento by Justice Kennedy, while John Paul Stevens has
property in the Chicagoland area, and Ginsberg owns something in New
York.

Justices live in a world of judicial immunity, in which they have no
accountability to the people. This is the first time in American
history where the people themselves will be able to hold the justices
accountable for their actions.

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


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 

_______________________________________________
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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 15:04:51 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <8aac59d77ec9079de8a6900435689009@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050727150451.87925.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

cc'd to Extro-freedom yahoogroup. Please continue discussion there...

--- Robbie Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2005, at 9:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:
> > --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's implied.  Read it again.
> >
> > I don't need to read it again. I can recite the
> > preamble from memory and it is nowhere implied.
> 
> "We the people" does not include blacks, native americans or chinese.
> That their posterity did would have been a complete surprise to the 
> formers.

This is a shibboleth promoted by right wing radicals like LB Bork and
left wing revisionists.

> 
> Think of it this way, if they'd wished to ensure the blessings of 
> liberty to themselves and their posterity and the "themselves" and 
> "posterity" included the slaves, then they'd have made abolition a
> part 
> of the constitution originally.  Posterity is vague between "future 
> generations" and one's own descendants.

Quite a few tried to do so. The problem at the time was that the
federal government was broke and couldn't afford the solution the
British Whigs implemented about 1830, i.e. buying all the slaves and
setting them free. Given the serious lack of currency in the US, they
couldn't afford the morals they wanted to exercise at the time. Even
when they could afford it, turned out they preferred to spend several
times more money fighting a civil war over it than to just buy all the
slaves out of bondage.

> >
> > That's my point, the moment they were accepted as
> > people, the Constitution applied to them.
> 
> Not really, there remains unfair treatment under the law where 
> expeditious decisions of one generation are regarded as unthinkable
> at later dates.  Like making fellow "citizens" sit at the back of the
> bus and pay a poll tax.

If everyone pays the poll tax, there is no unfair treatment.
Expeditious is not the same as just.

> > Don't forget that Old America
> > was a tiny sliver of runty states and commonwealths
> > stretched along the atlantic sea-board. Our America
> > stretches from sea to shining sea.
> 
> It's amazing what you can do with some guns and the willingness to
> use them.

I always find it amazing that some alleged libertarians are for
unlimited immigration into the US, but are opposed to us immigrating
into other countries en masse, or to have done so, as was done in the
old west, or to stand up for our right to do so.

> 
> >  Admittedly the
> > native-americans and the blacks got shafted, but
> > nobody twisted the arms of the Chinese to come here
> > and build our railroads for us. They did it of their
> > own free will and they accomplished a great deed for
> > which this country is grateful.
> 
> That's a doubtful interpretation. More accurately things sucked worse

> where they were from or they were hornswaggled.  But how does saying 
> that the chinese came of their own free will make it better that they
> were terrifyingly treated when they got here?

Voluntary indenturement is no crime. Says so right there in the 14th
amendment.

> >
> > Yeah and others financed it and got rich for it and
> > still others claimed a few acres in the Oklahoma land
> > rush, grew some crops, and pretty much minded their
> > own business. So what's your point? That because some
> > Americans are rich and lazy while others are
> > hard-working and poor that the Constitution somehow
> > sucks? That does not logically follow.
> 
> No, my point is that for all its supposed value, the constitution 
> failed to do the one relevant thing for this discussion - to empower 
> the lowly, prevent oppression and make even the generational poverty 
> that continues to plague us to this very day.  From that point of
> view it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

The US revolution was not a bottom-up revolution, it was a revolt of
the local ruling class against a foreign ruling class. If you want
people's revolts, try France's Terror, gee, that lasted long. It took
em another 100 years after that to get some semblance of democracy
again.
> 
> 
> >> This had been going on for more than a hundred years  at the time
> >> of the drafting of the constitution and its signing exclusively by
> >> slave owners, none of whom showed remorse at the having of them.
> >
> > You know what your problem is Robbie? It's that you
> > can't break your mind free of the cultural shackles.

Nor can he tell the truth, only half of it. The Constitution was most
decidedly NOT signed only by slave owners, that is a lie that only some
revisionist punk would make. Few signers from northern states owned
slaves, and Vermont, which was the 14th state, banned slavery in its
jurisdiction from its founding (Vermont, BTW, revolted in 1774, before
the Declaration of Independence, and outlawed slavery long before the
US Constitution was drafted).

> 
> You don't know me very well and this doesn't excuse the formers of
> the constitution for being slave owners.  Rhetorically this is called

> "changing the subject" and it's what people do when they've run out
> of interesting things to say.

As opposed to revising history, which people do when they've run out of
actual facts.

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


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


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 27 15:05:25 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:05:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
Message-ID: <380-22005732715525312@M2W118.mail2web.com>

Thank you Gina for keeping us informated about Jim.

My best to you, as always,

Natasha



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:50:36 -0700
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update


What a relief for you and James, family and friends.

Onward!
- Jef

Gina Miller wrote:

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read 
> the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/
>  
>  


_______________________________________________
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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 15:16:01 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <200507271429.j6RET8R02098@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050727151601.34623.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, the extro-freedom yahoogroup was started seven years ago,
originally for discussion of gun and other weaponry topics, but has
expanded to discuss all freedom and political related topics,
particularly when such topics are booted off the ExI lists. The only
rules are telling the truth (be able to back up your BS).

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

> >      Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
> > Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
> > away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
> > Without something to rally the people around, you will
> > just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
> > worse, a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> Friends, this whole Why I Am No Longer A Libertarian
> thread is making me squirm.  Let us take it over to
> ExiFreedom, shall we?  Mike, that was your intro cue:
> please comment on what ExiFreedom is, what it does, and 
> why most of this discussion is more relevant there than
> on the Exi main list.  Thanks!
> 
> 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


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


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jul 27 17:17:49 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:17:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Taking Posts Off-List Now and Years Past
Message-ID: <380-220057327171749531@M2W110.mail2web.com>


Mike suggested that his thread of many years ago had been "booted off"
list. This is not accurate.  

Posters were asked to take the threads off list because they had gotten off
topic, overly repetitive, and offended some list members who complained
about it.  All this was recorded.

Thanks for respecting the list rules.  But if anyone has an problem with
this or want to argue it, please take it off list and discuss with the list
moderators.

Best,

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
Extropy Institute, President

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




From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jul 27 17:20:15 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:20:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Jim Stevenson
Message-ID: <42E7C24F.4050103@neopax.com>

Are you still around?
And did you get the Persinger data?
Saw a post of yours from 1996...

-- 
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: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jul 27 19:52:19 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:52:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>
	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com> <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <38A78E03-BB2D-4280-82D7-E1052623F8A4@mac.com>

YAY!  That is great news.   Congratulations!

- samantha

On Jul 27, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Gina Miller wrote:

> Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update.  
> Read the top entry. We are so happy!
> http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
> New Animation blog
> http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
> 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/20050727/8c607b7b/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jul 27 20:10:30 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
In-Reply-To: <000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
References: <BAY104-F11B8366B3ABACF8511D1CAE7CB0@phx.gbl>	<42E43BD4.5000808@pobox.com>
	<000b01c59286$8dd5f710$0300a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <42E7EA36.1050505@pobox.com>

My congratulations to James and modern medicine.  Stay uncooled!

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


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jul 27 20:46:42 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:46:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] new [?] anti-angiogenesis drug
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050727154354.01cf7968@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8726644/


LONDON - A smart anti-cancer bomb that acts like a Trojan horse can 
penetrate deep into tumors where it explodes and destroys cancerous cells 
without harming healthy ones, scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who devised the 
molecular size bomb tested it in mice with skin or lung cancer. Mice given 
the treatment lived more than three times longer than untreated rodents.

The scientists believe it could have the same effect in humans.
"We're quite hopeful and optimistic that as we translate this into humans 
the results pan out as they have in animals," Professor Ram Sasisekharan, 
of MIT's Biological Engineering Division, said in an interview.

The smart bomb uses nanotechnology which manipulates materials on a 
molecular or atomic scale, to deliver chemotherapy drugs to destroy the 
tumor and anti-angiogenesis agents to block its blood supply.

After the bomb, which is like a balloon within a balloon, is injected into 
the bloodstream it travels to the tumor and burrows deep inside. The outer 
membrane then disintegrates and releases an anti-angiogenesis drug so the 
blood vessels feeding the tumor collapse.

Few side effects
The drug-packed nanocell trapped inside the tumor explodes unleashing the 
chemotherapy drug to kill the cancerous cells. No healthy cells are 
destroyed so debilitating side effects such as hair loss, vomiting, nausea 
and weight loss could be eliminated.

"If you don't really shut the supply lines the tumor cells can escape and 
that is how they metastasize (spread). By killing the supply lines you are 
limiting the leaching of the chemotherapy agents to the healthy cells," 
Sasisekharan said.

Mice that had no treatment died at 20 days.

The smart bomb was more effective against melanoma than lung cancer which 
the scientists, who reported the findings in the science journal Nature, 
said shows the need to change the design of the bomb to attack different 
types of cancer.

"It's an elegant technique for attacking the two compartments of a tumor, 
its vascular system and the cancer cells," Judah Folkman, a cancer expert 
at the Children's Hospital Boston, said in a statement.

Because the smart bomb, which is a new approach to drug delivery, uses 
existing drugs and materials the researchers think it could have a similar 
impact in humans.

They also believe it could be adapted to work for other types of cancer and 
illnesses and to test drug combinations.

"We've been able to show you can definitely decrease toxicity (of the 
drugs) and increase efficacy," said Sasisekharan.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.  



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Jul 27 21:23:03 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:23:03 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727143723.87372.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727105435.24410.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050727171427.058b5008@unreasonable.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>We'll have to see. I was just on NH Public Radio this morning to
>announce we are now going after Justice Steven Breyers 167 acres in
>Plainfield, NH. That is two SCOTUS justices with property in NH, both
>of whom ruled for the majority opinion in Kelo v New London.

http://www.nhpr.org/view_content/9288/

>A recent Supreme Court decision enhanced local governments' power to seize 
>private property for economic development. We'll look at these laws in New 
>Hampshire, when they have been used and what effect, if any, the federal 
>decision will have on the Granite State. ... We'll also hear from Mike 
>Lorrey, Vice-Chair for the 2nd District, representing the Libertarian 
>Party in NH and TBA.

To hear what Mike had to say, so you can suitably make fun of him, see

RealPlayer:             http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
Windows Media:  http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax


-- David Lubkin.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 22:24:25 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050727171427.058b5008@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <20050727222425.57062.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

I'm not going to make fun of Mike, I wish I had the intestinal fortitude to take on scotus justices. I'm too afraid of government officials because one of them gets together with one of his connections and says, "take care of this pissant who is bothering us in court, will ya? Dig up some dirt on him, will ya? T'anks" You need pull to go after someone in the government. 
As long as due process is being pursued, no outright threats or extortion, then this is harmless at worst.


To hear what Mike had to say, so you can suitably make fun of him, see

RealPlayer: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
Windows Media: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax


-- David Lubkin.


__________________________________________________
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/20050727/86e53794/attachment.html>

From peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 23:12:51 2005
From: peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com (Peter Brooks)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727143723.87372.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727231251.89176.qmail@web33105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This is a good start at explaining it. Then there is the high cost of litigation; citizens who hate everything about D.C. with a passion except the checks being funded from that location, and so forth. Notice how citizens want virtually unlimited growth on their terms yet also want a very clean environment-- which is not merely double-minded but also schizophrenic. It never ends. That is to say it developed in this country over the last 229 years, and might take another 229 years to change; unlikely but possible. I personally am 100% tired of hearing rosy scenarios for the near future, right now (and I go by the moment at hand) it is shaping up to be a mess this whole century, even excluding the costs of WWIII.


Sometimes bubbles happen when the market is lied to successfully and
crashes happen when the market discovers it has been lied to. Other
times, bubbles happen because technological improvements actually
create exponential growth, and crashes happen when major players who
see such growth as a threat take action to castrate it.

One day your widget plant is worth a billion dollars. Then the EPA says
your widgets are a public health hazard and bans them, and your plant
is worth zero, or less than zero due to salvage and cleanup costs. Both
values were entirely accurate at the time they were estimated by the
market. Or, lets say you are a wheat farmer with 1,000 acres of wheat
ready to harvest, but you dare not do so because the market value is
$.10 a bushel because everyone is expecting a bumper crop, and your
costs are $.20 a bushel. You are screwed and the bank is looking at
seizing your farm. The next day a freak blizzard rolls through the next
state and wipes out that states wheat crops. Suddenly the price of
wheat rises to $.40 a bushel and you are now a rich man. That is the
market. Few things are intrinsically valuable. Everything gets is value
based on what the market knows at that moment about the product, and
supply and demand.

> 
> > Claims that Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer isn't
> > worth what they
> > are paid, or Jobs, or any other highly paid CEO are
> > based on
> > puritanical protestant prejudices against
> > ostentatiousness and
> > inaccurate memes that claim that one man is worth
> > any other.
> 
> But the meme that "all men [and women of course] are
> created equal" is the foundation of democracy. If the
> meme is inaccurate then is democracy legitimate?
> Should it be changed to one vote for every dollar or
> one vote per acre of land rather than one vote for
> every person? 

No. Your conflation here is a sign of the problem. All men are created
equal in our individual rights. That does not mean we are all worth the
same. Some are more productive than others, some are smarter than
others, some are more precise or detail oriented, some have more
endurance, some are stronger, some are smaller. In commerce, smarts are
worth the most, the ability to sell, to manage and lead, to innovante
and engineer, to research and develop. Most of all the ability to
manage and lead all the other smarties, and through them a whole lot of
non-smarties in maximizing the ability of non-smarties to work
productively, is worth the most of all. In some cases it is worth an
incredible amount more.

Commercial inequality is an entirely separate characteristic of men
from political equality.

> 
> > Any economist can tell you that no two workers are
> > worth the same pay
> > for the same job, and there is no market rule
> > limiting CEO pay as a
> > proportion of avg worker pay. Workers at all levels
> > get paid what they
> > are worth, with few exceptions (typically when
> > government and unions
> > enforce non-market pay scales).
> 
> So you are saying the worth of a man is the size of
> his paycheck? By your logic, the American who makes
> shoes for $20.00/hour is worth more than the Chinese
> child that makes shoes for 20 cents/hour. So if the
> American worker is worth more than the Chinese worker,
> then why are these companies exchanging high value
> workers for less valuable ones? 

That isn't what I'm saying. The American who makes $20.00/hr is
valuable to himself and his dependents. To a business manager whose job
is maximizing shareholder value, a $20/hr cobbler is a $19.80/hr
diseconomy compared to the chinese child, if the product they both
produce is of substantial equivalence in terms of quality and value.

The work of an American cobbler is worth more than a chinese child to
many other Americans. The market decides how many of those believe it
is worth $19.80/hr more. If the business manager decides that only 10%
of their desired market share feel that way, then the cobbler goes and
the chinese kid is hired, unless the manager is smart, where he'll
produce niche products for that 10% with the cobbler, and mass produce
for everybody else with the chinese kid.

You are mixing up who is worth what to who.

> 
> > Says who? Some piece of paper? They stopped listening to that a
long
> > time ago, and only cite it today when it serves
> > their own benefit.
> 
> That's a ill-conceived stance for them to take because
> that scrap of paper is the only thing that gives them
> even the barest hint of legitimacy my eyes. 

To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions do you have?" (and more
importantly, are willing to use?) Rulers have nothing to fear from a
disarmed populace. The Constitution only has legitimacy if the people
are capable of enforcing it (and willing to do so) upon their rulers.

> 
> > Because all those who claim to be defenders of liberty either are
> > out to defend their own liberty at the expense of others, or are
too
> > chickenshit to recognise that the time for revolution has been here
> > for a while.
> 
> No, not yet. They have been too canny so far. Right
> now they are treating the American people like the
> proverbial frog in a classic biology experiment. If
> you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog
> immediately hops out. But if you put the frog into
> water at room temperature and then raise the water
> temperature slowly, one degree per minute for example,
> before long the frog is dead in boiling water and
> never realized what was happening. But I may be giving
> them too much credit. Sooner or later, I think they
> will become too cocky and make a mistake. 

Re-upping the Patriot Act right after the Kelo decision is a bit much.

> Something at least as atrocious as the Boston
> Massacre needs to occur in order to tear the masses
> away from watching Britney Spears shake her ass.
> Without something to rally the people around, you will
> just be labeled another nut case that went postal or
> worse, a terrorist. 

Ah, but such events in history never happen by accident. They are
always prepared and staged.

> 
> > As these five justices have given
> > us permission to take their homes, we intend to do
> > so, just as if they'd put their couch on the curb with a "free"
> > sign on it.
> >
> 
> As long as they are willing subject themselves to
> their own ruling, I don't see a tremendous problem
> with that. I would be curious to see their reaction to
> this ploy.

We'll have to see. I was just on NH Public Radio this morning to
announce we are now going after Justice Steven Breyers 167 acres in
Plainfield, NH. That is two SCOTUS justices with property in NH, both
of whom ruled for the majority opinion in Kelo v New London.

Those of you in California should look at a property or properties
owned in Sacramento by Justice Kennedy, while John Paul Stevens has
property in the Chicagoland area, and Ginsberg owns something in New
York.

Justices live in a world of judicial immunity, in which they have no
accountability to the people. This is the first time in American
history where the people themselves will be able to hold the justices
accountable for their actions.

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



__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 

_______________________________________________
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/20050727/0f50c878/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jul 27 23:39:42 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:39:42 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
References: <20050727105435.24410.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050727171427.058b5008@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <007901c59304$76779d70$0d98e03c@homepc>

David Lubkin wrote:

> http://www.nhpr.org/view_content/9288/
>
>>A recent Supreme Court decision enhanced local governments' power to seize 
>>private property for economic development. We'll look at these laws in New 
>>Hampshire, when they have been used and what effect, if any, the federal 
>>decision will have on the Granite State. ... We'll also hear from Mike 
>>Lorrey, Vice-Chair for the 2nd District, representing the Libertarian 
>>Party in NH and TBA.
>
> To hear what Mike had to say, so you can suitably make fun of him, see
>
> RealPlayer:             http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
> Windows Media:  http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax

I thought Mike made his points very well.

I don't think the projects will work, as one of the lawyers invited into the
station said, it seems like the projects are targetting individual 
properties
of the judges first then finding some public purpose for them rather than
having a public purpose and going for properties that happen to be in the
relevant area.

Still, a very effective form of protest, Mike did not come across as a 
nutter
at all. Quite to the contrary, I thought. Good work Mike.

Brett Paatsch 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 23:55:56 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727222425.57062.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks everybody for the support. One of the things I didn't get to
mention, as I was cut off, was that we've found some curious
information in our research on these two properties: both were assessed
by the same private firm, despite being half a state away from each
other, and both were undervalued by 50% or more... we are investigating
other high officials property assessments to see if there is a
pattern... as Drudge says, "developing..."

There was an article on the Breyer story last night on Free Market News
Network, and a local paper, the Valley News, interviewed me this
evening.

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

> I'm not going to make fun of Mike, I wish I had the intestinal
> fortitude to take on scotus justices. I'm too afraid of government
> officials because one of them gets together with one of his
> connections and says, "take care of this pissant who is bothering us
> in court, will ya? Dig up some dirt on him, will ya? T'anks" You need
> pull to go after someone in the government. 
> As long as due process is being pursued, no outright threats or
> extortion, then this is harmless at worst.
> 
> 
> To hear what Mike had to say, so you can suitably make fun of him,
> see
> 
> RealPlayer: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
> Windows Media: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax
> 
> 
> -- David Lubkin.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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
"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 sentience at pobox.com  Thu Jul 28 00:46:35 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:46:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E82AEB.6050303@pobox.com>

I listened.  Excellent work, Mike.

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


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Jul 28 01:01:23 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <1C50FF9A-4B18-4B00-8944-6CA2769673F3@mac.com>
References: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1C50FF9A-4B18-4B00-8944-6CA2769673F3@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>>      Anyone can make it here in America, if they WANT
>> to.
>
>
> That's a nice little unfalsifiable assertion.

Hey, Guys, this is too general on both sides.

If you have some combination of qualities, you can make it. If you do 
not, you cannot.

Qualities that may enable you to make it:
determination
intelligence,
capital
friends
luck
etc.

Avantguardian makes a "the glass is half full" analysis: "anyone" is 
likely to have the right combination of qualities, and those who do not 
deserve their fate.

Samantha makes a "the glass is half empty" analysis (with respect to 
this problem: not as general attribute): There are a LOT of people who 
do not in fact have set of qualities that permit them to succeed.

I can find many examples in my own personal experience to support both 
analyses. I think we should work together to build a bottom-up approach 
to this analysis, with specific exemplars rather than abstract 
populations. We have Korean emigrants who are now millionaires, and we 
have bright black ghetto-born guys who are sentenced to life in prison. 
Stereotypes. We also have black ghetto kids who make it big time, and 
Korean emigrants who die in poverty. Not stereotypes, but real people.

Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything society can or should do 
to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't have the right 
qualities to succeed?

Challenge to Samantha: how can we help those who are not succeeding 
without stifling initiative?




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Jul 28 01:36:36 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:36:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050727222425.57062.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050727183629a81691@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks everybody for the support. One of the things I didn't get to
> mention, as I was cut off, was that we've found some curious
> information in our research on these two properties: both were assessed
> by the same private firm, despite being half a state away from each
> other, and both were undervalued by 50% or more... we are investigating
> other high officials property assessments to see if there is a
> pattern... as Drudge says, "developing..."

Good work, Mike! "In yon strait path a thousand, may well be stopp'd
by three..."

- Russell


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jul 28 01:53:19 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:53:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727222425.57062.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507280155.j6S1tDR14084@tick.javien.com>

Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain

>I'm not going to make fun of Mike, I wish I had the intestinal fortitude to
>take on?scotus justices...


No one has ever accused Mike of lacking intestinal fortitude.  {8^D

Mike, regarding that em-dom effort, you GO man!  We are cheering
wildly over here on this coast.  

{8-]  spike 







From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 02:07:50 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:07:50 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>
References: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>	<1C50FF9A-4B18-4B00-8944-6CA2769673F3@mac.com>
	<42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42E83DF6.9040600@aol.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I can find many examples in my own personal experience to support both 
> analyses. I think we should work together to build a bottom-up 
> approach to this analysis, with specific exemplars rather than 
> abstract populations. We have Korean emigrants who are now 
> millionaires, and we have bright black ghetto-born guys who are 
> sentenced to life in prison. Stereotypes. We also have black ghetto 
> kids who make it big time, and Korean emigrants who die in poverty. 
> Not stereotypes, but real people.
>

Wouldn't the revelant question be a simple statistical one.  Of the 
extant millionaires, how many had each and what qualities.

I'm going to make an a priori guess: far and away the most important 
factor for becoming a millionaire in the United States is having 
millionaire parents.  I actually think this matter is decided 
empirically too.  Luck is only a very small factor as is skill or IQ, 
etc.  Overwhelmingly inheriting money is the best way to ensure your own 
wealth.

In clinical trials, you'd find which factors were most significant by 
finding which factors were found in the most cases and which factors 
found in other cases didn't produce the effect in question.  If wealth 
were like cancer for instance, you'd rule out sugar-eating after you 
found that 100% of all americans ingest sugar, whereas if you found that 
of lung cancer victims, 90% smoked cigarettes (I don't know what the 
stat is) and of the cigarette smoking population 30% got cancer you'd 
say "there's a strong correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer."

Here we have the same question put economically.

> Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything society can or should do 
> to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't have the right 
> qualities to succeed?
>
> Challenge to Samantha: how can we help those who are not succeeding 
> without stifling initiative?





From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 28 02:57:05 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] weaselly research reporting
In-Reply-To: <200507280155.j6S1tDR14084@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050728025706.83184.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

What bothers even a slightly squishy liberal like me is seeing today's report by Yahoo News that immigrants (report didn't specify whether illegal or not) consume hundreds of dollars less per month medical costs than native-born, then going on to report even more 'astonishingly' or 'startlingy' how the poorest of immigrant children use 84% less medical resources than natives.
The researcher opines this is a "grave disparity".
 I want to be a good liberal, a bleeding heart, a feel-good. But with bias like this being an intellectual is sometimes dubious. 
 

		
---------------------------------
 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/20050727/1ab6b092/attachment.html>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Thu Jul 28 03:25:33 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:25:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E83DF6.9040600@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

On 7/27/05 7:07 PM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> I'm going to make an a priori guess: far and away the most important
> factor for becoming a millionaire in the United States is having
> millionaire parents.  I actually think this matter is decided
> empirically too.  Luck is only a very small factor as is skill or IQ,
> etc.  Overwhelmingly inheriting money is the best way to ensure your own
> wealth.


More clueless bloviating.  Instead of making an ass out of yourself by
making random guesses that are grossly wrong and trivially verifiable as
such, perhaps you should spend a little more time on an education.  You talk
an awful lot for having so little to say.


The coarse statistics for millionaires in the US:  90% are self-made (i.e.
they earned it), and two-thirds are "blue-collar".  Inherited wealth is a
negligible sliver of the statistical pie for how one becomes a millionaire,
and always has been in the US.  State lotteries probably mint more
millionaires than inheritance.  On a purely anecdotal level, I know gobs of
millionaires and not a single one that actually inherited their money.  That
the majority of millionaires built their fortunes as blue-collar workers
tells you most of what you need to know about what factors matter most:
thriftiness and hard work.  Throw in a little ambition and you are well on
your way to some serious wealth.

I'm guessing you don't like this answer because it does not give you many
good excuses for why you never got your slice of the millionaire pie. It is
much easier to blame the rich man keepin' da po' man down.  Thriftiness and
hard work put a crimp in your lifestyle.

Nobody said it was easy but the "hard" part revolves almost entirely around
having discipline.  And discipline is something anyone can develop and
foster, not just the children of rich white people.


J. Andrew Rogers





From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 28 03:41:28 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] U.S. Immigrants' Health Costs Far Below Native-Born 
In-Reply-To: <20050728033719.63869.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050728034129.28699.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20050727/hl_hsn/usimmigrantshealthcostsfarbelownativeborn

Even the title is wrong, immigrants' health care is
not "far" below the native born.



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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 28 03:55:09 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioeconomics was Why I'm Not Libertarian...
In-Reply-To: <20050727231251.89176.qmail@web33105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050728035509.81507.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Peter Brooks <peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is a good start at explaining it. Then there is
> the high cost of litigation; citizens who hate
> everything about D.C. with a passion except the
> checks being funded from that location, and so
> forth. Notice how citizens want virtually unlimited
> growth on their terms yet also want a very clean
> environment-- which is not merely double-minded but
> also schizophrenic. It never ends.

     Precisely. Which is why I propose a merging of
memes from economics, biology, and ecology into the
new fields of bioeconomics and bioeconomic
engineering. They are designed to study and achieve
healthy biological growth of the total world economy
in the context of a sustainable life-promoting
enviroment.
 
     Current economic theory faces the problem in that
it focuses on unregulated, unhealthy growth, like a
tumor.What I propose, instead is a rational rationing
of natural resources in such a way that we can grow
our economy and our species in a healthy sustainable
manner to the point that we can shape our world into a
tropical paradise, instead of a toxin strewn boneyard.
All the while, maximizing personal gain for the
well-being of as many people as possible in a
meritocratic fashion.
 
     If we achieve sufficent growth, we may be able to
colonize other worlds. If not, we will choke to death
ourselves and our entire local food chain of
ecological niches including many other large
vertabrates.
 
     The environment of course will still function at
some level but what will populate the planet when it's
healed itself in a few million years is anybody's
guess. Perhaps the sentient descendents of the
cockroaches.

       We might have to triage species, but shit
happens. We have killed so many species already, it is
about the best we can do at this point, other than
archive their genomes and keep embryos in freezers.
But the rest of the world is ours to shape as we will.


     It's well-nigh time for Adam Smith's invisible
hand to grow a brain.   

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 Jul 28 05:00:01 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050728050001.33344.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything
> society can or should do 
> to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't
> have the right 
> qualities to succeed?

     Well that depends a lot on what you mean by
mitigation. If you mean mitigation by lowering the bar
then I am against that and would not suggest any means
of doing it. If you mean mitigation to making the
whole process as fair as possible, regardless of race,
creed, national origin, or, in the case of mixed-race
individuals, the lack thereof, then I am all in favor
of it. So in the spirit of friendly brainstorming,
here they are:

1. Eliminate all references to race on all government
and/or employment related application forms except for
those of the U.S. Census Bureau.

2. Scrap the public school system beyond 6th grade
except for trade schools and universities. Instead,
use the money to GIVE every household with children a
computer with a DSL connnection and run the schools
online. This will enable all children to learn at
their own pace and will be completely color blind as
you only see people on the internet if they want you
to. Plus there is no difference in quality of
education by neighborhood.

3. Place a cap on inheritence of capital by any one
descendent of one home and $1 million in assests,
liquid or otherwise. If someone can't make it with a
head start like that, they're a feeb and need to get
weeded out.  

      From an evolutionary point of view, lowering the
bar, while noble as an apologetic gesture to those
that might have been oppressed at some point in the
past, is detrimental to the long term health and
development of whatever subculture they belong to. 

      I could think of some more, but that is all I
have on the top of my head.



 

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  Thu Jul 28 05:58:17 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:58:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507280600.j6S607R06435@tick.javien.com>


> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
> 
> Thanks everybody for the support...
> >
> > To hear what Mike had to say...
> >
> > RealPlayer: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
> > Windows Media: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax

Mike's bit is minutes 11 thru 17.  Interesting program.

One thing Mike brought out that I had not realized is
that the SCOTUS ruling requires the em-domer to pay the
*assessed* value of the property, not the market value.
How would that work in Taxifornia?  Our prop 13 specifies
that the tax basis of a property is set by the price at
the time of purchase, then increases 2% per year thereafter.
After a few years the market value is higher than the
assessed value by a dramatic margin.  

We could make a fortune that would make Gates' paltry 
billions pale in comparison merely by seizing ordinary 
residential real estate at assessed value then selling
it utterly without investing in any improvements at
market value.  The public is served in a sense: the tax
basis is reset to the sales price, so Taxamento collects
on a much higher value.  So why couldn't I just go down
my street and apply to seize every home on it?  Why not
the entire Silicon Valley?  (cue maniacal laughter)  

spike




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 28 09:15:15 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:15:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
References: <380-22005732715525312@M2W118.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <000001c59355$1111ce50$0200a8c0@Nano>


We want to thank you all for your kind words of support. 

Jim and Gina

 
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."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 8:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update


  Thank you Gina for keeping us informated about Jim.

  My best to you, as always,

  Natasha



  Original Message:
  -----------------
  From: Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
  Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:50:36 -0700
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update


  What a relief for you and James, family and friends.

  Onward!
  - Jef

  Gina Miller wrote:

  > Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read 
  > the top entry. We are so happy!
  > http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/
  >  
  >  


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050728/63925ebf/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jul 28 09:17:36 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:17:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update
References: <380-22005732715525312@M2W118.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c59355$31eac5a0$0200a8c0@Nano>

We want to thank you all for your kind words of support.

Jim and Gina


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."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 8:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update


  Thank you Gina for keeping us informated about Jim.

  My best to you, as always,

  Natasha



  Original Message:
  -----------------
  From: Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
  Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:50:36 -0700
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] James Lewis update


  What a relief for you and James, family and friends.

  Onward!
  - Jef

  Gina Miller wrote:

  > Well my friends you may be interested in my most recent update. Read 
  > the top entry. We are so happy!
  > http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/
  >  
  >  


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050728/c2fe8b72/attachment.html>

From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 09:44:52 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:44:52 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <cc3400fa5f2fcaa82b8be2006761c892@aol.com>

Awesome, thanks for correcting me.

1)  What are the sources of your statistics?
2)  How was "blue collar" and "self-made" defined for the sake of the 
study?
3)  What factors -do- contribute to millionaire-ship on your account, 
statistically speaking?

I'm looking for an argument of this form:

Of all American millionaires, 60% of them are blue collar (e.g. had 
parents with little or no money and who weren't able to help them so 
far as even a college education).
Of the people whose parents were blue collar, x% became millionaires.

And by comparison for the inheritors...

Of all american millionaires x% of them had millionaire parents.
Of all people whose parents were millionaires x% also became 
millionaires.

Here's why it's important to put the matter this way.

Say 60% of the millionaires are blue-collar-born and raised and 
inherited no money.  But say that 99.99% of all people are 
blue-collar-born-and-raised and inherit no money.  This would actually 
be a counter-condition to your argument, showing that distribution of 
millionaires in the general population is much higher for those who 
inherited their money (e.g. while wealthy parents make up less than 
1/1000th of the population, their children make up 40% of the 
millionaires, and I'll wager a much greater percentage of the 
multi-millionaires and billionaires, perhaps you could enlighten us 
with this statistic as well?)

Also, you say that 90% are "self-made", this may be so even if their 
parents were millionaires, I assume?  I know a few in exactly this 
position - their parents sent them to decent (but certainly not 
A-level!) schools where they didn't manage to get good grades (and I'm 
not making these guys up, I went to USC [academic scholarship and 
loans, no rich parents here, sorry, hard work and discipline] with 
them, I'm sure even Mr. Moore could attest to the type) and helped them 
out with their first small businesses and they managed to make, by 
earning it, a million dollars.  Their parents expected their money back 
as an investment and got it.  One can say these people "earned" their 
money or one can regard them as being extraordinarily lucky to have 
wealthy relatives willing to invest in them.   For publicly known 
examples, for instance, the story of Bill Gates who managed as a 
college student to get a rather large loan in order to buy DOS from a 
private related source.   One can say "Bill Gates earned his money" but 
it doesn't mean he didn't get a leg up.

I like the drive, ambition, discipline and hard work part.  I agree 
with it, you have to really WANT to be a multimillionaire to be one 
because it's way too easy to stop with half a million and call things 
well and good.    But you have to remember that drive, ambition and 
discipline are not always directed at money.  There are plenty of 
ironman competitors who have plenty of drive, ambition and discipline 
and who still manage not to get wealthy over it.

I think the word you should be looking for is "greed", that is the 
drive and ambition and discipline and hard work dedicated to getting 
more money.

I know one "self-made-millionaire" who is certainly driven, but surely 
no one would describe him as disciplined or hard working.  But again, 
without a reasonable statistical argument, I have no idea whether these 
are really contributing factors.

I also know a millionaire who is self-made except that his parents 
funded him through harvard grad even though they weren't themselves 
millionaires.  Obviously I have a lot of respect for his parents - they 
loved their child so much that they decided to sacrifice their own 
well-being for his potential.  I have little respect for him, however, 
because of the way he made his money (an off-shore financial scam, 
essentially) and for how he treats his family.  But this isn't the 
point.  I didn't claim that millionaires weren't hard working, driven, 
disciplined people.  I just claimed that it's likely that other factors 
contribute significantly since there are lots and lots of hard-working, 
driven, disciplined people.  Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance, was 
hard working, disciplined and driven, just not in the direction of 
millionaire-dom.

I don't hate millionaires, but neither do I want to be one preferring 
to enjoy my modest life as best I can.  Your crude ad hominem just 
doesn't apply.  I like to dedicate my time to other things than making 
money.

Also, do you have reliable statistics on multimillionaires and 
billionaires?

Robbie  Lindauer


On Jul 27, 2005, at 5:25 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> On 7/27/05 7:07 PM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to make an a priori guess: far and away the most important
>> factor for becoming a millionaire in the United States is having
>> millionaire parents.  I actually think this matter is decided
>> empirically too.  Luck is only a very small factor as is skill or IQ,
>> etc.  Overwhelmingly inheriting money is the best way to ensure your 
>> own
>> wealth.
>
>
> More clueless bloviating.  Instead of making an ass out of yourself by
> making random guesses that are grossly wrong and trivially verifiable 
> as
> such, perhaps you should spend a little more time on an education.  
> You talk
> an awful lot for having so little to say.
>
>
> The coarse statistics for millionaires in the US:  90% are self-made 
> (i.e.
> they earned it), and two-thirds are "blue-collar".  Inherited wealth 
> is a
> negligible sliver of the statistical pie for how one becomes a 
> millionaire,
> and always has been in the US.  State lotteries probably mint more
> millionaires than inheritance.  On a purely anecdotal level, I know 
> gobs of
> millionaires and not a single one that actually inherited their money. 
>  That
> the majority of millionaires built their fortunes as blue-collar 
> workers
> tells you most of what you need to know about what factors matter most:
> thriftiness and hard work.  Throw in a little ambition and you are 
> well on
> your way to some serious wealth.
>
> I'm guessing you don't like this answer because it does not give you 
> many
> good excuses for why you never got your slice of the millionaire pie. 
> It is
> much easier to blame the rich man keepin' da po' man down.  
> Thriftiness and
> hard work put a crimp in your lifestyle.
>
> Nobody said it was easy but the "hard" part revolves almost entirely 
> around
> having discipline.  And discipline is something anyone can develop and
> foster, not just the children of rich white people.
>
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 28 11:46:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] weaselly research reporting
In-Reply-To: <20050728025706.83184.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050728114605.19448.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Could you specify which country this is regarding? I've seen reports
that, at least in southwestern states, hospitals and state agencies are
left with hundreds of millions of dollars in stranded medical costs to
care for illegal immigrants or provide emergency care for foreign
tourists that is unpaid. Arizona had $150 million last year, and CA had
something like $250 million.

One should distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants and provide
data on how much each actually contributes to the economy and to tax
revenues.

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

> What bothers even a slightly squishy liberal like me is seeing
> today's report by Yahoo News that immigrants (report didn't specify
> whether illegal or not) consume hundreds of dollars less per month
> medical costs than native-born, then going on to report even more
> 'astonishingly' or 'startlingy' how the poorest of immigrant children
> use 84% less medical resources than natives.
> The researcher opines this is a "grave disparity".
>  I want to be a good liberal, a bleeding heart, a feel-good. But with
> bias like this being an intellectual is sometimes dubious. 
>  
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
>  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
"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 Jul 28 11:49:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20050728114945.88150.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/05 7:07 PM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to make an a priori guess: far and away the most
> important
> > factor for becoming a millionaire in the United States is having
> > millionaire parents.  I actually think this matter is decided
> > empirically too.  Luck is only a very small factor as is skill or
> IQ,
> > etc.  Overwhelmingly inheriting money is the best way to ensure
> your own
> > wealth.
> 
> 
> More clueless bloviating. Instead of making an ass out of yourself by
> making random guesses that are grossly wrong and trivially verifiable
> as such, perhaps you should spend a little more time on an education.

> You talk an awful lot for having so little to say.
> 
> 
> The coarse statistics for millionaires in the US:  90% are self-made
> (i.e. they earned it), and two-thirds are "blue-collar".  

Quite so. Research has found what is called the 'three generation
rule': family wealth and business ownership rarely survives past the
third family generation. I've met more kids of inherited wealth who are
penniless homeless drug addicts than anywhere else.

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  Thu Jul 28 11:54:05 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728050001.33344.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050728115405.88849.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything
> > society can or should do 
> > to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't
> > have the right 
> > qualities to succeed?
> 
>      Well that depends a lot on what you mean by
> mitigation. If you mean mitigation by lowering the bar
> then I am against that and would not suggest any means
> of doing it. If you mean mitigation to making the
> whole process as fair as possible, regardless of race,
> creed, national origin, or, in the case of mixed-race
> individuals, the lack thereof, then I am all in favor
> of it. So in the spirit of friendly brainstorming,
> here they are:
> 
> 1. Eliminate all references to race on all government
> and/or employment related application forms except for
> those of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Yes. On census forms, wrt race, I always answer 'human'.

> 
> 2. Scrap the public school system beyond 6th grade
> except for trade schools and universities. Instead,
> use the money to GIVE every household with children a
> computer with a DSL connnection and run the schools
> online. This will enable all children to learn at
> their own pace and will be completely color blind as
> you only see people on the internet if they want you
> to. Plus there is no difference in quality of
> education by neighborhood.

Can you imagine the howls from the Socialist Education Association?

> 
> 3. Place a cap on inheritence of capital by any one
> descendent of one home and $1 million in assests,
> liquid or otherwise. If someone can't make it with a
> head start like that, they're a feeb and need to get
> weeded out.  

A problem with that is the inheritance of family businesses. The three
generation rule already weeds out the feebs quite well in this, and,
for instance, many family farms today are worth far more than a
million. A buck ain't worth what it used to be. It won't even buy you a
McDonald's franchise, which even a feeb can make a living with.

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  Thu Jul 28 12:02:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <200507280600.j6S607R06435@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050728120222.43430.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
> > 
> > Thanks everybody for the support...
> > >
> > > To hear what Mike had to say...
> > >
> > > RealPlayer: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.ram
> > > Windows Media: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2005-07-27.wax
> 
> Mike's bit is minutes 11 thru 17.  Interesting program.
> 
> One thing Mike brought out that I had not realized is
> that the SCOTUS ruling requires the em-domer to pay the
> *assessed* value of the property, not the market value.
> How would that work in Taxifornia?  Our prop 13 specifies
> that the tax basis of a property is set by the price at
> the time of purchase, then increases 2% per year thereafter.
> After a few years the market value is higher than the
> assessed value by a dramatic margin.  

When interviewed by a newspaper reporter last evening, he pointed out
that people really get paid the "fair market value". I responded that
"fair market value" is not "real market value", it is the price the
state offers you with a gun pointed at your head.

To be fair, as one of the lawyers pointed out, here in NH, they also
provide, in the case of businesses being displaced, up to $100k in
migration expenses, which would be useful for any small to moderate
home based business.

> 
> We could make a fortune that would make Gates' paltry 
> billions pale in comparison merely by seizing ordinary 
> residential real estate at assessed value then selling
> it utterly without investing in any improvements at
> market value.  The public is served in a sense: the tax
> basis is reset to the sales price, so Taxamento collects
> on a much higher value.  So why couldn't I just go down
> my street and apply to seize every home on it?  Why not
> the entire Silicon Valley?  (cue maniacal laughter) 

Exactly, which is the example we are trying to set with our project.
Justice Kennedy has property in Sacramento, I am told. I don't know if
anybody out there is pursuing a similar strategy toward his property
there. While most of the Justices are easily millionaires, if their
property is underassessed to begin with, they could see a serious hit
that even a millionaire would blanche at.

You likely heard on the show one reactionary caller trying to imply I
am some sort of terrorist for pursuing this project on the supremes
property, and the state lawyer chimed in with concern about retribution
for his own activities. It's about time these people felt some heat.
Few courts these days will issue mandamus liabilities against
government employees for failing to do their jobs right.

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  Thu Jul 28 12:11:37 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <cc3400fa5f2fcaa82b8be2006761c892@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050728121137.19448.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Awesome, thanks for correcting me.
> 
> 1)  What are the sources of your statistics?
> 2)  How was "blue collar" and "self-made" defined for the sake of the
> study?
> 3)  What factors -do- contribute to millionaire-ship on your account,
> statistically speaking?
> 
> I'm looking for an argument of this form:
> 
> Of all American millionaires, 60% of them are blue collar (e.g. had 
> parents with little or no money and who weren't able to help them so 
> far as even a college education).
> Of the people whose parents were blue collar, x% became millionaires.
> And by comparison for the inheritors...

You don't understand: blue collar millionaires made their millions in
blue collar work: plumbing, farming, electrical contracting,
landscaping, etc. My own brother is one of these, he dropped out of
college, made about half his current wealth mowing lawns, landscaping,
and managing properties, then, after buying out a dozen or so
competitors in his area, sold out to a larger competitor in another
part of the state, and migrated into real estate sales.

I know a number of these types: little or no college education, some
without a high school diploma, who enjoy working their butts of 12-14
hours a day in backbreaking work when young, then successfully learn by
trial and error to manage groups of employees in the same trade, and
come to dominate their local market.

You likely know several millionaires but are not aware of it, because
you look at them driving a pickup truck, wearing a service worker
uniform, and not minding getting their hands dirty as degrading and
lower class. Such tend not to talk about their wealth to their friends
and don't buy into having status symbols.

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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Jul 28 13:20:54 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:20:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728121137.19448.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050728121137.19448.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507280918010.-199969@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> You likely know several millionaires but are not aware of it, because
> you look at them driving a pickup truck, wearing a service worker
> uniform, and not minding getting their hands dirty as degrading and
> lower class. Such tend not to talk about their wealth to their friends
> and don't buy into having status symbols.
>

IIRC a few years ago we had a quite lengthy discussion of the book
"The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley and Danko.

It says much of this. Quite an interesting read.

Regards,
MB


From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jul 28 14:41:38 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:41:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728050001.33344.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-B49A77CDFF7511D993F7000393A47D36@[70.11.26.205]>

 (7/27/05 22:00) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>3. Place a cap on inheritence of capital by any one
>descendent of one home and $1 million in assests,
>liquid or otherwise. If someone can't make it with a
>head start like that, they're a feeb and need to get
>weeded out.  

See, though, the problem with your plan here is static thinking. Inflation/deflation, cost of capital, etc. will change the effectiveness of $1M a good deal over time.

Personally, I'm absolutely against all sorts of inheritance taxes. All they do is create a grey market industry in "estate management," thus siphoning off a good deal of money that could be used elsewhere.  Inheritors are often just as effective at whittling down fortunes as the government is and why on earth should we penalize families that drum fiscal responsibility and good stewardship into their offspring?

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jul 28 14:45:54 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:45:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050727235556.10018.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-4D3ECAE6FF7611D993F7000393A47D36@[70.11.26.205]>

 (7/27/05 16:55) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thanks everybody for the support. One of the things I didn't get to
>mention, as I was cut off, was that we've found some curious
>information in our research on these two properties: both were assessed
>by the same private firm, despite being half a state away from each
>other, and both were undervalued by 50% or more... we are investigating
>other high officials property assessments to see if there is a
>pattern... as Drudge says, "developing..."
>
>There was an article on the Breyer story last night on Free Market News
>Network, and a local paper, the Valley News, interviewed me this
>evening.


I haven't listened to the NHPR interview yet due to bandwidth issues (i'm without my broadband right now),  but I hope that you suggested some suitable plausible "economic development" projects in the Kelo vein that would be a better use of Breyer's property. Sometimes, the only way to get a point across is to force the chickens to come home to roost. 

In any case, keep up the good work on this issue!

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Jul 28 16:03:04 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:03:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2005 - UPdate
Message-ID: <380-2200574281634722@M2W083.mail2web.com>


Would anyone like an UPdate on the TV05 conference in Caracas, Venezuela?

If so, let's start discussing.  A lot happened there and now would be a
good time to be mapping out our future.

Best,
Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.extropy.org

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jul 28 16:30:23 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <200507280600.j6S607R06435@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050728163023.91612.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> So why couldn't I just go down
> my street and apply to seize every home on it?  Why not
> the entire Silicon Valley?  (cue maniacal laughter)  

I can't speak for anywhere else, but in most Silicon Valley cities,
the city governments would never let you get away with large-scale
seizure of residential property.  (East Palo Alto *might* be an
exception.)  Near-unanimous opposition from the city government would
be enough to label your seizures as "not in the public interest", and
thus defeat it.

For instance, in my own city of Mountain View, there is an ongoing
debate over how best to develop some formerly commercial property that
almost nobody wants.  The one developer who has expressed interest
wants to turn it into more houses, and this is what the city officials
support, but the neighbors want a library, parks, and other things that
will boost the value of their homes.  This seems to be almost exactly
the opposite of the "seize residences in the public interest" scenario.

(If you actually have the funding to buy it and might be interested,
look up "Mayfield Mall".  If you don't have the funding...you can't get
the government to bear all the costs, even for a straight "seize and
resell as is to boost tax revenue"; that would prevent you from doing
as you propose too.)


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jul 28 17:16:09 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2005 - UPdate
In-Reply-To: <380-2200574281634722@M2W083.mail2web.com>
References: <380-2200574281634722@M2W083.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <314D0B59-C544-4AFF-A22D-54A346A50C31@bonfireproductions.com>



Please do!

I for one think it is more pertinent than all the stick-shaking we've  
been doing en masse these past two months on popular issues.

I am sorry I missed the webcasts of TV05 - I did catch most of the  
First Workshop however, which was refreshing. Any amount of  
discussion on where we are going would be a step forward.


Thanks,
Bret Kulakovich


On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:03 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>
> Would anyone like an UPdate on the TV05 conference in Caracas,  
> Venezuela?
>
> If so, let's start discussing.  A lot happened there and now would  
> be a
> good time to be mapping out our future.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
> Natasha Vita-More
> http://www.extropy.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 28 18:02:41 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:02:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>
References: <20050726005523.81595.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1C50FF9A-4B18-4B00-8944-6CA2769673F3@mac.com>
	<42E82E63.5080105@cox.net>
Message-ID: <AD68CB92-9975-4EF4-9A57-4B6AC0EE489B@mac.com>


On Jul 27, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>      Anyone can make it here in America, if they WANT
>>> to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's a nice little unfalsifiable assertion.
>>
>
> Hey, Guys, this is too general on both sides.
>
> If you have some combination of qualities, you can make it. If you  
> do not, you cannot.
>
> Qualities that may enable you to make it:
> determination
> intelligence,
> capital
> friends
> luck
> etc.
>
> Avantguardian makes a "the glass is half full" analysis: "anyone"  
> is likely to have the right combination of qualities, and those who  
> do not deserve their fate.
>
> Samantha makes a "the glass is half empty" analysis (with respect  
> to this problem: not as general attribute): There are a LOT of  
> people who do not in fact have set of qualities that permit them to  
> succeed.

I thought I just pointed out what you have pointed but using fewer  
words.   A general statement of this kind is not justified.  I don't  
think the assertion or my rather obvious rejoinder qualify as  
"analyses".

>
> I can find many examples in my own personal experience to support  
> both analyses. I think we should work together to build a bottom-up  
> approach to this analysis, with specific exemplars rather than  
> abstract populations.

How exactly will this be helpful.  As technology improves, as  
globalization proceeds, as AI comes more into play the bar of  
economically viable skills will raise.  More people over time will  
not likely have something to sell at a price that will support them  
(or will simply get too old).  This hasn't much to do with their  
personal determination and dedication except at those points where  
they still have economically viable skills or the ability to obtain  
them.  What happens when this is no longer the case?   One may argue  
that this will never be the case but that is really avoiding the  
question on the basis of assertion.

> We have Korean emigrants who are now millionaires, and we have  
> bright black ghetto-born guys who are sentenced to life in prison.  
> Stereotypes. We also have black ghetto kids who make it big time,  
> and Korean emigrants who die in poverty. Not stereotypes, but real  
> people.

Well yes.  But what are the underlying questions and situations?

>
> Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything society can or should  
> do to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't have the right  
> qualities to succeed?
>

Sure there are things that can be done.  Whether or not "society" is  
the right entity or used here as a catchall is a different question.

> Challenge to Samantha: how can we help those who are not succeeding  
> without stifling initiative?

I am not sure that is a useful question.  Why should helping some  
stifle others unless too much of limited resources and their own  
capabilities and products of their work is being diverted?  Our  
current government run massively wasteful and ineffective programs  
are not really viable.  This does not mean there is not a real need  
or that all ways of addressing it would be unviable.

I think that the only way to ultimately address the problem is to get  
to such an abundance society that all the necessities of life and  
access to a considerable amount of knowledge and computation is  
simply free due to its inconsequential cost of production and  
distribution.  Many people may not have "what it takes" to get more  
than this quite substantial minimum but on one anywhere on earth will  
be truly impoverished', malnourished or lacking access to the  
knowledge of humankind and the computer/communication generated  
noosphere.

- samantha



From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 18:10:42 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:10:42 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728121137.19448.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050728121137.19448.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robbie Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Awesome, thanks for correcting me.
>>
>>1)  What are the sources of your statistics?
>>2)  How was "blue collar" and "self-made" defined for the sake of the
>>study?
>>3)  What factors -do- contribute to millionaire-ship on your account,
>>statistically speaking?
>>
>>I'm looking for an argument of this form:
>>
>>Of all American millionaires, 60% of them are blue collar (e.g. had 
>>parents with little or no money and who weren't able to help them so 
>>far as even a college education).
>>Of the people whose parents were blue collar, x% became millionaires.
>>And by comparison for the inheritors...
>>    
>>
>
>You don't understand: blue collar millionaires made their millions in
>blue collar work: plumbing, farming, electrical contracting,
>landscaping, etc.
>

I understand perfectly well what blue collar work -normally- means. 

What I want to know was how it was defined for the sake of the study 
referenced.  This is a fair question.  Different studies make different 
definitions and paying attention to them is important when drawing 
conclusions.

> My own brother is one of these, he dropped out of
>college, made about half his current wealth mowing lawns, landscaping,
>and managing properties, then, after buying out a dozen or so
>competitors in his area, sold out to a larger competitor in another
>part of the state, and migrated into real estate sales.
>  
>

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant when making statistical arguments.  For 
every hardworking "guy I know" who made it, there's a slovenly idiot who 
became a millionaire by winning the lottery or having his daddy give it 
to him.  (I'm sure there are also hard working intelligent people who 
win the lottery occasionally too.)

>I know a number of these types: little or no college education, some
>without a high school diploma, who enjoy working their butts of 12-14
>hours a day in backbreaking work when young, then successfully learn by
>trial and error to manage groups of employees in the same trade, and
>come to dominate their local market.
>
>You likely know several millionaires but are not aware of it, because
>you look at them driving a pickup truck, wearing a service worker
>uniform, and not minding getting their hands dirty as degrading and
>lower class. Such tend not to talk about their wealth to their friends
>and don't buy into having status symbols.
>

I know several millionaires personally, this is, again, completely 
irrelevant when making a statistical argument.

The myth I'm trying to bust here is the "if you work hard, have 
discipline and drive, you will probably be born in the projects and make 
a million dollars", when in fact the odds are so far against this that 
it's absurd.  I've recently been told that 98% of millionaires were born 
millionaires in the US, from "Lies my teacher told me:  Everything your 
high school history book got wrong."

I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well as a 
definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.

Robbie Lindauer


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 28 18:28:42 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:28:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] weaselly research reporting
In-Reply-To: <20050728025706.83184.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050728025706.83184.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7ECD6B16-9DFD-4473-8233-3220A74BFB95@mac.com>

How does the decision to be an intellectual, or anything else for  
that matter, hinge upon how many shoddy intellectuals there are?    
How does caring about the state of other human beings make you a  
"bleeding heart, a feel good"?

- s

On Jul 27, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Al Brooks wrote:

> What bothers even a slightly squishy liberal like me is seeing  
> today's report by Yahoo News that immigrants (report didn't specify  
> whether illegal or not) consume hundreds of dollars less per month  
> medical costs than native-born, then going on to report even more  
> 'astonishingly' or 'startlingy' how the poorest of immigrant  
> children use 84% less medical resources than natives.
> The researcher opines this is a "grave disparity".
>  I want to be a good liberal, a bleeding heart, a feel-good. But  
> with bias like this being an intellectual is sometimes dubious.
>
>
> 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/20050728/c2be06e6/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jul 28 18:34:41 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:34:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <BF0D9E3D.50B%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <1A3C5259-B205-48E3-8113-6CFC3D49163B@mac.com>


On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:25 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>
> Nobody said it was easy but the "hard" part revolves almost  
> entirely around
> having discipline.  And discipline is something anyone can develop and
> foster, not just the children of rich white people.

It is a pity that financial discipline and financial savvy are the  
things this culture teaches the least.  Quite a bit of societal  
pressure is in the exact opposite direction.  Buy now, pay later.    
Not save and invest now, be rich later.   The individual is not  
solely responsible for his or her abysmal financial condition  
although mostly only the individual can change it.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050728/d4358243/attachment.html>

From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Thu Jul 28 19:12:26 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:12:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

On 7/28/05 11:10 AM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> What I want to know was how it was defined for the sake of the study
> referenced.  This is a fair question.  Different studies make different
> definitions and paying attention to them is important when drawing
> conclusions.


The definitions are pretty straightforward if you bothered to put even the
slightest effort in learning about this.  Around 3.5% of households in the
US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of the
total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not real
estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.

According to the most commonly cited sources, 80% of millionaires are "first
generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families.  Another
10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any financial
support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.  The remaining
10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources, including
inheritance.

I come from a family with many millionaires in it, but a long tradition of
no financial support whatsoever for the children and modest lifestyles.  No
allowances (you have to work for your money), and when you graduate from
high school you have to make your own way in the world, including paying for
your own college (while being disqualified from financial aid by this fact).
Nonetheless, it has produced generation upon generation of wealthy
individuals, including individuals who ended up in the rarified air of
ultra-wealthy with nothing more than a high school diplomas and day labor
jobs.  In case you are wondering where all that money goes when people die,
the estate invariably gets donated to charitable organizations.

When I look at my extended family and the consistent wealth it has produced
from generation to generation, the pattern is obvious: they work very hard,
they are pretty bright, and children are never coddled or spoiled.  Being
financially self-made is a badge of honor, and expected.



> The myth I'm trying to bust here is the "if you work hard, have
> discipline and drive, you will probably be born in the projects and make
> a million dollars", when in fact the odds are so far against this that
> it's absurd.


Being smart helps too, but is only moderately important.  The problem is
ultimately that very few people work hard or have drive and discipline.  The
vast majority of people are comfortable and do not feel the need to work
hard or have discipline.

You are not busting any myths, you are pointing out the problem.


> I've recently been told that 98% of millionaires were born
> millionaires in the US, from "Lies my teacher told me:  Everything your
> high school history book got wrong."


Obviously a load of crap, since such a "fact" would have a number of
interesting consequences that are not in evidence.


> I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well as a
> definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.


90%, not 60%.  


J. Andrew Rogers






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jul 28 19:25:27 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:25:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>
	<BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:12 PM 7/28/2005 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:


>Around 3.5% of households in the
>US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of the
>total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not real
>estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.
>
>According to the most commonly cited sources, 80% of millionaires are "first
>generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families.  Another
>10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any financial
>support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.  The remaining
>10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources, including
>inheritance.

In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire 
household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes 110 
poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio Robbie was 
looking for.

Damien Broderick 



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Thu Jul 28 19:50:07 2005
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:50:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BF0E84FF.64C%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

On 7/28/05 12:25 PM, "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire
> household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes 110
> poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio Robbie was
> looking for.


Yes, I suppose that is an interesting way of looking at it.

What it also suggests is that there is a cultural and genetic selection
process at work -- evolution in action.  When these statistics are sorted
across ethnic groups and cultures, the results are far more striking.  While
there is probably a genetic component that offers an advantage (like the
abundance of bright compulsive workaholics in my family), I think culture is
responsible for the lion's share of why some people are financially
successful and others are not.

Like Samantha stated, people who are raised in a culture that embraces
extravagant consumption and has no concept of investment or saving will be
at a disadvantage because thriftiness is a big portion of how wealth is
accumulated, at least in the US.  And leaving the cultural reservation is
rarely easy for most people. People raised in a culture/environment that
promotes wealth accumulating principles will likely have wealthy parents for
the same reasons that the children are.  But this is quite a bit different
than the idea that people with wealthy parents are wealthy entirely as a
result of inheritance.  In most cases in the US, it appears that most of the
useful inheritance is solid values regarding how one manages their finances.


J. Andrew Rogers





From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 19:55:00 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:55:00 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <42E93814.2010905@aol.com>

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>On 7/28/05 11:10 AM, "Robert Lindauer" <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>What I want to know was how it was defined for the sake of the study
>>referenced.  This is a fair question.  Different studies make different
>>definitions and paying attention to them is important when drawing
>>conclusions.
>>    
>>
>
>
>The definitions are pretty straightforward if you bothered to put even the
>slightest effort in learning about this.  Around 3.5% of households in the
>US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of the
>total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not real
>estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.
>  
>

Hey, that's great, could you post a reference to the study?

>According to the most commonly cited sources,
>

Which sources?  My sources say otherwise, I already posted one source.  
If you don't like the source, perhaps you could explain what was wrong 
with their study for everyone so we can clear up the discrepancies?

> 80% of millionaires are "first
>generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families.
>

What's the source of this statistic?

>  Another
>10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any financial
>support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.
>

You wouldn't count the simple advantages that wealthy kids have like 
getting christmas presents and decent meals everyday as "financial 
support"?  They certainly provide an advantage over people who have 
welfare christmas' for instance.

>  The remaining
>10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources, including
>inheritance.
>
>I come from a family with many millionaires in it, but a long tradition of
>no financial support whatsoever for the children and modest lifestyles.  No
>allowances (you have to work for your money), and when you graduate from
>high school you have to make your own way in the world, including paying for
>your own college (while being disqualified from financial aid by this fact).
>Nonetheless, it has produced generation upon generation of wealthy
>individuals, including individuals who ended up in the rarified air of
>ultra-wealthy with nothing more than a high school diplomas and day labor
>jobs.  In case you are wondering where all that money goes when people die,
>the estate invariably gets donated to charitable organizations.
>
>When I look at my extended family and the consistent wealth it has produced
>from generation to generation, the pattern is obvious: they work very hard,
>they are pretty bright, and children are never coddled or spoiled.  Being
>financially self-made is a badge of honor, and expected.
>  
>

Okay, that's one very talented family, bully bully for you.  How does 
that pan out against the 400,000,000 or so americans and the 4 billion 
people worldwide?

>>The myth I'm trying to bust here is the "if you work hard, have
>>discipline and drive, you will probably be born in the projects and make
>>a million dollars", when in fact the odds are so far against this that
>>it's absurd.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Being smart helps too, but is only moderately important.  The problem is
>ultimately that very few people work hard or have drive and discipline.  The
>vast majority of people are comfortable and do not feel the need to work
>hard or have discipline.
>  
>

Or perhaps they direct their energies to other worthy goals like helping 
poor people or triathalon running or being good at playing the piano or 
something.

>You are not busting any myths, you are pointing out the problem.
>  
>

"The problem"?  What problem?

>
>  
>
>>I've recently been told that 98% of millionaires were born
>>millionaires in the US, from "Lies my teacher told me:  Everything your
>>high school history book got wrong."
>>    
>>
>
>
>Obviously a load of crap, since such a "fact" would have a number of
>interesting consequences that are not in evidence.
>  
>

Well, at least you can objectively look it up yourself and see how the 
study was done and if you have nits to pick you could explain why.   I'd 
like to have a look at your study that says 90% and 60% of millionaires 
are self-made.

>>I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well as a
>>definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.
>>    
>>
>
>
>90%, not 60%.  
>  
>
Last time you said 60%, typo?  why not just post a reference to the 
study in question?

Robbie Lindauer



From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 19:57:34 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:57:34 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>	<BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42E938AE.3040100@aol.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 12:12 PM 7/28/2005 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
>
>> Around 3.5% of households in the
>> US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of the
>> total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not real
>> estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.
>>
>> According to the most commonly cited sources, 80% of millionaires are 
>> "first
>> generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families.  
>> Another
>> 10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any financial
>> support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.  The 
>> remaining
>> 10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources, including
>> inheritance.
>
>
> In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire 
> household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes 
> 110 poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio 
> Robbie was looking for.



It's definitely statistically significant.  I wonder if they've done 
other studies on the children of millionaires to see if they're 10% 
smarter, harder working and more driven than 'other people'.

Robbie Lindauer




From es at popido.com  Thu Jul 28 20:08:33 2005
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:08:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sweden after the Swedish model
In-Reply-To: <20050728120222.43430.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050728120222.43430.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E93B41.60104@popido.com>

A report on the decline of a socialist state:
http://www.timbro.se/mail/20050621/

Read it if you want to understand the thinking behind the big welfare 
states of northern Europe, why they were so succesful during a few 
decades and what problems they now are facing.


BR
Erik S.
blog: framtidstanken.com


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jul 28 20:10:35 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:10:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <42E938AE.3040100@aol.com>
References: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>
	<BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42E938AE.3040100@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0507281310349c5714@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/05, Robert Lindauer wrote:
> 
> It's definitely statistically significant.  I wonder if they've done
> other studies on the children of millionaires to see if they're 10%
> smarter, harder working and more driven than 'other people'.
> 

On the other hand, 1million USD is around 570,000 GB pounds, which
will get you a nice house in the London and South East England
property market, but nothing very extravagant.

Most people over 60 years old have paid off their real estate
mortgage. Remember it was started many years previous when property
values were 10% of current prices. They can now call themselves dollar
millionaires. I would expect the same to apply in USA, for the
majority of older property owners.

I remember people commenting that their house was earning more than
they were, because property prices were rising so fast.

BillK


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 20:18:42 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:18:42 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0507281310349c5714@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>	<BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<42E938AE.3040100@aol.com>
	<ee50357e0507281310349c5714@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42E93DA2.1020301@aol.com>

Well, a million dollars, even in non-liquid assets, is still a 
significant amount of money for -most people-.  You can still retire on 
it and move to the Ozarks if you're so inclined, for instance.  It's 
admittedly not the high bar it was even 30 years ago. 


Robbie Lindauer


BillK wrote:

>On 7/28/05, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>  
>
>>It's definitely statistically significant.  I wonder if they've done
>>other studies on the children of millionaires to see if they're 10%
>>smarter, harder working and more driven than 'other people'.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>On the other hand, 1million USD is around 570,000 GB pounds, which
>will get you a nice house in the London and South East England
>property market, but nothing very extravagant.
>
>Most people over 60 years old have paid off their real estate
>mortgage. Remember it was started many years previous when property
>values were 10% of current prices. They can now call themselves dollar
>millionaires. I would expect the same to apply in USA, for the
>majority of older property owners.
>
>I remember people commenting that their house was earning more than
>they were, because property prices were rising so fast.
>
>BillK
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Jul 28 20:37:08 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:37:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2005 - UPdate
Message-ID: <380-22005742820378125@M2W126.mail2web.com>

From: Bret Kulakovich 

>Please do!

>I for one think it is more pertinent than all the stick-shaking we've  
>been doing en masse these past two months on popular issues.

>I am sorry I missed the webcasts of TV05 - I did catch most of the  
>First Workshop however, which was refreshing. Any amount of  
>discussion on where we are going would be a step forward.

I'm still not caught up on sleep.  We had a great time seeing friends and
enjoying the tropical weather.  

The webcast was not entirely successful. But conference was successful and
having it in a developing country was advantageous in many ways.  Most
importantly, it showed conference attendees first hand why being involved
in the need for global change is immediate and urgent.

I had several favorite speakers and favorite moments. First off, Max was
amazing.  He brought the ideas of the entire conference into focus.  I have
to stand apart in order to analyze the speakers and how each one
contributed to the overall succes of the conference.  I think Max, Greg
Stock and Martine Rothblatt were extraordinarly on target with their talks.

My own talk was on "Transhumanism 2.0" and it was a basic framework and
strategic plan for assssing where we are today and how to focus on
tomorrow.  I'll post about it later tonight.

Best,
Natasha




On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:03 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>
> Would anyone like an UPdate on the TV05 conference in Caracas,  
> Venezuela?
>
> If so, let's start discussing.  A lot happened there and now would  
> be a
> good time to be mapping out our future.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
> Natasha Vita-More
> http://www.extropy.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 28 22:25:39 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728115405.88849.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050728222539.84140.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 3. Place a cap on inheritence of capital by any
> one
> > descendent of one home and $1 million in assests,
> > liquid or otherwise. If someone can't make it with
> a
> > head start like that, they're a feeb and need to
> get
> > weeded out.  
> 
> A problem with that is the inheritance of family
> businesses. The three
> generation rule already weeds out the feebs quite
> well in this, and,
> for instance, many family farms today are worth far
> more than a
> million. A buck ain't worth what it used to be. It
> won't even buy you a
> McDonald's franchise, which even a feeb can make a
> living with.

     That's my point. The three generation rule is
precisely the problem. It points to the inefficency of
the system as it stands. My system corrects for that.
The million dollars was an arbritrary figure of
convenience. Obviously for the system to work, that
figure would have to be adjusted to accomodate
inflation and the CPI.
 
     Moreover a family farm would qualify as a home,
and the heir would get to have a million dollars more
on top of it. Plus if a wealthy man has enough heirs,
then his estate wouldn't have to pay any estate taxes
at all. As far as family businesses, siblings could
each own up to a million dollars worth of it.
 
     My point is that the three generation rule sucks.
Giving a billion dollars to a feeb can do more harm to
the world than good even as he foolishly squanders it
on drugs and such. The ancient romans had a saying
about kings which is just as telling about captains of
industry: "A king is often a great man of virtue, his
son often an imbecile or a murderer, and his grandson
probably both.

     For you to excuse the excesses of wealthy heirs
would be like some citizen of the Roman empire on the
verge of collapse saying, "Oh it's ok if Commodus is
the emperor even though he's a murderous moron, his
father Marcus Aurelius was a fine man, and the worst
that could happen is that the Praetorian Guard will
kill him." Yes... but not until Commodus had destroyed
any hope of saving the Empire.
     

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 reason at longevitymeme.org  Thu Jul 28 22:36:07 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason .)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:36:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
Message-ID: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>

http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/07/the_sens_challe.html
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000557.php

The plot thickens...engaging in Judo with Aubrey de Grey would appear to be a losing proposition.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme

--------------

The frustration of Jason Pontin, editor of the MIT Technology Review, over the inexplicable reluctance of A-list bioscientists to deliver a good scientific critique of Aubrey de Grey's Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) has born fruit. From Pontin's latest post, we have the announcement of the SENS Challenge:

The most widely read story in Technology Review in 2005 was "Do You Want to Live Forever?," a profile of Dr. Aubrey de Grey, a British theoretical biologist and computer scientist at the University of Cambridge's Department of Genetics. 
De Grey believes that aging, like a disease, can in principle be treated and defeated. He proposes approaching aging as a problem in engineering through something he calls "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence." SENS claims to identify the 7 causes of human aging and describes how each cause might be circumvented. De Grey is also the guiding genius behind The Methuselah Foundation, an organization which offers monetary awards to biologists who make significant advances towards reversing aging in mice.

...

In my reply to our readers, whilst conceding nothing, I promised to find a working biogerontologist who would take on de Grey's ideas. But while a number of biologists have criticized SENS to me privately, none have been willing to do so in public.

This silence is puzzling (de Grey, less charitably, calls it "catatonia"). If de Grey is so wrong, why won't any biogerontologists say why he is wrong? If he is totally nuts, it shouldn't be so hard to explain the faults in his science, surely?

One possible explanation for the silence of biogerontologists is that criticizing SENS would require time and effort - and that working scientists are too busy to waste time on something so silly. Another explanation (one obviously preferred by de Grey) is that biogerontologists reject SENS out of hand without examining its details. 

Technology Review thinks it would be useful to determine which of the two explanations is correct. If SENS has some validity, then we should take it seriously. Because if we can significantly extend healthy life, we will have to ask - should we?

Regardless of which explanation is correct, biogerontologists apparently need an incentive to consider SENS. To that end, Technology Review is announcing a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of aging who is willing to take up the challenge: submit an intellectually serious argument that SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate, and you will be paid $20,000 if it convinces independent referees. In the case that even $20,000 is insufficient to motivate the relevant experts, we also invite contributions to the fund; anyone wishing to pledge should contact me.

Pontin is not pro-life-extension, needless to say - and, sadly, still appears to be willing to describe Aubrey de Grey as "nuts." I don't agree with a number of his opinions on the workings and nature of science, even if he clearly understands where he should be going with respect to the circulation of his magazine. However, if the Technology Review staff pull this off, or even generate significant additional publicity for serious attempts to greatly extend the healthy human life span, I might just be willing to forgive some of their past transgressions.

Go and read the full post for the terms of the SENS Challenge. You might also find Aubrey de Grey's "The Curious Case of the Catatonic Biogerontologists" to be well worth reading in the present context.

 
             


From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jul 28 23:21:00 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:21:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <BF0E84FF.64C%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-42FFDA5BFFBE11D993F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/28/05 12:50) J. Andrew Rogers <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:

>What it also suggests is that there is a cultural and genetic selection
>process at work -- evolution in action.  When these statistics are sorted
>across ethnic groups and cultures, the results are far more striking.  While
>there is probably a genetic component that offers an advantage (like the
>abundance of bright compulsive workaholics in my family), I think culture is
>responsible for the lion's share of why some people are financially
>successful and others are not.


Social Darwinism?  Isn't that terribly early-1900s?

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From robgobblin at aol.com  Thu Jul 28 23:26:02 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:26:02 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-42FFDA5BFFBE11D993F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <r02010500-1038-42FFDA5BFFBE11D993F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <42E9698A.9040404@aol.com>

This isn't new to darwinism, it's the same thing they used to call 
Manifest Destiny with, instead of a pseudo-religious excuse for 
exploiting the poor, they substitute the pseudo-scientific.

OBVIOUSLY God likes them better, they're rich!

Robbie Lindauer



Brent Neal wrote:

> (7/28/05 12:50) J. Andrew Rogers <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What it also suggests is that there is a cultural and genetic selection
>>process at work -- evolution in action.  When these statistics are sorted
>>across ethnic groups and cultures, the results are far more striking.  While
>>there is probably a genetic component that offers an advantage (like the
>>abundance of bright compulsive workaholics in my family), I think culture is
>>responsible for the lion's share of why some people are financially
>>successful and others are not.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Social Darwinism?  Isn't that terribly early-1900s?
>
>B
>  
>



From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jul 28 23:31:33 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:31:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050728222539.84140.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-BC3A73F7FFBF11D993F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/28/05 15:25) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>     My point is that the three generation rule sucks.
>Giving a billion dollars to a feeb can do more harm to
>the world than good even as he foolishly squanders it
>on drugs and such. 


Here, though, you have to consider where you draw the line. If he "foolishly squanders it" by travelling the world in luxury, is it really squandering?  The people who work to make his life comfortable and who are recompensed for it (i.e. waiters, bellhops, hotel maids, etc.) certainly wouldn't think so...

The point I'm making is that its generally a Bad Idea to put arbitrary government controls on these sorts of things.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 00:11:02 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-BC3A73F7FFBF11D993F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20050729001102.8033.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> The point I'm making is that its generally a Bad
> Idea to put arbitrary government controls on these
> sorts of things.

I am not calling for arbitrary controls, I am calling
for rational controls. You are stating the mantra of
an obsolete economic theory based on biological ideas
of the 19th century. It is no more than the
manifestation of the fear of change as public policy.
You might as well be stating the "precautionary
principle" of economics. It is neither enlightened nor
rational to expect an undriven but accelerating
vehicle containing all of humanity to not go over a
cliff because "it hasn't done so yet." Somebody needs
to take the wheel, period.

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 sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 29 01:00:08 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:00:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioeconomics was Why I'm Not Libertarian...
In-Reply-To: <20050728035509.81507.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050728035509.81507.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <463C929F-B778-4AE8-B796-08FE748DF1B4@mac.com>


On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Peter Brooks <peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> This is a good start at explaining it. Then there is
>> the high cost of litigation; citizens who hate
>> everything about D.C. with a passion except the
>> checks being funded from that location, and so
>> forth. Notice how citizens want virtually unlimited
>> growth on their terms yet also want a very clean
>> environment-- which is not merely double-minded but
>> also schizophrenic. It never ends.
>>
>
>      Precisely. Which is why I propose a merging of
> memes from economics, biology, and ecology into the
> new fields of bioeconomics and bioeconomic
> engineering. They are designed to study and achieve
> healthy biological growth of the total world economy
> in the context of a sustainable life-promoting
> enviroment.

So the first question would be worthy you know what "healthy  
biological growth" looks like as the scientific/technological ground  
and fundamental possibilities change rapidly underfoot.  What kind of  
life?

>
>      Current economic theory faces the problem in that
> it focuses on unregulated, unhealthy growth, like a
> tumor.What I propose, instead is a rational rationing
> of natural resources in such a way that we can grow
> our economy and our species in a healthy sustainable
> manner to the point that we can shape our world into a
> tropical paradise, instead of a toxin strewn boneyard.

I too want to see this world turned into a paradise.  But I don't  
think it will happen by focusing on rationing what we now have a  
limited supply of.  I think it far more likely to concentrate on  
creating more supply and on those things that increase rather than  
decrease with use.  But perhaps there is some temporary need in some  
areas.  So where are these and how does rationing them make it more  
likely we come to inhabit the type of world we wish?


> All the while, maximizing personal gain for the
> well-being of as many people as possible in a
> meritocratic fashion.
>

Sounds good.  Does the program uplift all?

>      If we achieve sufficent growth, we may be able to
> colonize other worlds. If not, we will choke to death
> ourselves and our entire local food chain of
> ecological niches including many other large
> vertabrates.

Or we may change in unimaginable ways.  Or with MNT covering our  
material needs may be quite ecnomical and environmentally friendly to  
boot.  The same technology starts undoing environmental harm.

>
>      The environment of course will still function at
> some level but what will populate the planet when it's
> healed itself in a few million years is anybody's
> guess. Perhaps the sentient descendents of the
> cockroaches.
>

Where are you going?

- samantha




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 29 01:09:08 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Reason ." <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> Regardless of which explanation is correct, biogerontologists
> apparently need an incentive to consider SENS. To that end,
> Technology Review is announcing a prize for any molecular biologist
> working in the field of aging who is willing to take up the
> challenge: submit an intellectually serious argument that SENS is so
> wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate, and you will be paid
> $20,000 if it convinces independent referees. In the case that even
> $20,000 is insufficient to motivate the relevant experts, we also
> invite contributions to the fund; anyone wishing to pledge should
> contact me.

And what happens if they do not find one?  The debate over whether to
even consider it continues; nothing has been disproven.  It would seem
more productive to offer the $20,000 to anyone who can solidly make the
case either way: that is, if they can prove that there's something
worth investigating *or* prove (rather than just claim with little
evidence) that it's rubbish.


From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jul 29 01:24:00 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:24:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,	000 SENS
	Challenge
In-Reply-To: <20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E98530.3040105@pobox.com>

A $20,000 bounty offered specifically to *disprove* SENS?

It warms the heart to see such genuine, unbiased curiosity.

Once again I am forcefully reminded that I live in a world where not even the 
****ing rationalists have any ****ing clue how rationality works.

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 01:35:43 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <42E98530.3040105@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050729013543.31020.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> A $20,000 bounty offered specifically to *disprove*
> SENS?
> 
> It warms the heart to see such genuine, unbiased
> curiosity.
> 
> Once again I am forcefully reminded that I live in a
> world where not even the 
> ****ing rationalists have any ****ing clue how
> rationality works.

     Yes, but it is a sucker's bet. Completely
independently of Aubrey de Gray, in different
experimental and literary contexts, I had come to the
very same conclusion on the feasibilty and near
inevitably of SENS. (although I didn't call it that at
the time)
     My point being that the more independent trains
of thought that lead to the same conclusion, the more
likely that that conclusion is to be accurate. At
least that what my Bayesian-sense tells me. Do you
really think Kass, Fukiyama, and the rest of the
"learned men" would be so opposed to the idea if they
thought it WOULDN'T work?
  

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 analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 01:46:49 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:46:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>
	<20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f050728184656d04bd8@mail.gmail.com>

I'm baffled as to why this is considered worthy of $20,000. If it's a
technical critique that's sought, it's near pointless, because SENS's
failings would show up soon enough during its attempted
implementation. If it's an ethical critique as to why SENS shouldn't
be undertaken no matter how achievable it is, that'd be too easy to
get published to warrant the $20K bounty, and would no doubt do
little-to-nothing in terms of stopping Aubrey & other likeminded
biologists from pursuing SENS.

It's also pretty worthless, when you realize that the developmentally
challenged Discovery Institute cretin-creationists have gotten at
least one defense of creationism published in a scientific,
peer-reviewed biology journal. Peer review isn't reliable enough to
make it the determinant of a winning critique.

On 7/28/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> It would seem
> more productive to offer the $20,000 to anyone who can solidly make the
> case either way: that is, if they can prove that there's something
> worth investigating *or* prove (rather than just claim with little
> evidence) that it's rubbish.

Can't do that, because, by the measure proposed (which is acceptance
of the arguments presented in the form of publication in a
peer-reviewed journal in the field), Aubrey's already won.

-- 
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 analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 01:54:58 2005
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:54:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050728184656d04bd8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>
	<20050729010908.33851.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5844e22f050728184656d04bd8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f05072818549c1e5aa@mail.gmail.com>

Pardon, rule 3 of the Challenge states a to-be-announced board of
experts will officiate, rather than general peer-reviewed journal
publication, so the relevant bits of my previous e-mail re:
peer-review are void in this context.

-- 
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 Jul 29 02:25:10 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E91FA2.5010007@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050729022510.10661.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Robbie, you've been asked politely multiple times to move this
discussion from this list. Natasha has asked me about continued posting
on this topic. I will answer your question, but only on the
extro-freedom yahoogroup.

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote: 
> I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well
> as a definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.

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 reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Jul 29 02:36:40 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:36:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f050728184656d04bd8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEMKGFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

-> Jeff Medina

> I'm baffled as to why this is considered worthy of $20,000.

Publicity. At least from my point of view, but I'm not putting up the
dollars. I believe that Pontin most probably looks on it as advertising
expenditure for the TR, but Aubrey is more interested in actually getting a
good public critique/exchange from someone who knows the science.

The other view is that it's a useful experiment, attempting to quantify the
resistance to critiquing SENS. If no-one bites, no money is spent and a
minimal amount of publicity is generated for SENS, healthy life extension
and the TR. If someone bites, then everyone involved benefits further, and a
sticky wheel in the scientific progress of SENS is - getting the scientific
debate started properly - is helped along in its revolutions. The potential
benefit is well worth the outlay.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 02:43:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> At 12:12 PM 7/28/2005 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> 
> 
> >Around 3.5% of households in the
> >US are millionaire households, and only around an average of 10% of
> the
> >total wealth of those households is in their house -- these are not
> real
> >estate bubble millionaires.  Most own their own small businesses.
> >
> >According to the most commonly cited sources, 80% of millionaires
> are "first
> >generation", meaning that they do not come from wealthy families. 
> Another
> >10% or so have wealth in the family, but never received any
> financial
> >support from the family and bootstrapped their own wealth.  The
> remaining
> >10% became millionaires via windfalls from various sources,
> including
> >inheritance.
> 
> In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire 
> household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes
> 110 poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio
> Robbie was looking for.

Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times more
likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
family.

ONCE AGAIN, Natasha wants this moved...

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  Fri Jul 29 02:46:43 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Saving the Roman Empire...
In-Reply-To: <20050728222539.84140.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729024643.4314.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>      For you to excuse the excesses of wealthy heirs
> would be like some citizen of the Roman empire on the
> verge of collapse saying, "Oh it's ok if Commodus is
> the emperor even though he's a murderous moron, his
> father Marcus Aurelius was a fine man, and the worst
> that could happen is that the Praetorian Guard will
> kill him." Yes... but not until Commodus had destroyed
> any hope of saving the Empire.

If one mans incompetence could destroy an empire, then it needed destroying....

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  Fri Jul 29 02:50:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050729001102.8033.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729025014.15918.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > The point I'm making is that its generally a Bad
> > Idea to put arbitrary government controls on these
> > sorts of things.
> 
> I am not calling for arbitrary controls, I am calling
> for rational controls. 

Who decides what is rational? Who decides what to do with the excess?
You want that money wasted by GOVERNMENT on stupid, wasteful, and
unproductive luxuries for bureacrats, instead of the kids for whom
their parents slaved to earn their fortunes? If I ever manage to pile
up massive wealth, once I figure out what to do with most of it for
posterity, and assuming I don't achieve immortality myself, I sure as
hell would rather that it be wasted by my hypothetical kids and
grandkids than some bastard bureaucrats or friggin Senator.

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  Fri Jul 29 03:12:15 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:12:15 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050729022510.10661.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729022510.10661.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42E99E8F.4050705@aol.com>

So were you, I only replied to those who sent replies to me in this forum.

Best,

Robbie Lindauer


Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Robbie, you've been asked politely multiple times to move this
>discussion from this list. Natasha has asked me about continued posting
>on this topic. I will answer your question, but only on the
>extro-freedom yahoogroup.
>
>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote: 
>  
>
>>I await the source of the 60% of millionaires are self-made as well
>>as a definition of "self-made" for the sake of the study.
>>    
>>
>
>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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 03:19:38 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bioeconomics was Why I'm Not Libertarian...
In-Reply-To: <463C929F-B778-4AE8-B796-08FE748DF1B4@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050729031938.27496.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >      Precisely. Which is why I propose a merging
> of
> > memes from economics, biology, and ecology into
> the
> > new fields of bioeconomics and bioergonomic
> > engineering. They are designed to study and
> achieve
> > healthy biological growth of the total world
> economy
> > in the context of a sustainable life-promoting
> > enviroment.
> 
> So the first question would be worthy you know what
> "healthy  
> biological growth" looks like as the
> scientific/technological ground  
> and fundamental possibilities change rapidly
> underfoot.  What kind of  
> life?

After many years of observation and experiment, in
organisms it is quite obvious what constitutes healthy
biological growth. If the doubling of the weight of a
mouse consists entirely of one type of cell, then it
is very clearly unhealthy. The mouse has cancer or is
obese or something. Whereas if a laboratory mouse
doubles it weight yet the proportions of all the cells
are of the right ratios, it is clearly healthy
biological growth. Your point that these indicators of
health are not as clear cut in economic entities
whether they be companies or countries is well taken.
But what I am proposing is a brand new field that will
take several years of serious research in order to
perfect and to implement. But I do not think that such
a task would be intractable to the scientific method. 



> What I propose, instead is a rational
> rationing
> > of natural resources in such a way that we can
> grow
> > our economy and our species in a healthy
> sustainable
> > manner to the point that we can shape our world
> into a
> > tropical paradise, instead of a toxin strewn
> boneyard.
> 
> I too want to see this world turned into a paradise.
>  But I don't  
> think it will happen by focusing on rationing what
> we now have a  
> limited supply of.

Yes, perhaps rationing was a poor choice of words.
More precisely what I am trying to communicate is a
need to develop a system that maximizes efficiency in
the usage of natural resources, which will in turn
stretch out those limited resources long enough to
develop the radically new technologies that will
eventually increase supply. In other words, we need to
pace ourselves for a marathon of uncertain length and
not sprint off the starting line hoping to break the
tape before we run out of breath.   

> I think it far more likely to
> concentrate on  
> creating more supply and on those things that
> increase rather than  
> decrease with use.  But perhaps there is some
> temporary need in some  
> areas.

Yes, what I am proposing will buy us time to find
those things which will allow us to do precisely that.

> So where are these and how does rationing
> them make it more  
> likely we come to inhabit the type of world we wish?


Well the most limited resources facing our economic
growth currently are fossil fuels and arable land. And
these two things are very inter-twined, in the sense
that modern farming is nigh impossible without the
usage of equipment powered by fossil fuels. In a
certain sense, modern farming consists of using arable
land to convert fossil fuel into food through the
mechanically inefficient process of internal
combustion.
Potential measures to increase the efficiency of this
process include:

1. Increased usage of multiculture instead of
monoculture to maximize produce per acre.

2. Direct synthesizing of food stuffs (i.e. proteins,
carbs, etc) from the organic material in petroleum.

3. Further development and usage of alcohol,
biodiesel, solar, solar-chemical, nuclear, and
bioreactors (especially the one I have in mind... of
course I can't explain it without a non-disclosure
agreement) as alternative energy sources to petroleum
combustion.

4. Increased use of aquaculture to add arable seas to
arable land. Yes I know algae and seaweed don't sound
too appetizing, but they make for great biodiesel.

5. Beyond simple food production, I think society
needs to organize industry better. Instead of mergers
between different big competing companies into
monopolies, tax incentives should be given to
collaboration and mergers between companies that are
vertically connected on the supply chain of various
industries. Ideally, these supply chains should be
developed into closed cyclical structures, like the
various cycles of nature such as metabolism, the
carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, etc. In my vision,
the industrial waste from one company forms the raw
materials of another company, and so on, until the
waste product of the final company regenerates the raw
materials of the first company. This will be tricky I
know, but if it can be pulled off, it will make the
economy as efficent as nature.  

> > All the while, maximizing personal gain for the
> > well-being of as many people as possible in a
> > meritocratic fashion.
> >
> 
> Sounds good.  Does the program uplift all?

Well it would increase their quality of life: less
hunger, less asthma, less cancer. It might not make
everyone rich but it will increase opportunities to
become rich across the board.

> 
> >      If we achieve sufficent growth, we may be
> able to
> > colonize other worlds. If not, we will choke to
> death
> > ourselves and our entire local food chain of
> > ecological niches including many other large
> > vertabrates.
> 
> Or we may change in unimaginable ways.  Or with MNT
> covering our  
> material needs may be quite ecnomical and
> environmentally friendly to  
> boot.  The same technology starts undoing
> environmental harm.

Yeah I suppose we could all upload ourselves into
stainless steel android bodies so that we can survive
the toxic waste generated by our none-too-wise meat,
but that isn't going to help the bald eagle very much.
Nor would it be paradise by any criteria of mine.


> >      The environment of course will still function
> at
> > some level but what will populate the planet when
> it's
> > healed itself in a few million years is anybody's
> > guess. Perhaps the sentient descendents of the
> > cockroaches.
> >
> 
> Where are you going?

To the stars. But first to paraphrase Lewis Carrol,
"It will take all the running we can do to just to
stay in place." As far as the cockroaches, I was just
throwing that in for color. My point is simply that I
am not saying that blind consumer-driven capitalism
will destroy the world, just the part of the world
that is at all useful to us. I know these ideas are
rough and may take much work on my part to develop
into real disciplines but at least I have kind of told
you all where my mind is heading.
 


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  Fri Jul 29 03:43:04 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance 
In-Reply-To: <20050729025014.15918.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Who decides what is rational?
If it IS truly rational it shouldn't matter, just like
2+2 should equal 4 no matter who does the math.

> Who decides what to do
> with the excess?

Well if people wrote their wills correctly, there
would be no excess. I never mentioned taxes or the
government. If you have 20 million dollars and only
one kid, and you can't think of 19 other deserving
people or organizations to give your money to, you
might as well be a monkey.  

> You want that money wasted by GOVERNMENT on stupid,
> wasteful, and
> unproductive luxuries for bureacrats, instead of the
> kids for whom
> their parents slaved to earn their fortunes? 

Once again, the government SHOULD have nothing to do
with it, except to enforce the inheritance caps on any
individual heirs. There will have to be a way of
working trust funds into the equation as well, as they
seem to be no more than tax-shelters to allow the
effective inheriting of wealth without technically
inheriting it. If there is excess, then that is the
fine imposed by society for being a selfish greedy
bastard. Hell if letting the government get a hold of
the excess bothers you so much, then you are free to
require that they bury the wealth with you or erect a
monument to the libertarian party or something.
Sheesh, use your mind come up with a bunch of creative
ideas, just don't give it ALL to one kid. 

> If I
> ever manage to pile
> up massive wealth, once I figure out what to do with
> most of it for
> posterity, and assuming I don't achieve immortality
> myself, I sure as
> hell would rather that it be wasted by my
> hypothetical kids and
> grandkids than some bastard bureaucrats or friggin
> Senator.

Why have it wasted at all when you can, with a little
extra work, truly help shape the world that you leave
behind for the betterment of all? Or are you just a
slave of your selfish genes?

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  Fri Jul 29 03:53:48 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:53:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728225103.01d0b190@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:43 PM 7/28/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:

> > In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire
> > household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes
> > 110 poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio
> > Robbie was looking for.
>
>Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times more
>likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
>family.

I seem to have failed to count some fingers. Barbara tells me that we're 
both wrong, but I'm wronger than Mike: the ratio is 1/6.9 (but she's even 
more tired than I am, so dog knows...).

Damien Broderick 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 29 04:49:11 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:49:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am moving over to extro-freedom
In-Reply-To: <20050729022510.10661.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200507290450.j6T4owR22680@tick.javien.com>

Thanks Mike!  {8-]  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:25 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
> 
> Robbie, you've been asked politely multiple times to move this
> discussion from this list. Natasha has asked me about continued posting
> on this topic. I will answer your question, but only on the
> extro-freedom yahoogroup...



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 05:22:37 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Saving the Roman Empire...
In-Reply-To: <20050729024643.4314.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729052237.11122.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> If one mans incompetence could destroy an empire,
> then it needed destroying....
> 

Would you still believe that if your wife and daughter
were getting raped by Huns because some jack-ass that
you didn't elect squandered the defense budget on
elaborate parties, gladitorial games, and grain
subsidies for the poor? 

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  Fri Jul 29 05:50:25 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:50:25 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605072822502a85e42@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times more
> likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
> family.
> 
> ONCE AGAIN, Natasha wants this moved...
> 
>

### So writing in defense of millionaires is no longer acceptable on
this list?!!!!!

WTF happened?

Is this another wta-talk, where only stupid socialist ravings are
allowed by the powers that be?

Rafal


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 05:54:40 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
Message-ID: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>

     After many years of careful consideration, I have
come to the conclusion that progressive taxation and
income tax in general is inefficient. The benefit to
the poor is minimal, the rich just hide their money,
and the middle class gets SCREWED.

     IMHO, I believe that the IRS should be abolsihed
and a nationwide sales tax should be implemented on
everything except for store bought food. I don't know
what percentage would be optimal, but it would solve a
number of problems. First, it would eliminate the
excuses of the rich that they bear an unfair tax
burden. Second, while the rich may still try to hide
their money, the moment they tried to spend it, the
government would gets its due. It would increase
savings and reduce consumption across the board. It
would eliminate tons of stupid tax laws and the
expensive tax accountants and lawyers needed to keep
abreast of them. It would equalize taxes for
corporations and individuals. It would eliminate tax
incentives for monopolistic business practices. It
would be just plain more efficient. 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

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


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 06:20:05 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:20:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <42E93814.2010905@aol.com>
References: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
	<42E93814.2010905@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605072823206beb743c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> >Being smart helps too, but is only moderately important.  The problem is
> >ultimately that very few people work hard or have drive and discipline.  The
> >vast majority of people are comfortable and do not feel the need to work
> >hard or have discipline.
> >
> >
> 
> Or perhaps they direct their energies to other worthy goals like helping
> poor people or triathalon running or being good at playing the piano or
> something.
> 
### This is the second time you refer in this thread to triathlon and
ironman runners as somehow morally superior to millionaires, since
they channel their energy into running, rather than into the "greedy"
quest for more money.

There seems to be a strong undertone of Marxist labor theory of value
in your thoughts, where toil and effort are the basis of value. You do
not judge an action through its usefulness to other people - you think
that a millionaire who strove to make his money by building a
successful contracting business, literally putting a roof over other
people's heads, is no better than some adrenaline junkie, who burns
out his body in hundreds of miles of insane racing. The small-time
pianist, or "something", is perhaps even superior to the surgeon who
is working backbreaking hours to save lives (but, of course, the
surgeon is suspect, since he makes oodles of money).

And then the obligatory phrase about "helping the poor". How many poor
people have *you* helped today? Certainly more than the contractor who
offers them jobs and income, rather than handouts, right?

Socialists will keep returning to the same mistakes, over and over
again, until they learn Econ 101 lessons, like the fact that the
market price is the best available measure of the social utility and
social cost of an action or resource.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 06:39:33 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:39:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605072823396692eeb6@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>      After many years of careful consideration, I have
> come to the conclusion that progressive taxation and
> income tax in general is inefficient. The benefit to
> the poor is minimal, the rich just hide their money,
> and the middle class gets SCREWED.
> 
>      IMHO, I believe that the IRS should be abolsihed
> and a nationwide sales tax should be implemented on
> everything except for store bought food. I don't know
> what percentage would be optimal, but it would solve a
> number of problems. First, it would eliminate the
> excuses of the rich that they bear an unfair tax
> burden. Second, while the rich may still try to hide
> their money, the moment they tried to spend it, the
> government would gets its due. It would increase
> savings and reduce consumption across the board. It
> would eliminate tons of stupid tax laws and the
> expensive tax accountants and lawyers needed to keep
> abreast of them. It would equalize taxes for
> corporations and individuals. It would eliminate tax
> incentives for monopolistic business practices. It
> would be just plain more efficient. Any thoughts?
> 

### Bravo!!! 

Yes, of course, and this is the kind of thing I have been suggesting,
on this list and elsewhere, for many years.

Actually I go even further - I think that exempting anything, such as
food, from the tax is not a good idea, and any exemptions should be
explicitly forbidden (by a constituion that is not "loosely"
interpreted). Consider - what happens when you exempt food? People eat
more, and may get fatter. The "poor people" argument doesn't apply -
the poor eat too much anyway in this country, and if you are really
worried about malnutrition (which is not a feature of poverty per se,
but rather abusive parenting, mental disease, and drug/alcohol use
frequently associated with poverty) you can specifically target the
hungry poor with soup kitchens. There is really no reason to exempt
anything whatsoever, since any perceived undersupply can be corrected
by subsidies - and in my opinion these are less dangerous than
exemptions, since they are easier to abolish, and require a less
complex administrative effort.

The sales tax is however not the end of the way for tax reform - think
about the following tax: a tax on any financial transaction
whatsoever, any transfer of ownership, the "universal transaction
tax". This would be even less likely to distort the economy than a
sales tax but  it's too late to write about it today.

Of course, the final reform of taxation is to abolish it altogether
but discussing such breathtakingly non-PC ideas could get us banished
from the list.

Once again, kudos!

Rafal


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 08:39:21 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050727023945.67349.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729083921.94401.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>

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

> ...Illegals use
> public facilities paid for by tax-payers while they
> themselves do not pay taxes. ...

This is a point I've often wondered about.  Mssr.
LaForge makes his assertion, but is it grounded in
fact or is he just making it up?  That is, Stuart, is
it something you **know** to be true or just something
you **suppose** to be true?  

My question is: how many employers of illegals take
out witholding, etc, and how many illegals file tax
returns and get refunds?  do they pay or don't they?

People who object to illegals, citing the burden of
providing them social services, seem not to be
inclined to mention the crucial contribution of the
work that they do, and the cost benefit to all derived
from the lower wages they receive.  

All those evil nannies, gardeners, and Chinese
Restaurant kitchen help.  Flippin terrorists if you
ask me!  And those jihadi taxi drivers! Just more wogs
trainin' to be suicide car bombers, you'll see.

Best, Jeff Davis

  Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
                          
                          Groucho Marx 


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


From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 29 08:42:27 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:42:27 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605072823206beb743c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF0E7C2A.63F%andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
	<42E93814.2010905@aol.com>
	<7641ddc605072823206beb743c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9a01a0915f968110842b8a9d519882a@aol.com>


On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>> Or perhaps they direct their energies to other worthy goals like 
>> helping
>> poor people or triathalon running or being good at playing the piano 
>> or
>> something.
>>
> ### This is the second time you refer in this thread to triathlon and
> ironman runners as somehow morally superior to millionaires,

This was not my claim.

>  since
> they channel their energy into running, rather than into the "greedy"
> quest for more money.
>
> There seems to be a strong undertone of Marxist labor theory of value
> in your thoughts, where toil and effort are the basis of value.

This is not my position.

> You do
> not judge an action through its usefulness to other people - you think
> that a millionaire who strove to make his money by building a
> successful contracting business, literally putting a roof over other
> people's heads, is no better than some adrenaline junkie, who burns
> out his body in hundreds of miles of insane racing. The small-time
> pianist, or "something", is perhaps even superior to the surgeon who
> is working backbreaking hours to save lives (but, of course, the
> surgeon is suspect, since he makes oodles of money).

This is not my claim or my position.   But I do think that everyone has 
abilities that they can use for good or bad.  What I respect is that 
they use them for good.  If the pianist uses his/her abilities to do 
the right thing, then they are good.  If the surgeon uses his or her 
abilities to do bad things, they are not good and, of course, vice 
versa.

>
> And then the obligatory phrase about "helping the poor". How many poor
> people have *you* helped today? Certainly more than the contractor who
> offers them jobs and income, rather than handouts, right?

You have insufficient information to make any judgement about what I 
did today.  "Do not be like the hypocrites, when you give alms don't 
let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

>
> Socialists will keep returning to the same mistakes, over and over
> again, until they learn Econ 101 lessons, like the fact that the
> market price is the best available measure of the social utility and
> social cost of an action or resource.

This -may- be true and doesn't contradict what I've been saying.  
According to you what happens when the "market price" is artificially 
fixed by violent means?

Although, our economics 101 classes are so stifled by capitalist 
propaganda that it's hard to make any judgments about what one learns 
in them.

"60% of millionaires are self-made"

Maybe, show us the study parameters or cite your sources and produce 
your definitions so we can look at the matter and see whether or not it 
was objectively investigated and whether or not the statement is a 
reasonable interpretation of the data.


Robbie Lindauer



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 08:44:42 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:44:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050729014438be16bf@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>      IMHO, I believe that the IRS should be abolsihed
> and a nationwide sales tax should be implemented on
> everything except for store bought food. I don't know
> what percentage would be optimal, but it would solve a
> number of problems. First, it would eliminate the
> excuses of the rich that they bear an unfair tax
> burden. Second, while the rich may still try to hide
> their money, the moment they tried to spend it, the
> government would gets its due. It would increase
> savings and reduce consumption across the board. It
> would eliminate tons of stupid tax laws and the
> expensive tax accountants and lawyers needed to keep
> abreast of them. It would equalize taxes for
> corporations and individuals. It would eliminate tax
> incentives for monopolistic business practices. It
> would be just plain more efficient. Any thoughts?

Are you already familiar with the FairTax proposal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

A critique: http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 29 10:13:44 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:13:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DC979611-4B6A-41B9-B50D-004AB2EC9DFD@mac.com>


On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:43 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Who decides what is rational?
>>
> If it IS truly rational it shouldn't matter, just like
> 2+2 should equal 4 no matter who does the math.
>
>
>> Who decides what to do
>> with the excess?
>>
>
> Well if people wrote their wills correctly, there
> would be no excess. I never mentioned taxes or the
> government. If you have 20 million dollars and only
> one kid, and you can't think of 19 other deserving
> people or organizations to give your money to, you
> might as well be a monkey.
>
>
>> You want that money wasted by GOVERNMENT on stupid,
>> wasteful, and
>> unproductive luxuries for bureacrats, instead of the
>> kids for whom
>> their parents slaved to earn their fortunes?
>>
>
> Once again, the government SHOULD have nothing to do
> with it, except to enforce the inheritance caps on any
> individual heirs. There will have to be a way of
> working trust funds into the equation as well, as they
> seem to be no more than tax-shelters to allow the
> effective inheriting of wealth without technically
> inheriting it. If there is excess, then that is the
> fine imposed by society for being a selfish greedy
> bastard. Hell if letting the government get a hold of
> the excess bothers you so much, then you are free to
> require that they bury the wealth with you or erect a
> monument to the libertarian party or something.
> Sheesh, use your mind come up with a bunch of creative
> ideas, just don't give it ALL to one kid.
>
>
>> If I
>> ever manage to pile
>> up massive wealth, once I figure out what to do with
>> most of it for
>> posterity, and assuming I don't achieve immortality
>> myself, I sure as
>> hell would rather that it be wasted by my
>> hypothetical kids and
>> grandkids than some bastard bureaucrats or friggin
>> Senator.
>>
>
> Why have it wasted at all when you can, with a little
> extra work, truly help shape the world that you leave
> behind for the betterment of all? Or are you just a
> slave of your selfish genes?
>
> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 29 10:28:29 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:28:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <69534311-D04D-4348-806B-A496B094EF82@mac.com>


On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:43 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Who decides what is rational?
>>
> If it IS truly rational it shouldn't matter, just like
> 2+2 should equal 4 no matter who does the math.
>

Uh huh.  And your proposal re inheritance meets this criteria?  No?   
Then why should yours be enforced above people's free choice?

>
>> Who decides what to do
>> with the excess?
>>
>
> Well if people wrote their wills correctly, there
> would be no excess. I never mentioned taxes or the
> government. If you have 20 million dollars and only
> one kid, and you can't think of 19 other deserving
> people or organizations to give your money to, you
> might as well be a monkey.

By what ironclad rationality do you reach the conlclusion that no one  
should inherit more than $1 million or that a rich person should  
leave any heir more than that?  I missed your derivation of that result.


>
>
>> You want that money wasted by GOVERNMENT on stupid,
>> wasteful, and
>> unproductive luxuries for bureacrats, instead of the
>> kids for whom
>> their parents slaved to earn their fortunes?
>>
>
> Once again, the government SHOULD have nothing to do
> with it, except to enforce the inheritance caps on any
> individual heirs.

Where did the caps come from though?  You just thought them up with  
little justification,

> There will have to be a way of
> working trust funds into the equation as well, as they
> seem to be no more than tax-shelters to allow the
> effective inheriting of wealth without technically
> inheriting it.

Trust funds are used for a variety of purposes many of which are  
quite benign.  Before you condemn something you may want to look into  
it a bit.

> If there is excess, then that is the
> fine imposed by society for being a selfish greedy
> bastard.

Resentment clearly at work!  Excess???  How much "excess" does it  
take to fund research that your society would otherwise not fund that  
is critical to our dreams?   What is excessive about someone having  
so much of value to give that they accumulated more than most in  
their live and what is wrong with them making their own decisions  
about where their assets go on their demise without bothering to  
consider your opinions on the matter?

> Hell if letting the government get a hold of
> the excess bothers you so much, then you are free to
> require that they bury the wealth with you or erect a
> monument to the libertarian party or something.
> Sheesh, use your mind come up with a bunch of creative
> ideas, just don't give it ALL to one kid.

Why not if that is my wish?  It is my money, not yours or society's.

>
>
>> If I
>> ever manage to pile
>> up massive wealth, once I figure out what to do with
>> most of it for
>> posterity, and assuming I don't achieve immortality
>> myself, I sure as
>> hell would rather that it be wasted by my
>> hypothetical kids and
>> grandkids than some bastard bureaucrats or friggin
>> Senator.
>>
>
> Why have it wasted at all when you can, with a little
> extra work, truly help shape the world that you leave
> behind for the betterment of all? Or are you just a
> slave of your selfish genes?
>

How about you manage your own assets to your satisfaction and keep  
your hands off the assets of others? Or are you just a busybody know- 
it-all who believes the wold will go to hell if everyone is not  
forced to do things as you see fit?

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jul 29 10:38:05 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:38:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605072822502a85e42@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc605072822502a85e42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EB43081E-97F7-4124-A4BF-53F24B662B1F@mac.com>

I for one do not want to see all politics go elsewhere.  On the other  
hand I have been very frustrated with the list of late.  I rarely see  
something here that really seems to lead toward our deepest dreams  
and goals or even elucidate them more clearly.  If we don't do more  
of that with one another then I think we are doing ourselves a  
disservice and missing a real opportunity.   We are chattering along  
about things that most everyone chatters about will the world  
threatens to go belly up and the still all too powerful clock ticks  
away the precious seconds of our lives.

I also notice in myself and others that we are quick to criticize or  
to cut down but very slow to listen, understand, encourage and bring  
out the best in each other, our ideas and our efforts.    This isn't  
a race that will go to the really smart ones who sail across the  
finish with their nose in the air in distain of almost everyone else.

- samantha

On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> On 7/28/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times  
>> more
>> likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
>> family.
>>
>> ONCE AGAIN, Natasha wants this moved...
>>
>>
>>
>
> ### So writing in defense of millionaires is no longer acceptable on
> this list?!!!!!
>
> WTF happened?
>
> Is this another wta-talk, where only stupid socialist ravings are
> allowed by the powers that be?
>
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Jul 29 11:13:59 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:13:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605072823396692eeb6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
	<7641ddc605072823396692eeb6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507290708190.-242211@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>
> The sales tax is however not the end of the way for tax reform - think
> about the following tax: a tax on any financial transaction
> whatsoever, any transfer of ownership, the "universal transaction
> tax". This would be even less likely to distort the economy than a
> sales tax but  it's too late to write about it today.
>


Is this some version of the VAT (of which I have seldom heard anything
positive)? A bigger and  more intrusive one? And who is to set a
Value?

If I give a birthday gift to my son, I must pay a transfer tax on
it... in addition to the tax I pay when I buy it? Or if I give him
money which I have earned, I must pay a tax on that?  If his
grandmother knits him a sweater and gives it to him, there's a tax on
that? Beyond the tax she pays for the yarn and knitting needles? ...
etc.

Please elaborate. :)

Regards,
MB


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 12:46:25 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
In-Reply-To: <20050729124422.22332.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729124625.39771.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm


__________________________________________________
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 Jul 29 13:25:06 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:25:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
Message-ID: <380-2200575291325643@M2W030.mail2web.com>



From: Al Brooks 

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm

A stunning interpretation of a human image with motor capability.  

Step by step -

Natasha

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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 13:49:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Saving the Roman Empire...
In-Reply-To: <20050729052237.11122.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729134926.69938.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > If one mans incompetence could destroy an empire,
> > then it needed destroying....
> > 
> 
> Would you still believe that if your wife and daughter
> were getting raped by Huns because some jack-ass that
> you didn't elect squandered the defense budget on
> elaborate parties, gladitorial games, and grain
> subsidies for the poor? 

People get the government, or lack of it, they deserve.

Moreover, don't impose modern morals on ancient Romans. Roman
patriarchs quite often sold their children into slavery, gave their
wives and daughters (who they typically saw more as lifestock than
persons) out as sexual playthings to guests or pimped them out as
prostitutes. All a Roman male was concerned about when the Huns invaded
was that they didn't kill or rape HIM. The Empire era Roman free male
was the primary reason the Republic failed and the Empire was set to
fall. By the late empire era, he was corrupt, decadent, and unwilling
to do his duty to defend the polis.

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  Fri Jul 29 14:19:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050729083921.94401.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729141938.59744.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > ...Illegals use
> > public facilities paid for by tax-payers while they
> > themselves do not pay taxes. ...
> 
> This is a point I've often wondered about.  Mssr.
> LaForge makes his assertion, but is it grounded in
> fact or is he just making it up?  That is, Stuart, is
> it something you **know** to be true or just something
> you **suppose** to be true?  

It follows logically from the fact that illegals are paid under the
table, do not report income or file income tax returns, and expatriate
their money, minus living expenses, to their home countries (I have
seen illegals captured up here in New England, from Mexico and points
south, with upwards of $30k in their pockets). While illegals, if they
rent validly constructed homes or apartments, will tend to pay property
taxes, they also commit quite an amount of fraud. A former associate
who runs financing at a Colorado car dealership has had lots of
problems with illegals coming in with licenses issued them BY US
STATES, bought cars, driven them to Mexico, and defaulted on the
financing. Next time back they have a new name and a new set of id
cards, all validly issued by US states who don't examine them closely
enough or verify their authenticity with their home country.

TX, NM, AZ, CA, among others have all reported recently on the stranded
health care costs imposed by illegals upon the states and non-profit hospitals.

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 brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 29 14:32:11 2005
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:32:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605072822502a85e42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F33378E42076245FF76E6E1B4CE0@phx.gbl>

It seems pretty strange since transhumanism requires / will require lots of 
money to accomplish cryonics, scans, gene therapy, transplats, etc.

If immortality isn't possible for our generation then leaving your kid $10 
million will help them get closer.

Just look at the average lifespan for millionaires, it is much higher than 
non-millionaires.

BAL

>From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:50:25 -0400
>
>On 7/28/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times more
> > likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
> > family.
> >
> > ONCE AGAIN, Natasha wants this moved...
> >
> >
>
>### So writing in defense of millionaires is no longer acceptable on
>this list?!!!!!
>
>WTF happened?
>
>Is this another wta-talk, where only stupid socialist ravings are
>allowed by the powers that be?
>
>Rafal
>_______________________________________________
>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 Jul 29 14:50:47 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:50:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] STEM CELLS: Senate majority leader breaks with Bush
	on issue
Message-ID: <380-22005752914504766@M2W083.mail2web.com>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his
support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for
human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and
religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for
seeking the White House in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/29/frist.stem.cells.ap/index.html

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 29 15:07:20 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
In-Reply-To: <20050729124625.39771.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729150720.50319.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm

Actually, she can't make sushi.  ;P

But it is progress nonetheless.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jul 29 15:45:04 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:45:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America--Damien's goof
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728225103.01d0b190@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050728142141.01e42d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050729024324.45595.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050728225103.01d0b190@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050729104150.039239c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>At 07:43 PM 7/28/2005 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
>> > In other words, if I've done my add-ups right, for every millionaire
>> > household that produces at least one millionaire offspring, it takes
>> > 110 poorer households to produce one. I think this was the ratio
>> > Robbie was looking for.
>>
>>Uh, no. It means that someone from a millionaire family is 3 times more
>>likely to become a millionaire than someone not from a millionaire
>>family.
>
>I seem to have failed to count some fingers. Barbara tells me that we're 
>both wrong, but I'm wronger than Mike: the ratio is 1/6.9

I doubt that anyone cares, but I see that my initial error was the sort 
that lithobrakes spacecraft on to Mars. I divided by 4 where I should have 
multiplied by 4. Elementary algebra mistake. D'oh!

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jul 29 15:50:48 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:50:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <EB43081E-97F7-4124-A4BF-53F24B662B1F@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200507291550.j6TFonR04675@tick.javien.com>

> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
> 
> I for one do not want to see all politics go elsewhere...
> - samantha
> 
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 
> > On 7/28/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> >> ONCE AGAIN, Natasha wants this moved...
> >
> > ### So writing in defense of millionaires is no longer acceptable on
> > this list?!!!!!
> >
> > WTF happened?...
> > Rafal

We do not want to take political discussion off of the 
list.  There are some discussions that were not of any
particular interest or relevance to the list goals.  A
related site has an active list sniper whose job it is
to pop any threads that are drifting.  We don't want to
do that. Some of the stuff that dominated the discussion 
here last week was better suited for Extro-freedom.

I think it will be ok to leave to your judgment
what contributes to the list S/N ratio, keeping in
mind extropy is about technology, transhumanism and
the future, not ordinary politics.

spike



 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 16:01:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] STEM CELLS: Senate majority leader breaks with
	Bush on issue
In-Reply-To: <380-22005752914504766@M2W083.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20050729160118.21395.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw
> his
> support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing
> for
> human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and
> religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for
> seeking the White House in 2008.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/29/frist.stem.cells.ap/index.html

I think he should be congratulated that, even being a devout christian,
he is able to separate the science from his faith.

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  Fri Jul 29 16:09:33 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Millionaires in Space! was: millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <200507291550.j6TFonR04675@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050729160933.88359.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I think it will be ok to leave to your judgment
> what contributes to the list S/N ratio, keeping in
> mind extropy is about technology, transhumanism and
> the future, not ordinary politics.

And in that note, I shall redirect this thread in an extropic
direction:

http://www.space.com/news/050727_branson_rutan.html
Richard Branson and Burt Rutan Form Spacecraft Building Company 
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 27 July 2005
03:09 pm ET
 
British entrepreneur, Sir Richard Branson, has teamed up with aerospace
designer, Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites to form a new aerospace
production company. The new firm will build a fleet of commercial
suborbital spaceships and launch aircraft.

Called The Spaceship Company [MSL - like the vehicle names, it sounds
like Rutan is a Sesame Street or Mister Rogers fan...], the new entity
will manufacture launch aircraft, various spacecraft and support
equipment and market those products to spaceliner operators. Clients
include launch customer, Virgin Galactic?formed by Branson to handle
space tourist flights.

The Spaceship Company is jointly owned by Branson?s Virgin Group and
Scaled Composites of Mojave, California. Scaled will be contracted for
research and development testing and certification of a 9-person
SpaceShipTwo (SS2) design, and a White Knight Two (WK2) mothership to
be called Eve. Rutan will head up the technical development team for
the SS2/WK2 combination.

Drawing from SpaceShipOne technology

The announcement was made today at the Experimental Aircraft
Association?s (EAA) AirVenture gathering being held July 25-31 in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The yearly event spotlights homebuilt aircraft,
antiques, classics, warbirds, ultralights, rotorcraft?as well as the
emerging commercial spaceflight business.

Both rocket ship and the carrier aircraft will draw from Rutan?s work
on SpaceShipOne and the White Knight mothership. The SS2/WK2 system
will adopt the reentry concept and hybrid rocket motor design work
hammered out for SpaceShipOne, licensing that technology from Paul
Allen?s Mojave Aerospace Company.

SpaceShipOne successfully snagged the $10 million Ansari X Prize last
year by staging back-to-back flights of the piloted craft to the edge
of space. 

Both of the new vehicles, however, are to be twice the size of the
earlier designs. 

Future operations

?We?re taking the technology of SpaceShipOne and developing it into a
usable commercial vehicle to give thousands of people the chance to
experience the majesty of space,? said Will Whitehorn, President of
Virgin Galactic?the space tourism venture that is a subsidiary of Sir
Richard Branson?s Virgin Group.

Branson told the Oshkosh crowd that the commercial spaceship can carry
7 paying passengers, along with a two-person flight crew. ?We hope that
we can get those spacecraft built roughly two and a half to three years
from now,? he said.

Once the fleet of suborbital craft is built, a base from which to
operate the spaceships is to be set up within the United States. ?We
still haven?t decided on which state the base will be,? Branson said,
adding that the space tourist-carrying vehicles could rocket spaceward
from the Mojave, California desert, Las Vegas, New Mexico, or possibly
Florida. 

?That?s all to be decided,? Branson said.

Seat price expected to drop

At present, seats onboard Virgin Galactic spaceships are price tagged
at $200,000 each.

But Branson hopes that this seat price will drop over time. ?Our aim is
to bring the price down,? he said. 

?Our principal aim behind this is not to make money. The principal aim
is to reinvest any money we make into space exploration,? Branson said.
?We expect to double, triple, quadruple the number of astronauts in the
next few years that have currently experienced space,? he said.

To date, Branson said, about a 100 pioneers have been willing to pay
$200,000 to be the first people to go into space via Virgin Galactic.
?These are the kinds of people who are going to enable us to bring the
cost of space travel down,? he stated.

Charting the investment curve

Whitehorn said that Virgin Galactic has been negotiating with Rutan
over the last several months to chart out how best to move forward and
create a passenger-carrying rocket ship.

?We have decided that since this is such a new industry -- and so early
in this investment curve -- that we are actually going to act as the
manufacturer and developer of the ships alongside Rutan, Whitehorn told
SPACE.com in a phone interview.

The Spaceship Company will own the intellectual property of the new
spaceship design. Furthermore, the company will build spaceships -- not
only for Virgin Galactic and its initial order of five spaceships and
two carrier craft -- but for other customers as well, Whitehorn added.

Timetable: not hidebound

?We would like to be in development and in experimental test flying by
the end of 2007. And we would like to be operating commercially by the
end of 2008,? Whitehorn said. ?But this is a unique project. We?ve made
it very clear
that we are not going to be hidebound to a particular
timetable.?

Whitehorn said that the new space tourist passenger vehicle is under
design, with a mockup to be unveiled at a future date. No details as
yet regarding the interior and exterior of the vehicle, but progress is
being made, he said.

At least 50 to perhaps as many as 100 test flights of the new spaceship
design may be undertaken at the Mojave, California spaceport. That
shakeout test period would stretch out over 9 to 10 months, Whitehorn
said. ?There?s nothing at the moment holding us up in our tracks,? he
concluded.

-endquote-

While it appears that some 100 wealthy folk have ponied up the $200k
ticket price, this appears to be one more case of the wealthy paying
for the capitalization of yet another industry, with the industry
creators hoping to bring the price down over time within the reach of
normal folk. They'll likely get the price down to about $50k about the
same time that $50k is a months salary...


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  Fri Jul 29 17:11:57 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Millionaires in Space II, Russian Moon Cruise
In-Reply-To: <20050729160933.88359.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729171157.24058.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If teh below is legitimate, it appears that we have a new REAL space
race in the offing, between American private enterprise, and a
combination of Russian government and industry. With the continued
problems with the NASA Shuttle, it appears that the US government is
not up to making this a three way race... ;) The Chinese government may
beat the US Gov't in the loser series, winner to face off against
whoever wins the Energia/Scaled race... If Scaled-Virgin Galactic win
Bigelows "America's Space Prize", we'll see a Budget Suites Space Hotel
and Bigelows Nautilus Moon Cruiser going up against Energia's entry.

http://en.rian.ru/science/20050726/40973427.html

Space Tourism: two-week tour around the moon for $100 million 
11:32 | 26/ 07/ 2005 
   
Moscow, July 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Federal Space Agency and its
major space rocket manufacturer, Energia, are working on a new space
tourism project, agency spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko said Tuesday. 

They will soon be offering a two-week, $100 million package tour, to
include a visit to the International Space Station (ISS) and a tour
around the moon. 

Two tourists have ventured into outer space thus far: the U.S.-born
Italian Denis Tito, 60, set off to the ISS on April 28, 2001, and South
Africa's Mark Shuttleworth, 27, went there one year later, on April 25,
2002. The men each paid $20 million for their week-long trips.



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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Jul 29 17:21:57 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:21:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
Message-ID: <54F3D145-CE73-4462-8BE0-B2180F832F14@bonfireproductions.com>



Beautiful. It's just beautiful.


Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.



http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_1.html


From jpnitya at verizon.net  Fri Jul 29 17:31:17 2005
From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:31:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000  SENS Challenge
In-Reply-To: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>
References: <200507281736.AA141689104@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050729132712.01e39bd8@incoming.verizon.net>

I wonder what I would do with $20,000? Then again, get back to me when it 
reaches $100,000.

Just kidding,

Joao

At 06:36 PM 28/7/2005, you wrote:
>http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/07/the_sens_challe.html
>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000557.php
>
>The plot thickens...engaging in Judo with Aubrey de Grey would appear to 
>be a losing proposition.
>
>Reason
>Founder, Longevity Meme
>
>--------------
>
>The frustration of Jason Pontin, editor of the MIT Technology Review, over 
>the inexplicable reluctance of A-list bioscientists to deliver a good 
>scientific critique of Aubrey de Grey's Strategies for Engineered 
>Negligible Senescence (SENS) has born fruit. From Pontin's latest post, we 
>have the announcement of the SENS Challenge:
>
>The most widely read story in Technology Review in 2005 was "Do You Want 
>to Live Forever?," a profile of Dr. Aubrey de Grey, a British theoretical 
>biologist and computer scientist at the University of Cambridge's 
>Department of Genetics.
>De Grey believes that aging, like a disease, can in principle be treated 
>and defeated. He proposes approaching aging as a problem in engineering 
>through something he calls "Strategies for Engineered Negligible 
>Senescence." SENS claims to identify the 7 causes of human aging and 
>describes how each cause might be circumvented. De Grey is also the 
>guiding genius behind The Methuselah Foundation, an organization which 
>offers monetary awards to biologists who make significant advances towards 
>reversing aging in mice.
>
>...
>
>In my reply to our readers, whilst conceding nothing, I promised to find a 
>working biogerontologist who would take on de Grey's ideas. But while a 
>number of biologists have criticized SENS to me privately, none have been 
>willing to do so in public.
>
>This silence is puzzling (de Grey, less charitably, calls it "catatonia"). 
>If de Grey is so wrong, why won't any biogerontologists say why he is 
>wrong? If he is totally nuts, it shouldn't be so hard to explain the 
>faults in his science, surely?
>
>One possible explanation for the silence of biogerontologists is that 
>criticizing SENS would require time and effort - and that working 
>scientists are too busy to waste time on something so silly. Another 
>explanation (one obviously preferred by de Grey) is that biogerontologists 
>reject SENS out of hand without examining its details.
>
>Technology Review thinks it would be useful to determine which of the two 
>explanations is correct. If SENS has some validity, then we should take it 
>seriously. Because if we can significantly extend healthy life, we will 
>have to ask - should we?
>
>Regardless of which explanation is correct, biogerontologists apparently 
>need an incentive to consider SENS. To that end, Technology Review is 
>announcing a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of 
>aging who is willing to take up the challenge: submit an intellectually 
>serious argument that SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned 
>debate, and you will be paid $20,000 if it convinces independent referees. 
>In the case that even $20,000 is insufficient to motivate the relevant 
>experts, we also invite contributions to the fund; anyone wishing to 
>pledge should contact me.
>
>Pontin is not pro-life-extension, needless to say - and, sadly, still 
>appears to be willing to describe Aubrey de Grey as "nuts." I don't agree 
>with a number of his opinions on the workings and nature of science, even 
>if he clearly understands where he should be going with respect to the 
>circulation of his magazine. However, if the Technology Review staff pull 
>this off, or even generate significant additional publicity for serious 
>attempts to greatly extend the healthy human life span, I might just be 
>willing to forgive some of their past transgressions.
>
>Go and read the full post for the terms of the SENS Challenge. You might 
>also find Aubrey de Grey's "The Curious Case of the Catatonic 
>Biogerontologists" to be well worth reading in the present context.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jul 29 17:38:15 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:38:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
In-Reply-To: <20050729150720.50319.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729150720.50319.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EA6987.2050505@jefallbright.net>

Actually, there are virtually no female Japanese sushi chefs for 
cultural reasons, ostensibly that their hands are too warm.
- Jef

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, she can't make sushi.  ;P
>
>But it is progress nonetheless.
>  
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 18:12:48 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <54F3D145-CE73-4462-8BE0-B2180F832F14@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050729181248.19650.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Nice picture, quite striking. Of course, we knew there was frozen water
on Mars already, but the pooling in the crater floor demonstrates
possibly that there was liquidity in the geologically recent past (or
it may have just settled and precipitated from vapor at the lowest
altitude in the crater floor). Keep in mind that crater is 35 km wide,
so while it is a beautiful high res picture (the high res jpg is about
1500 px wide), it only shows details in the order of at least 10 meters
per pixel.

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

> 
> 
> Beautiful. It's just beautiful.
> 
> 
> Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_1.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 18:15:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
In-Reply-To: <42EA6987.2050505@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050729181508.40887.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Perhaps in Japan. I was served some excellent sushi by a rather
strikingly beautiful japanese woman at a very high class sushi place in
Palm Beach in April. Perhaps she came here to escape the cultural
bias..

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

> Actually, there are virtually no female Japanese sushi chefs for 
> cultural reasons, ostensibly that their hands are too warm.
> - Jef
> 
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> >--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Actually, she can't make sushi.  ;P
> >
> >But it is progress nonetheless.
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 max at maxmore.com  Fri Jul 29 18:22:38 2005
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:22:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IT Conversations -- a selection of conference talks
 available online
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050729131953.03d25098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

I've been looking through <http:///www.itconversations.com> and have 
selected 20 talks that look particularly interesting (and that are rated 
highly). If anyone has listened to any of these, I'd like to hear your opinion.

Max


Open Source: Capturing the Upside While Avoiding the Downside
Clayton Christensen
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail135.html
With transcript
This keynote presentation was recorded at the Open Source Business 
Conference 2004 held in San Francisco.

Emerging Worldviews
Phillip Longman, senior fellow, New America Foundation
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail236.html
IT Conversations audio from Pop!Tech 2004 (Emerging Worldviews): Phillip 
Longman and Q&A from previous talks by Thomas Barnett and Joseph Chamie.
[runtime: 00:47:16, 21.6 mb, recorded 2004-10-21]

The Rise of the Creative Class
Richard Florida
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail232.html

IT Conversations audio from Pop!Tech 2004 (Global Creativity): Richard 
Florida, Professor of Economic Development at Carnegie Mellon University 
explains the shift from an industrial society to a worldwide creative society.
[runtime: 00:42:07, 19.3 mb, recorded 2004-10-21]

Human Nature
Joel Garreau, journalist, The Garreau Group
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail265.html

IT Conversations audio from Pop!Tech 2004 (Human Nature): "Are we 
fundamentally changing human nature in our lifetime?" Joel Garreau thinks 
that yes we will be...over the next twenty years. What's driving this? He 
goes into great depth on Moore's Law and later on, Metcalfe's Law, which he 
received brownie points from Bob at the end of his session. He talks about 
technologies, how they are now aimed inward and gives a number of s curve 
examples. [Renee Blodgett] This recording also includes the Q&A for the 
presentations by Malcolm Gladwell and Frans de Waal.
[runtime: 00:49:23, 22.6 mb, recorded 2004-10-21]
4 stars

Biomimicry
Janine Benyus, biologist
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail241.html

Biomimicry: It's the conscious emulation of life's genius. Janine Benyus is 
a life sciences writer and author of six books, including her latest -- 
Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. In Biomimicry, she names an 
emerging science that seeks sustainable solutions by mimicking nature's 
designs and processes (e.g., solar cells that mimic leaves, agriculture 
that looks like a prairie, business that runs like a redwood forest). [IT 
Conversations audio from the Pop!Tech 2004 session on New Naturalism]
[runtime: 00:30:47, 14.1 mb, recorded 2004-10-22]
4 stars

WorldChanging
Alex Steffen
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail239.html

"We're screwed," Alex Steffen begins. We need 4.5 planet Earths just to 
meet the current consumption of resources, and it's only getting worse. But 
there's hope, and Alex gives his favorite examples of cool ideas of 
innovation, particularly in the developing world. It's amazing what 
necessity can breed. How about a flower that turns from white to red in the 
proximity of a landmine?! [IT Conversations audio from the Pop!Tech 2004 
session on Happiness]
[runtime: 00:26:26, 12.1 mb, recorded 2004-10-22]

Human Nature
Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail230.html
runtime: 00:30:18, 13.9 mb, recorded 2004-10-21

Non-Profits Blogging
The American Cancer Society's Innovation Summit
True Voice with Stowe Boyd
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail439.html

In this True Voice show, Stowe talks with Peter Quintas (CTO of Silkroad 
technology) and Peter Kaminski (CTO of Socialtext), exchanging observations 
about the ACS Innovation Summit, which was devoted to social networking and 
social media. The discussion starts there -- reviewing some of the very 
advanced projects that ACS and other non-profits, such as the March of 
Dimes, have conducted using blogs. The three then discuss the growing 
adoption of blogs and other social media, as well as coming features 
planned for the two technology companies' products. [True Voice audio from 
IT Conversations]
[runtime: 00:27:45, 12.7 mb, recorded 2005-03-25]

Beyond Fear
Bruce Schneier, founder & CTO, Counterpane
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail119.html

In his latest book, Beyond Fear, security guru Bruce Schneier goes beyond 
cryptography and network security to challenge our post-9/11 national 
security practices. Host Doug Kaye says, "This is the one interview I hope 
everyone will hear."
[runtime: 00:34:04, 11.7 mb, recorded 2004-04-16]

Free Culture, Chapter 1
Lawrence Lessig
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail111.html

AKMA asked, "Anyone feel like recording a chapter of Lawrence Lessig's new 
book?" Joi Ito then said, "What a great idea!" In less than 24 hours, this 
idea mushroomed into a significant collaboration by a team of bloggers and 
others to record and publish all of Larry's book. Here is our contribution, 
Chapter One: Creators, recorded by IT Conversations host Doug Kaye.
[runtime: 00:17:45, 6.1 mb, recorded 2004-03-27]

Phone as Platform: Lessons from ITP
Clay Shirky
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail465.html

Clay Shirky discusses the lessons he's learned from three years at NYU's 
graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program. His students have been 
creating applications for the mobile phone platform, combining GPS, voice 
and photo messaging. Clay describes the technology behind these projects, 
and speculates on the future development of phones and their integration 
with internet-hosted infrastructure. [O'Reilly Media's Emerging Technology 
Conference 2005 audio from IT Conversations]
[runtime: 00:19:55, 9.1 mb, recorded 2005-03-15]

Neil Gershenfeld, Director of MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms
Bits and Atoms
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail460.html

Imagine a future where personal fabricators promise the ability to make 
almost anything. Neil Gershenfeld, Director of MIT's Center for Bits and 
Atoms, explains how personal fabricators promise to revolutionize our world 
as PCs did a generation ago by enabling us to design and make the tools and 
products we want in our own homes. A panel of experts then considers the 
implications of personal fabrication and the role of the workshop innovator 
and "hands on design" in modern science and engineering. [ETech audio from 
IT Conversations]
[runtime: 00:55:17, 25.3 mb, recorded 2005-03-16]

Lessons from Game Design
Will Wright, Founder, Maxis and creator of The Sims
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail195.html

Will Wright, creator of The Sims, considers the impact auto racing 
(visibility, technologies) has had on the automotive industry. Computer 
games have evolved into a similar relationship with the computer industry. 
Because we get to design the problems that our players face (the game 
challenges) we have an opportunity to push the boundaries of graphics, user 
interface, AI, metrics and simulation. What we're currently learning about 
mapping these abilitites to the psychology of our players will be used in 
the mainstream software of the future.
[runtime: 03:44:39, 35.9 mb, recorded 2003-11-20]

Universal Access to All Knowledge
Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail400.html

Advances in computing and communications mean that we can cost-effectively 
store every book, sound recording, movie, software package, and public web 
page ever created, and provide access to these collections via the Internet 
to students and adults all over the world. By mostly using existing 
institutions and funding sources, we can build this as well as compensate 
authors within what is the current worldwide library budget. The talk 
offers an update on the current state of progress towards that ideal, which 
would allow us to bequeath an accessible record of our cultural heritage to 
our descendants. [IT Conversations audio from the SDForum Distinguished 
Speaker Series.]
[runtime: 01:38:32, 45.1 mb, recorded 2004-12-16]

The Comedy of the Commons
Lawrence Lessig, SDForum Distinguished Speaker Series
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail349.html

The Comedy of the Commons - An IT Conversations favorite, Lawrence Lessig 
is back with a terrific presentation delivered at the SDForum Distinguished 
Speaker series.
[runtime: 01:36:23, 44.1 mb, recorded 2004-09-23]

Watching the Alpha Geeks
Tim O'Reilly, founder and president, O'Reilly Media
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail197.html

Tim O'Reilly: "Watching the Alpha Geeks" -- people whom more traditional 
marketing analysts might call "lead users" -- can give insights into the 
future directions of technology, gaps in existing products, and new market 
opportunities.
This presentation is from the IT Conversations archives of the SDForum 
Distinguished Speaker Series.
  [runtime: 01:37:00, 33.3 mb, recorded 2002-10-03]

In Praise of Open Thinking
Freeman Dyson and George Dyson
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail170.html

One of the characteristics of diversity--in science, in technology, in 
biology, in culture, in software, or in children--is that the underlying 
programming tends to be open source, or connected in all directions. 
Freeman Dyson and George Dyson think in all directions, but each filters 
through a particular lens. Esther Dyson, also scheduled, was stuck in Texas 
and couldn't be there.
[runtime: 00:42:00, 14.4 mb, recorded 2004-07-29]

Web 2.0
Jerry Yang
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail334.html

Jerry Yang, 10 Years In - Has Yahoo! gotten its mojo back? As Yahoo! 
celebrated its 10-year anniversary earlier this year, many people seem to 
think so. Jerry Yang, co-founder and board member of Yahoo!, talks about 
Yahoo!'s past and future with John Battelle in the closing session of the 
2004 Web 2.0 conference. [Web 2.0 Conference audio from IT Conversations]
[runtime: 00:47:44, 21.9 mb, recorded 2004-10-07]

Web 2.0
Dave Sifry, Technorati
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail313.html

Want to grok the blogosphere? Dave Sifry, founder and CEO of Technorati has 
the inside look at this explosive new medium. (IT Conversations audio from 
the Web 2.0 Conference)
[runtime: 00:15:34, 7.1 mb, recorded 2004-10-06]

Web 2.0
Jeff Bezos, Founder & CEO, Amazon
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail297.html

Jeff Bezos has seen it all in his decade-long quest to build Amazon into 
the biggest internet retailer in the universe. During the Web 1.0 era he 
was Time magazine's Man of the Year, but many on Wall Street wrote his 
company off during the bust. Now Bezos is back, and his plan to turn Amazon 
into a web platform for both consumers and partners has paid off 
handsomely. So what's next? (IT Conversations audio from the Web 2.0 
Conference)
[runtime: 00:32:25, 14.8 mb, recorded 2004-10-05]




_______________________________________________________
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 bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Jul 29 18:32:14 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:32:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <20050729181248.19650.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729181248.19650.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B1ED8BEF-62EB-4F4C-83AF-9EE6C55390E5@bonfireproductions.com>



If considered in regard to the Quabbin Reservoir in western  
Massachusetts, USA:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lakeville 
+mass&ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=37.5,61.5584327179640


We're talking Quabbin at ~70km^2, versus this crater at ~225km^2.


Of course, there is a matter of depth...


]3




On Jul 29, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Nice picture, quite striking. Of course, we knew there was frozen  
> water
> on Mars already, but the pooling in the crater floor demonstrates
> possibly that there was liquidity in the geologically recent past (or
> it may have just settled and precipitated from vapor at the lowest
> altitude in the crater floor). Keep in mind that crater is 35 km wide,
> so while it is a beautiful high res picture (the high res jpg is about
> 1500 px wide), it only shows details in the order of at least 10  
> meters
> per pixel.
>
> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Beautiful. It's just beautiful.
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_1.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From robgobblin at aol.com  Fri Jul 29 18:37:42 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:37:42 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050729141938.59744.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729141938.59744.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EA7776.7020601@aol.com>

Mike, I thought you were taking this elsewhere?


Robbie


Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>...Illegals use
>>>public facilities paid for by tax-payers while they
>>>themselves do not pay taxes. ...
>>>      
>>>
>>This is a point I've often wondered about.  Mssr.
>>LaForge makes his assertion, but is it grounded in
>>fact or is he just making it up?  That is, Stuart, is
>>it something you **know** to be true or just something
>>you **suppose** to be true?  
>>    
>>
>
>It follows logically from the fact that illegals are paid under the
>table, do not report income or file income tax returns, and expatriate
>their money, minus living expenses, to their home countries (I have
>seen illegals captured up here in New England, from Mexico and points
>south, with upwards of $30k in their pockets). While illegals, if they
>rent validly constructed homes or apartments, will tend to pay property
>taxes, they also commit quite an amount of fraud. A former associate
>who runs financing at a Colorado car dealership has had lots of
>problems with illegals coming in with licenses issued them BY US
>STATES, bought cars, driven them to Mexico, and defaulted on the
>financing. Next time back they have a new name and a new set of id
>cards, all validly issued by US states who don't examine them closely
>enough or verify their authenticity with their home country.
>
>TX, NM, AZ, CA, among others have all reported recently on the stranded
>health care costs imposed by illegals upon the states and non-profit hospitals.
>
>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 
> 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Jul 29 19:33:54 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:33:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: quabbin crater...
In-Reply-To: <20050729190925.59769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729190925.59769.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C7D5670D-087A-4CDF-A9D2-722CA1571E42@bonfireproductions.com>



Hah!

I choked on Google maps. Sorry about that link. I heard Assawompset  
(thus, Lakeville link) was a larger body of water. Not by surface  
area at least. I had clicked over to Quabbin, and used the map key to  
guestimate. Not sure why the moving around wasn't reflected in my  
URL. Apologies.

]3

On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Actually, you want to google map new salem, massachusetts to get
> quabbin, which is about 20 km long. I'm emailing you cause I'm out of
> posts for the day. If you want to respond, please do so to the list...
> thx.
>
> What I find so striking about the highest res jpg on that site is the
> pile of evidently large rocks at one edge of the pool of ice. It kinda
> looks to me like the crater was made by the impact of a comet which
> didn't totally vaporize on impact, but did melt its ice, leaving its
> rocky constitutents in a pile. If this is in fact the case, this  
> crater
> IMHO is a must visit location for a future mars mission of some kind,
> even a new rover mission.
>
> I have been thinking that a future martian terraforming project would
> want to drop a few comets on Mars to help bootstrap the effort to  
> begin
> geological outgassing of CO2. According to Martyn Fogg's text
> "Terraforming", an increase in atmospheric pressure of a few milibars
> and degrees will cause a rather massive outgassing of CO2 from rocks
> that will raise atmospheric pressure to 100 millibars and annual temps
> to those typical of Tibet. Using conventional industrial technology
> (CFCs) its been proposed that this could be done within 30 years. With
> a few significant cometary bombardments, this could be done in a few
> years, IMHO.
>
> 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  Fri Jul 29 20:01:36 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:01:36 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] millionaires in America
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F33378E42076245FF76E6E1B4CE0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F33378E42076245FF76E6E1B4CE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42EA8B20.1000202@aol.com>

Brian Lee wrote:

> It seems pretty strange since transhumanism requires / will require 
> lots of money to accomplish cryonics, scans, gene therapy, transplats, 
> etc.


Maybe.  Maybe it requires innovation, cooperation and dedication.  What 
we -know- is that in the current scheme of status-quo imperialism, 
repression and war that immortality has not been achieved.  Maybe it's 
time to try something new.

>
> If immortality isn't possible for our generation then leaving your kid 
> $10 million will help them get closer.


Maybe. 

>
> Just look at the average lifespan for millionaires, it is much higher 
> than non-millionaires.


Where could we take a look at this?

R



From ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk  Fri Jul 29 20:02:10 2005
From: ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk (Aubrey de Grey)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:02:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
Message-ID: <E1Dyb3a-0007Bb-00@ag24.gen.cam.ac.uk>


Hi Joao,

> I wonder what I would do with $20,000? Then again, get back to me when it 
> reaches $100,000.
> 
> Just kidding,
> 
> Joao

This was of course not lost on me!  It is the reason why I prevailed on
Jason to invite contributions to the pot, which was not in his initial
plan.  I intend to make clear to anyone of independent means whom I'm
exposed to that $20k is only about a man-month.

However, there may be a case for providing a place where researchers
can publicly sign the following statement:

  "SENS is certainly too wrong to be worthy of learned debate, but my
   time is so valuable that $20,000 is insufficient to buy the time it
   would take me to write 750 words explaining why."

Are you the first signatory?  "Just kidding."  :-)

Cheers A 


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jul 29 20:41:22 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:41:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired:  We Are the Web
Message-ID: <42EA9472.4010001@jefallbright.net>

An excellent article at

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html

about increasing the scope of our awareness, promoting effective interactions, and growth of more encompassing self.

At least that's what I got out of it.  ;-)

- Jef







From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 22:35:36 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...
In-Reply-To: <20050729083921.94401.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050729223536.17282.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > ...Illegals use
> > public facilities paid for by tax-payers while
> they
> > themselves do not pay taxes. ...
> 
> This is a point I've often wondered about.  Mssr.
> LaForge makes his assertion, but is it grounded in
> fact or is he just making it up?  That is, Stuart,
> is
> it something you **know** to be true or just
> something
> you **suppose** to be true?  
> 
> My question is: how many employers of illegals take
> out witholding, etc, and how many illegals file tax
> returns and get refunds?  do they pay or don't they?
> 
> People who object to illegals, citing the burden of
> providing them social services, seem not to be
> inclined to mention the crucial contribution of the
> work that they do, and the cost benefit to all
> derived
> from the lower wages they receive.  
> 
> All those evil nannies, gardeners, and Chinese
> Restaurant kitchen help.  Flippin terrorists if you
> ask me!  And those jihadi taxi drivers! Just more
> wogs
> trainin' to be suicide car bombers, you'll see.

Well for starters I had a friend get into a car
accident with an illegal. The illegal had no driver's
license, no registration, and no insurance. Yet this
illegal was using roads and highways that California
and federal taxes went to create. My friend did not
carry uninsured motorist coverage so he got shafted
and essentially had to eat his car. They both had
medical bills but since the illegal didn't have a
legal residence to send them to, I doubt he paid them.
So guess who paid for the illegal's bills?

I am not saying that all illegals are terrorists, but
they ARE a burden on an already heavily taxed state
that is one of a few states that get back far less in
federal aid than we pay in taxes.

Look I have nothing against the illegals that mow
people's lawns and nanny their kids. But they all tend
to work for individuals. Those individuals are
commiting a crime and should be punished. 


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  Fri Jul 29 23:24:14 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <69534311-D04D-4348-806B-A496B094EF82@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050729232414.45991.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> Uh huh.  And your proposal re inheritance meets this
> criteria?  No?   
> Then why should yours be enforced above people's
> free choice?

Well considering that kings and dictators are people
too, why should democracy be enforced above their free
will to power? This is not mine, it is simply the
extension of the Rennaissance Enlightenment followed
to it's logical conclusion. If hereditary secular
power is wrong, then inheritance caps should exist. 

> By what ironclad rationality do you reach the
> conlclusion that no one  
> should inherit more than $1 million or that a rich
> person should  
> leave any heir more than that?  I missed your
> derivation of that result.

It was a figure of convenience and I said a home and a
million dollars. The million dollars was just used
because there is a currently held perception that a
million dollars is some kind of threshold of wealth.
People remember earning their first million better
than earning the millions that come after. But the
actual limit ought to be set as a percentage of the
national GDP or something. The point is simply to
allow the capitalist system in this country to become
FAIRER in a game-theoretical sense. Would you want to
play basketball against me if I started with 30 points
and you started with 0? What more is a hereditary
monarch then a guy who starts out with enough points
to win the game before it starts?  

> Where did the caps come from though?  You just
> thought them up with  
> little justification,

>From a enlightenment-capitalist-freemarket disdain of
heriditary power. A self-made millionaire is an idol,
"old money" is a tyrant.

> Trust funds are used for a variety of purposes many
> of which are  
> quite benign.  Before you condemn something you may
> want to look into  
> it a bit.

You mistake me, I am not condemning trust funds, I am
just not certain how they could made less prone to
abuse.

> Resentment clearly at work!  Excess???  How much
> "excess" does it  
> take to fund research that your society would
> otherwise not fund that  
> is critical to our dreams?

Well that brings up an interesting question of who
make better philanthropists? Noveau riche or old
money? Who are liable to be more abusive with their
money?

> What is excessive about
> someone having  
> so much of value to give that they accumulated more
> than most in  
> their live and what is wrong with them making their
> own decisions  
> about where their assets go on their demise without
> bothering to  
> consider your opinions on the matter?

Well excuse me for caring that I see a disparity in
the system and want to correct it. Why do you feel  so
threatened but what I am suggesting any way? It's not
like I have any say in what the country does. I am not
a senator, representative, or even vice-chair of a
minority party. I don't even really identify with ANY
political party.  I am just stating my opinion without
any expectation that anybody cares let alone would
adopt it as their own view. So yes in actuality I
fully expect people to decide what to do with their
assets without considering my opinions on the matter.

> Or are you just
> a busybody know- 
> it-all who believes the wold will go to hell if
> everyone is not  
> forced to do things as you see fit?

I am not a know-it-all I am a try-it-all and there is
a subtle but distict difference. And yeah that's why I
slave away in a lab for near minimum wage, so I force
my will upon others.


 


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 brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jul 30 01:44:55 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:44:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance 
In-Reply-To: <20050729034304.33523.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-89817BAE009B11DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/28/05 20:43) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Who decides what is rational?
>If it IS truly rational it shouldn't matter, just like
>2+2 should equal 4 no matter who does the math.

It shouldn't be a surprise to you that people can come to different, but perfectly rational conclusions.

Its perfectly rational to believe that I, as the person who earned the money, have more understanding and right to its final disposition than a group of bureaucrats, and thus there should be no inheritance tax at all.


>
>> Who decides what to do
>> with the excess?
>
>Well if people wrote their wills correctly, there
>would be no excess. I never mentioned taxes or the
>government. If you have 20 million dollars and only
>one kid, and you can't think of 19 other deserving
>people or organizations to give your money to, you
>might as well be a monkey.  

But what if the most deserving organization is your kid, who has been learning your business from you at your knee and who you know is just as capable (or moreso) than you are. You would prevent this person from having a source of capital just because you're afraid of a few slackers? That's hardly rational.


>
>> You want that money wasted by GOVERNMENT on stupid,
>> wasteful, and
>> unproductive luxuries for bureacrats, instead of the
>> kids for whom
>> their parents slaved to earn their fortunes? 
>
>Once again, the government SHOULD have nothing to do
>with it, except to enforce the inheritance caps on any
>individual heirs. 

Except. If the government should have nothing to do with it, then the government should have nothing to do with it.


>Sheesh, use your mind come up with a bunch of creative
>ideas, just don't give it ALL to one kid. 

Why not?


>
>Why have it wasted at all when you can, with a little
>extra work, truly help shape the world that you leave
>behind for the betterment of all? Or are you just a
>slave of your selfish genes?

You're framing the question in an unrealistic manner. If he is to be free to shape the world to the betterment of all, someone has to make a decision on what "betterment" means. The only person, ethically, who can make that decision in regards to the disposition of his estate is himself. You are proposing that SOMEONE ELSE make that decision for him. This is the problem with your position. It has nothing to do with greed or selfishness. Its a matter of pure ethics.

Brent
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From robgobblin at aol.com  Sat Jul 30 01:47:46 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:47:46 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050729232414.45991.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729232414.45991.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42EADC42.2080506@aol.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Uh huh.  And your proposal re inheritance meets this
>>criteria?  No?   
>>Then why should yours be enforced above people's
>>free choice?
>>    
>>
>
>
>Well excuse me for caring that I see a disparity in
>the system and want to correct it. 
>

The primary question is which -aspect- of the system is responsible for 
the disparity.

A statistresponse says "tax the rich people so they have to give back to 
the society that which they were able to get as a result of it" therebye 
transfering power supposedly from the rich to the government.  This, 
however, only works if the rich don't control the government too.

This leads to bigger governments, more enforcement, more beurocracy, 
more, more, more.  AND, it never actually -works- to get rid of the 
disparity between rich and poor.  England is a prime example where for 
years the socialists ruled England and during which time they taxed and 
spent doing some great things (for instance, the recently bombed 
underground).  On the other hand, the disparity of power between the 
rich and poor in England was never even slightly modified, however, 
because the government fundamentally remains controlled by the House of 
Lords who represent explicitly the old money of the country (despite the 
fact that some of them call themselves "liberals" or "labor").

An anti-statist response looks at the underlying conditions of the 
creation and perpetuation of such disparities and seeks to releive the 
problem by removing the causes.  In this case, the means for supporting 
generational wealth and the ability to support it, e.g. the ability of 
people to leverage past alienations of property against current 
generations.  In particular, without the ability to enforce property or 
monetary rules on the populace by force, any inheritance is meaningless 
except inasmuch as it is mutually supported by the society (e.g. the 
other people living at the time) and the individual with the property in 
question.  Sounds scary to most people, but it's not as bad as you 
think.  This would essentially make it impossible for any single person 
to be very much wealthier than anyone else and thereby encourage 
cooperation in an unheardof way.   And not because necessarily someone 
might not be able to acquire a lot of goods, but rather because they 
could only defend those goods to the extent they could gain a consensus 
from fellow free people to defend them.  Such cooperation between 
enlightened individuals might lead to advances in humanity unthinkable 
to the democratic/statist mind.

Best,

Robbie Lindauer



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 30 06:12:42 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050729014438be16bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050730061242.98502.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Are you already familiar with the FairTax proposal?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
> http://www.fairtax.org/
> http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
> 
> A critique: http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

No but I will have a look at it.


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  Sat Jul 30 07:22:33 2005
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] and she makes sushi, too
In-Reply-To: <20050729150720.50319.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050730072233.79641.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

An I think an android today could make sushi, but the
sushi would contaminated with the bacteria on its
hands. You've got to be extra careful with raw meat &
fish.




--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm
> 
> Actually, she can't make sushi.  ;P
> 
> But it is progress nonetheless.



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


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 07:58:00 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:28:00 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0507300058605021b8@mail.gmail.com>

On 24/07/05, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Emlyn writes, regarding open source:
> > Firstly, can anyone advise me on the open source licenses? What I'm
> > trying to achieve is to put useful code out there (give back to the
> > net!), and also to create the beginning of a reputation, or at least
> > to find out what it might take. So I'm happy for people to use my code
> > for commercial products without paying me any money, but I guess I
> > want some kind of acknowledgement.
> 
> The "standard" list of open source licenses is at
> <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php>.
> 
> > What I'd like is to require users of the library to include some kind
> > of acknowledgement in their product, even just in a readme file, or
> > maybe show a logo for the library in an about box or something
> > similar. I'd like people to be able to use it in closed source,
> > commercial projects without the possibility of compromising their IP
> > (ie: I don't want to open-source infect them). Just the
> > acknowledgement. So far I've looked at GPL (no! too ideology bound,
> > and unusable by closed source people), LGPL (still a worry, I think
> > closed source people would still steer clear), and BSD (a bit too
> > open, I want some form of acknowledgement that the library is being
> > used in a product). As for derived works, I guess they need to be
> > bound to carry the same license conditions as the original library,
> > I'm not clear here.
> 
> The old BSD license used to have a requirement that any advertising for
> the product include a reference to the University of California.  It was
> considered very objectionable and in 1999 the UC officially rescinded
> that requirement, so it is no longer operative even for old BSD software.

The advertising clause looks far too objectionable, I agree. I'd
actually be happy to use an attribution creative commons license, but
creative commons seems not to get into the world of source code
licensing, and source forge list any CC licenses as options; does
anyone know the story behind this?

-- 
Emlyn

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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 30 07:58:43 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <54F3D145-CE73-4462-8BE0-B2180F832F14@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050730075843.97187.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com>

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

> 
> 
> Beautiful. It's just beautiful.
> 
> 
> Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.
> 
Stunning, absolutely.

Just a little question.

The data was collected with the High Resolution Stereo
Camera (HRSC), or so the text states, which I'm
guessing makes three dimensional measurements (ie
surface contour measurements) possible. 

The text says:

"The colours are very close to natural, but the
vertical relief is exaggerated three times." 

So it's not really a photograph in the usual sense,
but rather a computer "revised" image" where the
"apparent" relief has been made to seem three times
what it really is, right?

Beautiful, nearly the right colors, but not what you
would see if you were looking at it, ya?  Not reality,
but sort of reality? Partly not real?  In an orderly,
intending-to-enhance sort of way?

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 emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 08:01:08 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:31:08 +0930
Subject: Fwd: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0507300100205bd5df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc05072304377e1c0e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<42E27CCA.9050600@cox.net> <710b78fc0507300100205bd5df@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050730010134e1c45d@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
Date: 30-Jul-2005 17:30
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
To: Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net>


> Release it under the GPL. Anyone who plays by the GPL rules will
> automatically
> make your code, comments, and copyright notices available to other
> users, and will
> not be otherwise constrained. If you do not use a GPL-compatible
> license, then your
> code cannot be used by the biggest and most main-stream open source
> community,
> and you fail to meet your "reputation" goal.   Also make it known that
> you will
> license your code to anyone who contacts you, at no cost, under a
> license with an
> "acknowledgment" similar to the original BSD license. This meets your other
> goals.  Since you are the copyright holder, you are free to dual-license
> the code
> in this fashion.
>

That's an interesting idea, dual license with GPL and an
acknowledgement license. I'm leaning toward an Artistic license (like
Perl?), because I don't want people to have to contact me for
permission for anything (it tends to mean people go elsewhere). Hmm...

--
Emlyn

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


-- 
Emlyn

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


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 08:04:56 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:34:56 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <42E28817.8000202@mydruthers.com>
References: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
	<42E28817.8000202@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc050730010466593801@mail.gmail.com>

On 24/07/05, Chris Hibbert <hibbert at mydruthers.com> wrote:
> Getting something hosted on sourceforge is pretty simple.  I'm working
> on open source software for prediction markets,
> (sourceforge.net/projects/zocalo) and it didn't take long to fill out
> the forms.  My software uses the MIT license,
> (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) which is among the most
> open and short licenses.  It allows people to use, re-use, or modify it
> at will.  It does have this clause, which might be enough to satisfy
> your desire for acknowledgment:
> 
>   The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>   included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> 
> That requires people to include your license with your code if they ship
> it to others, 

I'm not looking for a banner or anything awful, just an attribution
somewhere. Well, that might work. I like the MIT and New BSD licenses
a lot, because they are short and sweet.

I guess you are right, it applies to an inclusion of binaries or
compiled in source in a 3rd party product. Cool. I might go that way
then, with New BSD probably (just so that the marketing clause stays
in).

-- 
Emlyn

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


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jul 30 12:45:55 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:45:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050729232414.45991.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050729232414.45991.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6FEB38B0-6861-4AAE-B11C-8213DD346B2A@mac.com>


On Jul 29, 2005, at 4:24 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Uh huh.  And your proposal re inheritance meets this
>> criteria?  No?
>> Then why should yours be enforced above people's
>> free choice?
>>
>
> Well considering that kings and dictators are people
> too, why should democracy be enforced above their free
> will to power?

We are not speaking of king and dictators.  We are speaking of your  
willingness to use force on free fellow citizens to enforce your  
ideas of what is "too much" inheritance.  Since these are just your  
notions and not subject to rational analysis that would proof their  
correctness I was surprised you would appeal to rationality and even  
something as straightforward as "2 + 2 = 4" to support your scheme.   
The above doesn't answer my inquiry at all but is the flimsiest of  
devices.   Your willingness to enforce your notions by power of  
government has nothing to de with democracy.


> This is not mine, it is simply the
> extension of the Rennaissance Enlightenment followed
> to it's logical conclusion. If hereditary secular
> power is wrong, then inheritance caps should exist.
>

How so.  Show your work please.  Throwing about the Renaissance  
Enlightenment look like more hand waving.
>
>> By what ironclad rationality do you reach the
>> conlclusion that no one
>> should inherit more than $1 million or that a rich
>> person should
>> leave any heir more than that?  I missed your
>> derivation of that result.
>>
>
> It was a figure of convenience and I said a home and a
> million dollars. The million dollars was just used
> because there is a currently held perception that a
> million dollars is some kind of threshold of wealth.
> People remember earning their first million better
> than earning the millions that come after. But the
> actual limit ought to be set as a percentage of the
> national GDP or something.


Why should any limit at all be set?  That is the missing gist of your  
plan.

> The point is simply to
> allow the capitalist system in this country to become
> FAIRER in a game-theoretical sense.

More hand waving.  Fairer in reference to what standards applicable  
how and why?

> Would you want to
> play basketball against me if I started with 30 points
> and you started with 0? What more is a hereditary
> monarch then a guy who starts out with enough points
> to win the game before it starts?

Worthless analogies are not helpful.

>
>
>> Where did the caps come from though?  You just
>> thought them up with
>> little justification,
>>
>
>
>> From a enlightenment-capitalist-freemarket disdain of
>>
> heriditary power. A self-made millionaire is an idol,
> "old money" is a tyrant.
>

But money is not heriditary power in the sense despised by the  
enlightenment at all.   It is not armed force or coercion by the  
state or other bodies privileged with the use of legal force.  It is  
you who are proposing using such force to strip citizens of their  
property if they become in your eyes too successful or do not dispose  
of their wealth as you wish.


>
>> Trust funds are used for a variety of purposes many
>> of which are
>> quite benign.  Before you condemn something you may
>> want to look into
>> it a bit.
>>
>
> You mistake me, I am not condemning trust funds, I am
> just not certain how they could made less prone to
> abuse.
>

But you seem to have a peculiar notion of abuse.  Using legal means  
to protect one's own property from those who would take it hardly  
qualifies in my mind as "abuse".  It is rather an attempt to avoid  
being abused.

>
>> Resentment clearly at work!  Excess???  How much
>> "excess" does it
>> take to fund research that your society would
>> otherwise not fund that
>> is critical to our dreams?
>>
>
> Well that brings up an interesting question of who
> make better philanthropists? Noveau riche or old
> money? Who are liable to be more abusive with their
> money?
>

The most abusive of all are those without money who would control the  
wealth of others.

>
>> What is excessive about
>> someone having
>> so much of value to give that they accumulated more
>> than most in
>> their live and what is wrong with them making their
>> own decisions
>> about where their assets go on their demise without
>> bothering to
>> consider your opinions on the matter?
>>
>
> Well excuse me for caring that I see a disparity in
> the system and want to correct it.

So now you are going to be defensive?

> Why do you feel  so
> threatened but what I am suggesting any way? It's not
> like I have any say in what the country does. I am not
> a senator, representative, or even vice-chair of a
> minority party. I don't even really identify with ANY
> political party.  I am just stating my opinion without
> any expectation that anybody cares let alone would
> adopt it as their own view. So yes in actuality I
> fully expect people to decide what to do with their
> assets without considering my opinions on the matter.
>

Then why strut about claiming your opinion is simple rationality and  
a logical extension of the Enlightenment?  Why talk earnestly about  
forcing it on others?

- samantha



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 30 15:01:44 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:01:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <20050730075843.97187.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050730075843.97187.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <32E5EBE5-311D-481F-BD13-889817486029@bonfireproductions.com>



You hit on two very important points here, Jeff.

First is - obviously there is some interpreting going on of the image  
- I think the lower image further down the page might be a little  
more accurate to the real. I also looked at the histogram of the raw  
data (ok, of the image format of the raw data, yes, another degree of  
separation) and found that it was offset/compressed a little to one  
side. This means the full range of light to dark was not expressed as  
it may and probably would be. This brings me to point two.

At the distance of Mars, there is substantially less light, Jupiter  
and Saturn even less. The images we see are being "pushed" into our  
range of brightness. The colors for Mars and the other planets are  
probably near correct (unless intentionally false-colored which  
should be indicated), but every planet is always shown to us as if it  
were illuminated at a distance from the sun equal to Earths. If we  
were actually in Jupiter's orbit, for example, it would be much, much  
darker than the pictures we've seen. Assuming you are using your  
human eyes of course.


]3


On Jul 30, 2005, at 3:58 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Beautiful. It's just beautiful.
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.
>>
>>
> Stunning, absolutely.
>
> Just a little question.
>
> The data was collected with the High Resolution Stereo
> Camera (HRSC), or so the text states, which I'm
> guessing makes three dimensional measurements (ie
> surface contour measurements) possible.
>
> The text says:
>
> "The colours are very close to natural, but the
> vertical relief is exaggerated three times."
>
> So it's not really a photograph in the usual sense,
> but rather a computer "revised" image" where the
> "apparent" relief has been made to seem three times
> what it really is, right?
>
> Beautiful, nearly the right colors, but not what you
> would see if you were looking at it, ya?  Not reality,
> but sort of reality? Partly not real?  In an orderly,
> intending-to-enhance sort of way?
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sat Jul 30 15:07:20 2005
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:07:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Source Licensing - help!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0507300058605021b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050723145910.C95DA57E8C@finney.org>
	<710b78fc0507300058605021b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050730150720.GA2270@or.pair.com>

On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:28:00PM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
> The advertising clause looks far too objectionable, I agree. I'd
> actually be happy to use an attribution creative commons license, but
> creative commons seems not to get into the world of source code
> licensing, and source forge list any CC licenses as options; does
> anyone know the story behind this?


* CC licenses don't mention source, open source licenses don't
  mention things like performance rights.  Different targets.
* There are already more than enough open source licenses.
* CC licenses applied to software would be considered a step backward
  (most are more restrictive than any open source license).
* The two CC licenses that are open source/free in spirit (Attribution
  and Attribution-ShareAlike) have some minor issues that render them
  not quite free/open souce -- http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary

The last is being slowly addressed and may be neutralized in some
future version of CC licenses.

Still, a smattering of software projects have used a CC license
anyway.  And there are more and more projects that are both programs
and artistic artificacts, some of which CC licenses may be appropriate
for.

(I work for Creative Commons but the above is unofficial.)

> That's an interesting idea, dual license with GPL and an
> acknowledgement license. I'm leaning toward an Artistic license (like
> Perl?), because I don't want people to have to contact me for
> permission for anything (it tends to mean people go elsewhere). Hmm...

The Artistic license isn't used much outside of Perl in part because
it isn't very clear --
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense

Interesting idea though.  Some companies have built businesses on
selling private non-GPL licenses for GPL software, e.g.,
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/commercial-license.html

In either dual licensing case you need to be keep copyright to all
the code or at least ensure all contributors also dual licenses
their contributions, or GPL quickly becomes the only option for
anyone, including you.

If your primary objective is reputation I'd suggest using the most
liberal license possible, e.g., MIT.  Your focus should be on
maximizing use of your code, not legal tricks to ensure attribution
or similar licensing in case someone does happen to use your code.

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


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sat Jul 30 15:11:58 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:11:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <20050730075843.97187.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050730075843.97187.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4945315C-01E1-4996-8E62-EEF34B1659AA@bonfireproductions.com>



Additionally: (having gone back to review the image)

It is not unusual in space science to take your 'flat' color photos  
in the visible spectrum, and use them to texture a three dimensional  
model made from the topographic data made at a non-visible frequency.  
So bouncing radar off the surface creates the 3d, then the image is  
thrown over that model like a tablecloth.

What they are indicating about the image is that they took the 3d  
data and 'stretched' it a tiny bit in the up-down axis, to make it  
more dynamic. They may have then used it to 'tilt' the model to add  
the perspective shown in their imagery.


]3



On Jul 30, 2005, at 3:58 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Beautiful. It's just beautiful.
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the frosty Hi-rez goodness.
>>
>>
> Stunning, absolutely.
>
> Just a little question.
>
> The data was collected with the High Resolution Stereo
> Camera (HRSC), or so the text states, which I'm
> guessing makes three dimensional measurements (ie
> surface contour measurements) possible.
>
> The text says:
>
> "The colours are very close to natural, but the
> vertical relief is exaggerated three times."
>
> So it's not really a photograph in the usual sense,
> but rather a computer "revised" image" where the
> "apparent" relief has been made to seem three times
> what it really is, right?
>
> Beautiful, nearly the right colors, but not what you
> would see if you were looking at it, ya?  Not reality,
> but sort of reality? Partly not real?  In an orderly,
> intending-to-enhance sort of way?
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk  Sat Jul 30 15:43:49 2005
From: ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk (Aubrey de Grey)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:43:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20,
	000 SENS Challenge
Message-ID: <E1DytV7-0005xL-00@ag24.gen.cam.ac.uk>


Hi all - I've just seen the extropy-chat thread on this.  I think most
of my responses are encapsulated in the following posts elsewhere:

http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/07/the_sens_challe_1.html#comments
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000558.php
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=173&t=7437&st=20&#entry73057

Please note that I'm not currently subscribed to extropy-chat, so any
replies that you want me to see promptly should be emailed.

Cheers, Aubrey


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 16:10:23 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:10:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The TransVision 05 DVD
Message-ID: <470a3c5205073009106bed5bf3@mail.gmail.com>

The TransVision 05 <http://transhumanismo.org/tv05/default.htm> DVD is very 
well done. It has short video abstracts (by the speakers) of many 
presentations given at the conference, and many Power Point original. I was 
surprised by the very short time required to put together the finished 
product: the DVD was ready two days after the end of the conference (thanks 
to Carlos Sheila and all the others who contributed). The DVD works 
flawlessly on all my DVD players and PC DVD viewers. There are two separate 
tracks for English and Spanish speakers. The DVD was sold to TV05 
participants after the conference and I am sure it will be soon offered for 
sale on the website.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050730/a6353c07/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 30 16:14:41 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <32E5EBE5-311D-481F-BD13-889817486029@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <20050730161442.68330.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

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

> 
> At the distance of Mars, there is substantially less light, Jupiter  
> and Saturn even less. The images we see are being "pushed" into our  
> range of brightness. 

Mars, at opposition, is only about 40 million miles away, which is
about 40% further from the Sun than Earth (at 93 million miles).
Sunlight at Earths surface is 40% LESS than in Low Earth Orbit because
of the thickness of our atmosphere (orbital solar flux in the visible
range is over 1.4 kw/m^2, sea level solar flux is about 1.0 kw/m^2). As
Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, only about 6 millibars, it does not
attenuate Mars orbit solar flux by a significant percent. Therefore it
follows that the brightness of sunlight on the surface of Mars is
relatively close to that on the surface of Earth.

You are otherwise correct vis a vis Jupiter and Saturn.

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  Sun Jul 31 00:12:49 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:12:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <20050730161442.68330.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050730161442.68330.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CA7BB57E-8EA9-4EDA-B38B-4FF67BABC209@bonfireproductions.com>



Mars, at opposition is almost at perihelion - only an additional ~.4  
AU, but at its furthest is actually ~.65 AU. So opposition isn't the  
average.

Earth's surface is ~1 kw/m^2, which is true, but on Mars it is less  
than 600w/m^2 = ~60%, i.e. substantially less. At Jupiter we're down  
to ~50 w/m^2, Saturn ~15.

We also have to consider the rate that light drops off as a distance  
from its source, and that the albedo of Mars is about half that of  
Earth's.


]3



On Jul 30, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> At the distance of Mars, there is substantially less light, Jupiter
>> and Saturn even less. The images we see are being "pushed" into our
>> range of brightness.
>>
>
> Mars, at opposition, is only about 40 million miles away, which is
> about 40% further from the Sun than Earth (at 93 million miles).
> Sunlight at Earths surface is 40% LESS than in Low Earth Orbit because
> of the thickness of our atmosphere (orbital solar flux in the visible
> range is over 1.4 kw/m^2, sea level solar flux is about 1.0 kw/ 
> m^2). As
> Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, only about 6 millibars, it does not
> attenuate Mars orbit solar flux by a significant percent. Therefore it
> follows that the brightness of sunlight on the surface of Mars is
> relatively close to that on the surface of Earth.
>
> You are otherwise correct vis a vis Jupiter and Saturn.
>
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050730/fb2a0503/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jul 31 00:42:08 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050729055440.7117.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731004208.16483.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>      IMHO, I believe that the IRS should be abolsihed

Someone's got to tally the sales taxes, even under your new proposal.

> and a nationwide sales tax should be implemented on
> everything except for store bought food.

Why the exception?  And if store bought food counts, how about food
bought straight from the farmers?  Or, in the case of homogenized milk
and other processed foods, food that never goes through a store?

> First, it would eliminate the
> excuses of the rich that they bear an unfair tax
> burden.

Nope.  The rich spend more, so they'd get taxed more, ergo they bear an
"unfair" (higher than average) burden.

> Second, while the rich may still try to hide
> their money, the moment they tried to spend it, the
> government would gets its due.

Unless, of course, they have their wealth invested in things other than
money - e.g., if they exchange stock or gold for corporate assets.

> It would equalize taxes for
> corporations and individuals.

Corporations can set up their own stores, buy food "loaned" to it, and
then pay the farmer.  Individuals can't pull that off as easily.

> It would eliminate tax
> incentives for monopolistic business practices.

How about for someone to create a food monopoly?

> It
> would be just plain more efficient.

It would also greatly restrict the government's ability to encourage
behavior using tax policy.  This being intolerable to legislators, they
would quickly vote to make more (and unbalanced) exceptions, even if it
cost them their political careers in many cases (and their replacements
would pick up said tax powers and run with them).  Ergo, it seems that
in the present political climate, attempting to implement this would do
more harm than good.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 02:58:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050731004208.16483.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731025822.77327.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >      IMHO, I believe that the IRS should be abolsihed
> 
> Someone's got to tally the sales taxes, even under your new proposal.

Sales taxes are the most regressive, to start with, so they punish the
poor the most. Secondly, the IRS is only ONE tax collecting agency.
There are others. The ATF, for instance. Customs, for another. What I
believe Stuart is implying is something like what Reagan did with the
PATCO flight controllers union: fire all the IRS agents and never let
them work in taxes ever again, get rid of the tax code. Burn it.

The least onerous tax is the property tax. Problems with it is that 40%
of the land in the US is in government hands, while another 20% is in
the hands of large corporations that pay low taxes on their property,
and non-profit land trusts that don't pay any taxes on their property.

The property tax is the sort of tax that was the original national tax
system in the US Constitution: every state was responsible for a
portion of the federal budget based on their land area. This punished
states with lots of land and few people to engage in economic activity,
so it encouraged development and growth.

If we went back to such a system, states would collect the national
property tax and turn it over to the federal government, thus no
federal IRS would be necessary. Furthermore, if wealthy were prevented
from hiding property in charitable trusts or getting 'current use' tax
exemptions with sham farms or other fakery (Such as Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer, who pays property taxes on only $199k of
property value when his 167 acre range is valued at $640k, yet has
fenced off and posted his land, in violation of requirements that
current use land be open to public recreation such as hunting, fishing,
hiking, or snowmobiling) then they would have to put their capital in
economic activities that produced growth to avoid federal 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  Sun Jul 31 04:01:20 2005
From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:01:20 -1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050731025822.77327.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050731025822.77327.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <feb045ba9f853f1bf41831c2576a7541@aol.com>


On Jul 30, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> fire all the IRS agents and never let
> them work in taxes ever again, get rid of the tax code. Burn it.
>
> The least onerous tax is the property tax.


Here here!

Doesn't it bother you that the majority will then be punishing the 
wealthy minority land-holders using violent means (what else were you 
proposing we do to tax evaders?).  Why not get rid of property taxes 
too and make the federal government survive on charitable donations?

Robbie Lindauer



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 04:10:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Eminent Mike's domain
In-Reply-To: <20050728163023.91612.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731041022.67043.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The story has apparently taken on a life of its own. My local paper,
the Valley News, interviewed me the other day, and now their article,
along with plenty of 'telephone game' distortion, has appeared in
WorldNetDaily, NY Times, AOL News, among others. Fan mail has started
to come in. A radio show out west wants to interview me.

I am told that there are now federal marshals posted at Justice
Souter's home in Weare full time. When a reporter went to Breyer's
property in Plainfield, his caretaker told the reporter to get out or
he'd call the cops. The fun is starting.

Now comes the hard part: walking the walk. I've decided we need to
start an organization just for this project. The LPNH is for electoral
stuff, not this, and the Coalition of NH Taxpayers focuses on tax
issues. So I'm going to launch the "Constitution Park Foundation", and
I need to find somebody to set up and manage a site to receive
donations and time commitments.

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  Sun Jul 31 05:24:02 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <feb045ba9f853f1bf41831c2576a7541@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20050731052403.65703.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > fire all the IRS agents and never let
> > them work in taxes ever again, get rid of the tax code. Burn it.
> >
> > The least onerous tax is the property tax.
> 
> 
> Here here!
> 
> Doesn't it bother you that the majority will then be punishing the 
> wealthy minority land-holders using violent means (what else were you
> 
> proposing we do to tax evaders?).  Why not get rid of property taxes 
> too and make the federal government survive on charitable donations?

When each state is responsible for collecting the property taxes to
send to DC, then each state is essentially making a 'charitable
donation' to the federal government, and theoretically could find
someplace else to put their money if it doesn't stay within its limits.

It is always advantageous to maneuver one sovereign power to face off
against another. Its more of a fair fight than uncle sugar sending the
storm troopers to squash each individual, one at a time.

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 pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jul 31 09:22:27 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:22:27 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] BT's futurist technology timeline
Message-ID: <470a3c5205073102225b79d46f@mail.gmail.com>

A Technology Timeline compiled by researchers at BT's futurology department 
has come up with a list of advances it says will change tomorrow's world. 
And they should know what they're talking about - in the past they've 
correctly predicted text messaging, email spam and internet search engines.
The list of futurist technologies expected to hit the marketplace in the 
future begins with emotionally responsive toys in 2006-2010 - responding to 
the sound of its owner's voice, these toys will react with a variety of 
emotions. In 2008-2012 we may see video tattoos and medicine delivered by 
fruit: scientists will be able to produce genetically modified fruit that 
carry medicines and extra vitamins. For example apples could contain the 
polio vaccine.
Later we may see computers becoming smarter than humans and eventually being 
granted basic human rights, space elevators, colonies on the Moon and Mars, 
fully immersive and interactive entertainment (viewers play roles in VR 
movies), and eventually (2051+) the Holy Grail of technology - mind 
uploading: EVERYTHING in your brain - thoughts, feelings and memories - will 
be transferred to a computer, ensuring a form of digital immortality if 
eventually uploaded into a human brain later. Read the full story on 
mirror.co.uk<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=15779660%26method=full%26siteid=94762-name_page.html>
.
Though such technologies timelines may hype certain technologies and fail to 
predict others, they are always useful to guide our forward thinking in 
technology, business and societal issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050731/1ffb62f0/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 09:38:22 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc605072823396692eeb6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050731093822.76437.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The sales tax is however not the end of the way for
tax reform - think about the following tax: a tax on
any financial transaction whatsoever, any transfer of
ownership, the "universal transaction tax". <

I like it.  This is the first original alternative tax
idea I heard.  

My sense of the "unfairness" of a sales tax stems from
my impression that the non-wealthy pay a
disproportionate percentage of such a tax.  Rafal's
method seems, at first glance, to move toward
correcting this imbalance.  The wealthy make (I'm
supposing) substantial non-sales transactions all the
time, yes?

By my criteria of fairness, those who have more and
make more should pay more.  While this may seem
reasonable, it is not by itself helpful, since it
leaves us at square one: how do you calculate who pays
how much?

My notion--replacing income and other taxes-- has been
a flat net worth tax.  Say three, four, five percent. 
Whatever it takes to meet the budget.  So, for
example, if the total assets of the entire country
were say 50 trillion dollars, and the budget for a
given year were one trillion dollars, then the tax
would be two percent.  Clearly, the practical
difficulty with this would be in knowing, and
accurately, every individual's net worth.   

Rafal's method does not have this problem, though it
may have others.  
 
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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 09:42:30 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050731004208.16483.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731094230.49956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Someone's got to tally the sales taxes, even under
> your new proposal.

Not nessarily. With such new technology as RFID and
smartcards, the money could automatically tally the
taxes and send the tally to a computer in DC.
 
> > and a nationwide sales tax should be implemented
> on
> > everything except for store bought food.
> 
> Why the exception?  

Yes, I am starting to agree with this now. A rebate of
up to the poverty level as is proposed by the Fair Tax
Act would work better. But don't consider this an
endorsement of said act yet. There is fine print I
haven't read yet, and I fully expect to find something
sneaky. Alternative methods might be a "progressive"
sales tax where the tax percentage is proportional to
the amount of the sale. Maybe something like: 

tax= amount x (10% + log(amount)) or similar.

> Nope.  The rich spend more, so they'd get taxed
> more, ergo they bear an
> "unfair" (higher than average) burden.

Well I am a liberal so I won't cry if the rich feel
that they paying more. The rich use a lot more public
services than I do. Some rich guy with a trucking
company uses the freeways and makes more pot holes
than little old me. Walmart calls the police way more
than I do to bust all the shop-lifters. Hell goverment
contractors make their money from the taxes in the
first place. No tears here.  
> 
> > Second, while the rich may still try to hide
> > their money, the moment they tried to spend it,
> the
> > government would gets its due.

> Unless, of course, they have their wealth invested
> in things other than
> money - e.g., if they exchange stock or gold for
> corporate assets.

Well I guess an underground barter economy might arise
but what can one do? I doubt the abuses of the new
system would surpass those of the current system, at
least not until the rich have had a century or two to
work at it, like they have the current ever-changing
one.

> 
> > It would equalize taxes for
> > corporations and individuals.
> 
> Corporations can set up their own stores, buy food
> "loaned" to it, and
> then pay the farmer.  Individuals can't pull that
> off as easily.

Yes, I think the food exemption was a bad idea. No
exemptions at all. They could however set rates on
different commodities to promote or discourage certain
industries.


> > It would eliminate tax
> > incentives for monopolistic business practices.
> 
> How about for someone to create a food monopoly?

Yes, the food exemption was not a good idea.

> It would also greatly restrict the government's
> ability to encourage
> behavior using tax policy.  This being intolerable
> to legislators, they
> would quickly vote to make more (and unbalanced)
> exceptions, even if it
> cost them their political careers in many cases (and
> their replacements
> would pick up said tax powers and run with them). 

Yes, this is the folly of exceptions. Nothing should
be exempted although the ability to set the tax
percentage would actually be a great lever for
government to modulate the economy and vice versa.
This would allow the people to control the size and
power of government by their consumption behavior. On
the flip side government could influence consumption
behavior by raising or lowering the tax percentage.
Thus if war loomed, the goverment could lower the tax,
and people could go out and buy supplies, and the
government would get what it needed to fight the war,
and the citizens could get what they needed to survive
it. Lowering the tax rate would be the economic
version of adrenaline.

> Ergo, it seems that
> in the present political climate, attempting to
> implement this would do
> more harm than good.

Do you still think so, if there is no food exception?


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 Jul 31 12:05:33 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <6FEB38B0-6861-4AAE-B11C-8213DD346B2A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050731120533.76168.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Since
> these are just your  
> notions and not subject to rational analysis that
> would proof their  
> correctness I was surprised you would appeal to
> rationality and even  
> something as straightforward as "2 + 2 = 4" to
> support your scheme.   
> The above doesn't answer my inquiry at all but is
> the flimsiest of  
> devices.

     I am sorry I misinterpreted your question. The
point is to make the economy fairer for all
individuals. Let me explain how I came to the
conclusion that it is unfair to begin with, which is I
think your real question.
It comes from my studies of the game-theory and
probability involved in games of chance.

     Let's say we have an ultimately simple game of
chance. A third party flips a fair coin and we each
bet a dollar on the result. Now if the rule of the
game is that we play until one of us is broke, then
the odds of me winning at the end are 1/2^(your
starting money), that is the probability of me winning
once for each dollar you posses, divided by 1/2^(my
starting money), the probability that you will win
once for every dollar I possess. This simplifies to
2^(my starting money - my starting money). Thus if I
started with 20 dollars and you started with 5
dollars, the odds of me cleaning you out is 32,768:1. 

     Now I understand that the economy of life is not
a pure game of chance. But it is not what
game-theorists call the opposite, which is a game of
perfect information either. A game of perfect
information is like chess where all possible moves by
both players are able to be known in advance and it is
a game of pure strategy. Instead it is what game
theorists call a mixed game with elements of both
strategy and chance.

      Although life is a mixed game, the chance
component to it gives people who start out life with a
huge amount of wealth an unfair advantage, no matter
how poor or wise their moves. The advantage of wealth
belongs to whoever is good at the strategy and has a
few lucky breaks. Ergo earning a million dollars means
that a person deserves that advantage because she has
earned it. Inheriting a million dollars means that
person has an unearned advantage that will contribute
to preventing people who are better at the game from
actually winning it. 

> Your willingness to enforce your notions
> by power of  
> government has nothing to do with democracy.

     Well there is an egalitarian notion of fairness
at the heart of democracy. You will alsonotice that I
did not say that there should be no inheritance at
all. So I am softening up my proposal from the purely
rational version. This allowance I think is fair
because parents should be able to contribute something
to the survival of their children. Although no
inheritance at all would be the ultimate in
mathematical fairness, essentially allowing every
generation to play the "game" on equal footing.

    Such a measure is too drastic in my opinion, ergo
the "cap". I am not advocating the government enforce
it, but people can't be expected to give up an unfair
advantage on their own. If you think that fairness is
at all a virtue, then why is this notion so bad?
 
> But money is not heriditary power in the sense
> despised by the  
> enlightenment at all.   It is not armed force or
> coercion by the  
> state or other bodies privileged with the use of
> legal force.

Which of these things cannot be routinely bought with
money? How do you think any of these things come about
in a "free society"? 

> It is  
> you who are proposing using such force to strip
> citizens of their  
> property.

No the act of dying is what strips these citizens of
their property. Their children are not them.

> if they become in your eyes too successful
> or do not dispose  
> of their wealth as you wish.

It is not about me at all. I would be subject to these
very same restriction, not that I would have to be,
because I know better to turn over a billion dollars
to the fruit of my loins, when he or she doesn't have
any first-hand knowledge of what it took me to earn
it. That is assuming of course I earn it, which is
pretty unlikely. 
 
> 
> But you seem to have a peculiar notion of abuse. 
> Using legal means  
> to protect one's own property from those who would
> take it hardly  
> qualifies in my mind as "abuse".  It is rather an
> attempt to avoid  
> being abused.

     But this assumes that you are still around to
have your property taken. Once you are gone it,
belongs to whoever you wanted it to belong to. In
essense, since you have no way of knowing how ANY of
your heirs will spend the money, consider it like
investing in the stockmarket. You want to diversify
your investment portfolio by giving to as many
different people as possible but not so many that it
overly dillutes your total investment. Your hoped for
ROI is simply, at least in some sense, shaping the
world you leave behind.

     Would it change your mind if I had a billion
dollars and I was proposing this? Do you doubt me when
I say that I would still propose it if I had a billion
dollars?

     Also as a minor point, not willing a huge fortune
to your children would discourage them from trying to
murder you before your time to collect their
inheritance a la the Menendez brothers.


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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Jul 31 12:56:19 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:56:19 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <feb045ba9f853f1bf41831c2576a7541@aol.com>
References: <20050731025822.77327.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<feb045ba9f853f1bf41831c2576a7541@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0507310850040.-245689@pentium.mb.willtown.net>




On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Robbie Lindauer wrote:

>  Why not get rid of property taxes
> too and make the federal government survive on charitable donations?
>

AhHa! Now we're talking!   :)

I've often wondered exactly what would get funded if it were up to
*us* to choose how the money was spent - and this sounds pretty close
to it, to me!

One thing I'm finding now, with my limited income situation, is that
I'm seldom (if ever) giving money to charity, because there is no
money to spare and I remember that charities are going tax free,
getting a boost from the rest of us whether we like it or not...
because *we* are carrying their share of the tax burden. And in some
cases they receive handouts from the government in addition to the
no-tax.

It doesn't help my attitude that I'm living an area where a huge
percentage of the land is owned by religious organizations and another
big chunk is owned by the government (state or local) and goes tax
free.

Regards,
MB


From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Sun Jul 31 13:24:29 2005
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:24:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IT Conversations -- a selection of conference
	talks available online
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050729131953.03d25098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050729131953.03d25098@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b050731062413d0bca8@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> I've been looking through <http:///www.itconversations.com> and have
> selected 20 talks that look particularly interesting (and that are rated
> highly). If anyone has listened to any of these, I'd like to hear your opinion.
> 
> Max

IT Conversations makes many of their audio recordings available as
podcasts, including a selection from the Accelerating Change 2004
conference. That conference included presentations by Doug Engelbart
and Gordon Bell. Even my mother found Engelbart's talk interesting,
especially after I told her he invented the mouse.

> 
> Free Culture, Chapter 1
> Lawrence Lessig
> http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail111.html
> 
> AKMA asked, "Anyone feel like recording a chapter of Lawrence Lessig's new
> book?" Joi Ito then said, "What a great idea!" In less than 24 hours, this
> idea mushroomed into a significant collaboration by a team of bloggers and
> others to record and publish all of Larry's book. Here is our contribution,
> Chapter One: Creators, recorded by IT Conversations host Doug Kaye.
> [runtime: 00:17:45, 6.1 mb, recorded 2004-03-27]
>

The entire text can be had from LegalTorrents, and probably from other
places too.

> Neil Gershenfeld, Director of MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms
> Bits and Atoms
> http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail460.html
> 
> Imagine a future where personal fabricators promise the ability to make
> almost anything. Neil Gershenfeld, Director of MIT's Center for Bits and
> Atoms, explains how personal fabricators promise to revolutionize our world
> as PCs did a generation ago by enabling us to design and make the tools and
> products we want in our own homes. A panel of experts then considers the
> implications of personal fabrication and the role of the workshop innovator
> and "hands on design" in modern science and engineering. [ETech audio from
> IT Conversations]
> [runtime: 00:55:17, 25.3 mb, recorded 2005-03-16]

C-SPAN did a series called "Digital Library," IIRC. Video archives can
be had from CSPAN.org. (Real Media streams, contact me off-list in a
few days if you can't find them.) Gershenfeld's presentation there
communicates better than his writing in the recently released "FAB:
The Coming Revolution on your Desktop--From Personal Computers to
Personal Fabrication." A few more resources for it exist at MIT's Open
CourseWare site.


> Universal Access to All Knowledge
> Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive
> http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail400.html
> 
> Advances in computing and communications mean that we can cost-effectively
> store every book, sound recording, movie, software package, and public web
> page ever created, and provide access to these collections via the Internet
> to students and adults all over the world. By mostly using existing
> institutions and funding sources, we can build this as well as compensate
> authors within what is the current worldwide library budget. The talk
> offers an update on the current state of progress towards that ideal, which
> would allow us to bequeath an accessible record of our cultural heritage to
> our descendants. [IT Conversations audio from the SDForum Distinguished
> Speaker Series.]
> [runtime: 01:38:32, 45.1 mb, recorded 2004-12-16]
> 

Compare with Gordon Bell's AC2004 talk on My LifeBits. It helps to
also read the various papers from Microsoft Research. Mr. Bell doesn't
do a good job of delivery in the talk.

That said, has anyone a link for any presentations by Thomas Barnett?
Discussions of the results of the New Map war game especially interest
me.

-- 
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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Jul 31 14:02:13 2005
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:02:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050731052403.65703.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <feb045ba9f853f1bf41831c2576a7541@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050731092114.04182488@unreasonable.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>When each state is responsible for collecting the property taxes to
>send to DC, then each state is essentially making a 'charitable
>donation' to the federal government, and theoretically could find
>someplace else to put their money if it doesn't stay within its limits.
>
>It is always advantageous to maneuver one sovereign power to face off
>against another. Its more of a fair fight than uncle sugar sending the
>storm troopers to squash each individual, one at a time.

You have a good point. But why make property tax the mechanism nationwide?

Why not take the federal budget, calculate the cost per citizen, and bill 
each state for their share based on that state's population? Leave it to 
the state to chose whatever funding mechanism they like to obtain those 
funds. States already do this for their own budgets, allowing 52+ 
experiments and a direct competition between them for citizens and businesses.

As for the funding load on each individual, I would prefer fee-for-service 
-- you pay for what you use.

I would settle for a *true* flat tax. Not the usurpation of the plain 
meaning of the phrase. A flat rate is not a flat tax. Take the budget B, 
divide by the number of citizens C. You owe B/C.

When I buy a Plextor PX-712SA, a bag of potatoes, or a movie ticket, I pay 
the same price and get the same product as anyone else. Why do libertarians 
and conservatives concede the socialist premise of charging more?

There is, of course, a problem in practice today. Many people don't have 
B/C. But the answer to that begins with dramatically reducing B -- perhaps 
spurred by outrage at  B/C -- not with finding someone else to soak.


-- David.



From brentn at freeshell.org  Sun Jul 31 17:10:52 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:10:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inheritance
In-Reply-To: <20050731120533.76168.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-0D46B1CC01E611DA93F7000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (7/31/05 5:05) The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>      Although life is a mixed game, the chance
>component to it gives people who start out life with a
>huge amount of wealth an unfair advantage, no matter
>how poor or wise their moves. The advantage of wealth
>belongs to whoever is good at the strategy and has a
>few lucky breaks. Ergo earning a million dollars means
>that a person deserves that advantage because she has
>earned it. Inheriting a million dollars means that
>person has an unearned advantage that will contribute
>to preventing people who are better at the game from
>actually winning it. 


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.

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
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jul 31 18:14:09 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Income Tax
In-Reply-To: <20050731094230.49956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731181409.98136.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Someone's got to tally the sales taxes, even under
> > your new proposal.
> 
> Not nessarily. With such new technology as RFID and
> smartcards, the money could automatically tally the
> taxes and send the tally to a computer in DC.

Someone's got to make sure that tally isn't hacked, then, and someone's
got to sign off.

Besides, cash tender is still legal, as are handwritten records.
Someone's got to enter that data into the system.  (Handwriting
recognition systems are very good, but not perfect, as the USPS can
attest.)

Automation can and should greatly reduce this sort of workload.  But it
won't completely replace it, short of AIs complex enough to demand
their own rights (and thus form a new IRS).

> Well I guess an underground barter economy might arise
> but what can one do? I doubt the abuses of the new
> system would surpass those of the current system, at
> least not until the rich have had a century or two to
> work at it, like they have the current ever-changing
> one.

This is an argument I've been thinking about regarding other matters:
change for change's sake.  Not necessarily because the new system is
that much better, but mostly to shake up the institutionalized abuses
that have grown in the current system.  And then once the new system
grows old enough to develop its own institutionalized abuses, change to
something else.

The counter-argument seems to be that, alongside institutionalized
abuses, comes institutionalized fairness, and the benefits of the
latter outweighs the detriments of the former.  I wonder...

> > Ergo, it seems that
> > in the present political climate, attempting to
> > implement this would do
> > more harm than good.
> 
> Do you still think so, if there is no food exception?

The problem is that they'd create exceptions, even if the food
exception was not there.  It might be more difficult to justify the
first exception, but there's a very high chance they'd think they have
enough reason to.  And once the first exception was made, others would
follow more easily.

The problem is the distinction between what you want and what you'd
actually get.


From riel at surriel.com  Sun Jul 31 18:41:45 2005
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <CA7BB57E-8EA9-4EDA-B38B-4FF67BABC209@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <20050730161442.68330.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<CA7BB57E-8EA9-4EDA-B38B-4FF67BABC209@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507311427000.11424@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

> Earth's surface is ~1 kw/m^2, which is true, but on Mars it is less than 
> 600w/m^2 = ~60%, i.e. substantially less.

The difference between a sunny day and a lightly overcast day.

> At Jupiter we're down to ~50 w/m^2, Saturn ~15.

I wonder how that compares with moonlight.
Google brings me to this Wikipedia article:

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

Sunlight:       32000 to 100000 lux
TV studio:       1000 lux
bright office:    400 lux
sunset/sunrise:   400 lux
moonlight:          1 lux

Now, according to the mail uptread, sunlight on Mars is around
60% as strong as that on Earth, Jupiter has 5% and Saturn 1.5%.
Using the weakest luminosity for sunlight on Earth, that gives:

Mars:           20000 lux
Jupiter:         1600 lux
Saturn:           480 lux

Of course, this is the strength of sunlight in these orbits.
The luminosity of objects on which sunlight reflects will be
significantly less.

Still, sunlight on the good areas of Mars shouldn't be any
worse than sunlight during spring and autumn in northern
regions on Earth - eg. Scandinavia.  Enough to grow things
in a greenhouse...

-- 
"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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 19:13:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Frozen water ice found by ESA Mars Express on Mars.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507311427000.11424@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20050731191330.23767.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> 
> Now, according to the mail uptread, sunlight on Mars is around
> 60% as strong as that on Earth, Jupiter has 5% and Saturn 1.5%.
> Using the weakest luminosity for sunlight on Earth, that gives:
> 
> Mars:           20000 lux
> Jupiter:         1600 lux
> Saturn:           480 lux
> 
> Of course, this is the strength of sunlight in these orbits.
> The luminosity of objects on which sunlight reflects will be
> significantly less.
> 
> Still, sunlight on the good areas of Mars shouldn't be any
> worse than sunlight during spring and autumn in northern
> regions on Earth - eg. Scandinavia.  Enough to grow things
> in a greenhouse...

Quite so. Keep in mind that the 1.0 kw/sq meter is at the equator (or
up to 23 deg lat depending on the season). At 45 degrees north or south
latitude, solar flux at the times of the spring and fall equinoxes is
essentially the same as that seen on Mars at the equator and up to 25
deg lat depending on the season.

If we are able to initiate CO2 outgassing on Mars to boost its
atmosphere from 6 millibars up to about 100 millibars (possible with
less than 30 years effort) or more (depending on how many comets you
want to drop on Mars. Dropping a KBO of a sub-Sedna size on the planet
would not only supply enough water, methane, and other gasses to create
a 500 millibar atmosphere, but would shake up and heat the interior of
the planet enough to potentially restart the electromagnetic dynamo.)

FYI, the mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit have operated far beyond
their designed lifetimes, powered by their solar panels (which are
interestingly designed like bug wings) alone, no RTGs, the only problem
being the deposition of dust over time attenuated power output of one
rover, at least until a dust devil intercepted itand blew all the dust
off. The winter power output dropped significantly, but the rovers have
lasted far longer than expected.

Any solar powered installation on Mars could get Earth-normal flux
simply by using reflectors to draw in sunlight from a greater area
(solar cells are more efficient at higher flux levels).

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  Sun Jul 31 19:15:56 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:15:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] melanoma in parade
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507311427000.11424@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <200507311913.j6VJDwR00812@tick.javien.com>


Today's Parade magazine (31 July 2005 pages 12 and 13) has 
an article on skin cancer.  There are two photos, one of
a benign mole and one of melanoma.  I am not a doctor, but
I think those photos are switched (oooops).  Any medics here 
to comment?  

Since there are far more people who have moles than
melanoma, the mole havers may unnecessarily
panic and go see the medics, perhaps resulting in
early discovery of real melanoma or other condition
that needs attention.  On the other hand the real
melanoma havers may breathe an inappropriate
sigh of relief and not see the medics, perhaps a
fatal error.

Parade is a magazine with a great circulation, as
it is a free insert in most Sunday papers.  What would
you think is the overall effect of such an error (if
in fact an error), saving more proles or slaying more 
than are saved?

spike


 



From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Jul 31 20:01:46 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:01:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The issue of Freedom over one's person and freedom
	to communicate
Message-ID: <42ED2E2A.8050401@sasktel.net>

This may not be mainstream extopian  but I wonder if there is not a case 
to show individual
rights over ones's physical body to be made as a case in point as 
documented below.

Does one government have the right to extend its cultural more's to 
prevent the more's of
another country from being available to free willed citizens?

If the documented case allows USA to seize from Canada a citizen who has 
provided the
free market the ability to access materials for personal consumption and 
threaten to
lock him away in a foreign jail for longer than some serial killers, 
strip him of all his worldly goods
and hang him from the yardarms as a sign onto others who might dare to 
do likewise
have not individual personal rights to self determination been  trampled.

If this case is a test case, then perhaps other activities such as 
radical life extension or
person body enhancement could be outlawed and those who anywhere in the 
world
might provide information of or access to the ways and means to acheive 
these goals
might also be at risk.

If one were a citizen of Canada who felt a foreign power had overstepped its
bounds what are the choices for countermeasures?

Morris
306-447-4944
mfj.eav at gmail.com
http://www.lifespanpharma.com
Box 33 Beaubier, Saskatchewan, Canada, S0C-0H0

<http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=bd271611-c280-43bb-bdd1-7a427597a103>
******************************************************
Prince of Pot waits for U.S. extradition in East Coast jail

Protesters keep up vigil in Vancouver over arrest of Marc Emery


Andrea Woo
CanWest News Service


Sunday, July 31, 2005



VANCOUVER -- Canada's self-proclaimed Prince of Pot is spending the 
weekend in a Nova Scotia jail, awaiting a return to Vancouver to face 
multiple drug-related charges.

Meanwhile, a group of about 100 toke-toting supporters gathered in 
Vancouver Saturday to protest Marc Emery's arrest.

Emery, leader of the B.C. Marijuana Party, was arrested Friday by police 
in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, where he was scheduled as a guest 
speaker at a pro-pot rally.

Const. Mark Hobeck of the Halifax Regional Police said Saturday that 
Emery, 47, spent Friday night in a Halifax holding cell, and will spend 
the rest of the weekend in another correctional facility.

It's expected Emery will return to Vancouver this week, where he also 
faces possible extradition to the United States.

Though no Canadian charges have been laid against Emery, Jeff Eig, 
public information officer for the Seattle division of the U.S. federal 
Drug Enforcement Administration, said that Emery will face charges of 
conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, conspiracy to distribute marijuana 
seeds and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.

American officials allege that Emery sold millions of dollars worth of 
marijuana seeds over the Internet to people in the U.S., which accounted 
for 75 per cent of his market.

If Emery is extradited to the U.S., he could face life in prison.

Emery's arrest came shortly after Vancouver police raided a business in 
that city owned by Emery.

On Saturday, about 100 supporters demonstrated at Vancouver's Victoria 
Square Park to express their disgust over the police raid.

Among the protesters, many of whom were toking in solidarity with Emery, 
was a man dressed up as the American icon "Uncle Scam." He reflected the 
anti-American sentiment of the crowd.

"Turn in your pot! I own you," the Uncle Scam mascot yelled into the 
crowd as he mock-beat protesters with an American flag.

The protest was held in a park across the street from the site of 
Emery's raided business.

The raid is the result of an 18-month-long investigation involving the 
Vancouver Police Department, the U.S. Attorney's office and 38 DEA offices.

Vancouver police conducted the raid acting on a Canadian search warrant 
based on American charges through the Mutual Legal Assistance in 
Criminal Matters act.

Two other people were also arrested Friday. Gregory Keith Williams, 50, 
of North Vancouver, was arrested at the scene, while Michelle 
Rainey-Fenkarek, also known as Michelle K. Kale, Emery's 34-year-old 
assistant, was arrested at her home.

Emery, 47, was arrested at a Nova Scotia pro-pot rally, organized by the 
group Maritimers Unite for Medical Marijuana.

In a statement, DEA administrator Karen Tandy said Emery and his 
organization was "one of the attorney general's most wanted 
international drug trafficking organizational targets -- one of only 46 
in the world, and the only one from Canada." Jeff Sullivan, assistant 
U.S. attorney, said it could be "anywhere from six months to two years 
before [Emery] is in America facing charges."



Quote Post 
<http://www.medpot.net/forums/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=4&t=23929&p=35153>
	Member Profile <http://www.medpot.net/forums/index.php?showuser=1>
Times Colonist (Victoria) 
<http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.html?id=bd271611-c280-43bb-bdd1-7a427597a103>
? Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050731/ff59f2c7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: p_quote.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 362 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050731/ff59f2c7/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: p_profile.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 353 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050731/ff59f2c7/attachment-0001.gif>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jul 31 21:04:06 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:04:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] crazy, but crazy enough?
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050731160320.01db0e78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Unified Theory of Bivacuum, Particles Duality,
Fields & Time.
Virtual Replicas of Material Objects and Possible Mechanism of Nonlocality
Alex Kaivarainen
University of Turku, Department of Physics,
Vesilinnantie 5, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland,

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0003/0003001.pdf 



From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Jul 31 20:08:32 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:08:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom of mutual Consenting Cultural Activity
 accross National Boundaries?
Message-ID: <42ED2FC0.7090707@sasktel.net>



Uncle Sam orchestrates Vancouver pot busts

'Prince of Pot' Marc Emery Nabbed in Halifax:
Seed shipping business shut down by police


Brad Badelt and Amy O'Brian; With Files From Richard Chu and Jennifer 
Miller
Vancouver Sun


July 30, 2005



CREDIT: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun
While pot advocate Marc Emery was being
arrested in Halifax, his supporters gathered
outside his Hasting Street store to protest
the U.S.-directed raid on the premises with
signs and flags.


Pot advocate Marc Emery was arrested Friday in Halifax after his 
marijuana-seed shipping business on Hastings Street was shut down by 
police as part of a sweeping investigation instigated by U.S. authorities.

Vancouver police raided Emery's multi-million-dollar business on a 
request from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), while angry 
protesters gathered outside chanting "Go home USA."

Emery, 47, referred to as "The Prince of Pot" on the search warrant, was 
arrested by the RCMP and police in Halifax.

He is charged in the U.S. with several drug-related charges, including 
conspiring to distribute marijuana seeds and launder money.

Gregory Keith Williams, 50, and Michelle Rainey-Fenkarek, 34, both 
alleged to be involved in the long-established business, were also 
arrested in Vancouver on similar charges.

Tempers flared in Vancouver Friday when four protesters were arrested 
after attempting to block a police van loaded with seized goods from 
Emery's company, Mark Emery Direct, which is located in a storefront at 
307 West Hastings.

The store also houses the office of the B.C. Marijuana Party and Pot-TV.

Chris Bennett, manager of Pot-TV, said he was working in Emery's 
Vancouver office Friday morning when two undercover Vancouver police 
officers approached him.

"I was on the phone and these guys walked in -- they looked like hippies 
or something -- and they told me to hang the phone up," Bennett said.

"I said, 'What's this all about?' and they said they were the VPD."

Bennett was told to leave the premises while police began their search 
and seizure.

"They just sent me out," he said. "They didn't even search my body."

The search warrant included all records pertaining to the Marc Emery 
Direct seed-selling business, including client lists, invoices and 
employee records from as a far back as September 1995.

Police took down storefront signs and covered the windows with paper, 
while about 25 chanting protesters banged on makeshift drums outside.

Two American flags were hung upside-down on a nearby fence.

"This is a place where people could pull out a joint and not have to 
fear being reported to the police, and that was okay with Canadians," 
said David Malmo-Levine, who was one of the four protesters later arrested.

"It's really an attack on our sovereignty."

The search was requested by the U.S. government through the Mutual Legal 
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, a federal law administered by the 
Department of Justice.

The warrant was authorized Thursday in B.C.'s Supreme Court, based on an 
affidavit provided by a Vancouver police officer.

U.S. authorities say the warrant was the result of an 18-month 
investigation of Emery's international seed-selling business.

The investigation involved about 38 DEA offices across the U.S. and 
allegedly linked marijuana seeds sold by Emery to indoor grow operations 
in several states, including New Jersey, Michigan and Florida.

Jeff Sullivan, assistant U.S. attorney, alleged Friday during a news 
conference that more than 75 per cent of the seeds sold by Emery were 
sold to people in the U.S., and Emery was making about $3 million a year 
selling seeds and marijuana-growing equipment.

"He is a drug dealer," Sullivan said of Emery, who has been in business 
since 1994.

"The fact is, marijuana is a very dangerous drug. People don't say that, 
but right now in America, there are more kids in treatment for addiction 
to marijuana than every other illegal drug combined."

Sullivan said Emery is facing a maximum sentence of life in prison.

U.S. authorities have requested that Emery remain in custody until 
extradition proceedings are concluded, but Sullivan conceded it could be 
many months before Emery actually arrives in the U.S. to face the charges.

"We anticipate that it could be anywhere from six months to two years 
before he is in America facing charges," Sullivan said.

Vancouver police spokesman Const. Howard Chow said Friday the Vancouver 
drug squad was involved in the investigation for the past 12 months, 
after U.S. DEA officials provided information about Emery's alleged 
dealings in the U.S.

Chow confirmed there were no Canadian charges laid.

Asked why Vancouver police hadn't arrested Emery earlier, Chow said that 
"simply because a person is selling seeds is not enough."

The Vancouver police needed more substantive information, Chow said, 
which the DEA recently provided.

"It was a matter of priorities and resources."

Halifax police spokesman Const. Mark Hobeck confirmed that Emery was 
arrested Friday afternoon outside Halifax.

"Once Vancouver's end of the investigation was done today, our members 
were notified and he was placed under arrest," Hobeck said.

Hobeck said Emery will be remanded until arrangements are made to 
transport him to Vancouver.

Emery's lawyer John Conroy, who had not yet spoken with his client, said 
he was preparing for the extradition defence.

"Presumably they are arresting him in order to extradite him to the U.S. 
to face charges there," Conroy said, adding that an extradition hearing 
would be based on Canadian law.

"The whole plant is unlawful to possess, but there are exceptions . . . 
for non-viable seeds and stalks, which I believe is mainly for the hemp 
industry," Conroy said.

"Viable seeds are prohibited, non-viables are not, but I think it has 
yet to be determined what that distinction is."

Last year, Emery pleaded guilty to trafficking marijuana -- after being 
caught passing a joint -- and was sentenced to 90 days in jail in Saskatoon.

The Vancouver property that was searched Friday is registered as the 
home of the B.C. Marijuana Party and does not have a business licence, 
according to City of Vancouver spokesman Paul Heraty.

"There's a bookstore and a Pot-TV [station] on site and we've accepted 
their claim that the profits from those two businesses go towards the 
political party," Heraty said.

According to the Marc Emery Direct website, it is the largest marijuana 
seed bank in the world, carrying some 534 strains from a variety of 
breeders.

Conservative MP Randy White said he was not surprised by the Hastings 
Street raid and arrests.

"Emery gets arrested all too often," he said, suggesting that the 
punishment for drug offences in Canada is often to weak.

"It's serious and that's why they [the U.S.] are doing something about 
it. Our government tends to sit back and wait for a catastrophe."

NDP MP Libby Davies said the arrests go against the views of most 
Canadians, who support decriminalization of marijuana. (A 2004 survey of 
1,000 Canadians by SES Canada Research Inc. found 57 per cent were in 
favour of decriminalizing the use of small amounts of the drug. The 
survey is considered accurate within three percentage points, 19 times 
out of 20.)

"I think it's very disturbing that the Vancouver police department is 
raiding a local business and arresting people for the U.S. war on 
drugs," she said.

"It feels to me like the long arm of U.S. enforcement reaching into Canada."

bbadelt at png.canwest.com, aobrian at png.canwest.com

HOW IT UNFOLDED

- Early 2004: U.S. probe begins into Marc Emery's international 
seed-selling business based at 307 W. Hastings. Nearly 50 Drug 
Enforcement Administration offices involved including New Jersey, 
Michigan and Florida.

- Mid-2004: Vancouver Police Department becomes involved in investigation.

- Warrant request: U.S. makes warrant request in B.C. court under a 
treaty that deals with matters under the Mutual Legal Assistance in 
Criminal Matters Act.

- Thursday: Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm of B.C. Supreme Court 
issues search warrant.

- Friday: Emery arrested in Nova Scotia where he is to attend Hemp Fest 
2005 in Lawrencetown. Two others arrested in Vancouver raid. Hastings 
store searched.

- Next: Emery's extradition to U.S. will be sought. American officials 
expect a six-month to two-year process.

Ran with fact box "How It Unfolded", which has been appended to the end 
of the story.

? The Vancouver Sun 2005
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050731/e8b0f51a/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jul 31 21:51:49 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom of mutual Consenting Cultural Activity
	accross National Boundaries?
In-Reply-To: <42ED2FC0.7090707@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050731215149.68318.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

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).


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 31 21:58:35 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom of mutual Consenting Cultural Activity
	accross National Boundaries?
In-Reply-To: <20050731215149.68318.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050731215835.76726.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> 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).

Ay. Akin to taxing someone sales tax for interstate or international
commerce. The distinction being that if he mailed seeds to the US from
Canada, that is international commerce and thus subject to the much
tighter customs and contraband controls (I wonder if the US will try
charging him with failure to pay tariff on agricultural products ;)
)... Its pretty clear that he admits to doing what is clearly illegal
(that it shouldn't be is a different issue). That he's in Canada
doesn't really matter, as Canada has had a treaty re extraditions for
many decades with the US which has been widely upheld by the courts of
both nations. He would have been smarter shipping them from a country
without an extradition treaty with the US.

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  Sun Jul 31 22:18:16 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] My fever theory for longevity
In-Reply-To: <200507311913.j6VJDwR00812@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050731221816.58019.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

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